Council Meeting

So next we'll move into our council meeting agenda.

And for those at home, it's the same drill.

You'll see the number on your screen and you dial that in and um at public participation period, which will be it'll come up tonight after our second petition and delegation, public participation, and you'll have the opportunity then to speak to any item on the council agenda tonight.

And so we'll call the council meeting to order.

And can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please?

So moved.

Thank you.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And then we have minutes from May the 3rd and May the 10th.

Meeting of adoption, second.

Thank you.

Moved by Councillor Lemon, seconded by Councillor Kowalewich.

Any comments, corrections?

No.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

I don't have a mayor's report, so we'll go directly to Ken Gray from the Mill Bay and District Conservation Society.

Welcome.

Good evening, Your Honor.

And Council.

Uh I am Ken Gray, uh Secretary, Secretary and Director of the Mill Bay and District Conservation Society.

Thank you for allowing us to be here tonight.

We have a PowerPoint presentation that we would like you to view to see who we are and what we do, followed by a short verbal presentation.

As that will cue up our PowerPoint, please.

How long has he gone?

Um, whatever petitions and delegations get 15 minutes.

All right, thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, you're all set.

Uh next slide, please.

Next slide, please.

Next slide.

Thank you.

That is our PowerPoint presentation.

Our Mill Bay and District Conservation Society is a nonprofit organization of volunteers that operate under license from DFO to capture and relocate wild coho salmon in the Shawning watershed.

This is a hundred percent man-made project and was the number one Coho salmon enhancement project on the BC coast last year.

We also provide broodstock to Gold Stream and Shawning Lake School hatcheries.

The salmon fried that are raised at Goldstream are eventually released into the Colquitz and Craigflower Creeks and as many as 13 other projects and waterways in the Greater Victoria area.

All donations to our society are needed to for basic operations.

None of our volunteers receive any monies except for transfer truck gas refunds.

Our major expense is and always has been storage locker rental space to house all of our operational equipment.

As of the start of the year, new owners of that space that we are renting informed us that the rental rates were increasing over 30% would be increasing over 30%, monies that we don't have.

Consequently, we are trying to purchase a used Sea-Can shipping container that would be hosted on Shaunagan Lake School property at no cost for us.

This acquisition will translate into a $9,700 expense.

By purchasing a CAN now, money saved by not having to pay storage costs in the years ahead will be quite significant.

Those saved funds would certainly be used in other areas of this very important salmon enhancement project.

Our C VRD board of directors have allocated grant monies, and we are asking the greater Victoria municipalities to benefit from our volunteers' work to also consider bestowing upon us grant and aid monies to make this happen so that we can continue to focus on providing our community service.

There is a rush to move out of our expensive rental space as our funds are quite limited.

Wild coho salmon are very important on our west coast, and we have certainly helped to rebuild the depleted stocks since 1978.

Further profiling of who we are and what we can what we do can be found at mbdcs.ca.

We thank you for considering our request for financial assistance.

Thank you very much.

I'm not sure if there's any questions at all.

Yeah.

The real easy one is so what did the fish do before?

I was wondering that too.

How did they get up the uh there was no fish in the Shawnigan watershed prior to 1978?

Oh so they're completely introduced by your organization.

By our organization.

Yes.

So we have gone from uh no return of any any salmon that were never there before to the number one project on the BC coast.

What an undertaking.

That's remarkable.

Yeah.

Councilor Levin.

It's it's a huge undertaking.

We put many thousands and thousands of volunteer hours every year into this project.

And do all of the fish you know, I I mean I could I can imagine fish having PTSD from you know that that each fish is handled five times from the time it is captured to the time of release.

And they all survive.

And we have about a 99.9% survival rate.

Wow.

We have done this for so long, and we've got it fine-tuned that our mortality rate is next to nothing.

That's terrific.

Um, my only real question is do you do you work at all with peninsula streams?

Uh peninsula streams.

Um, we are aware of potential streams.

We have we go back and forth with peninsula streams.

There have been requests through peninsula streams and gold stream hatchery to their streams that they're trying to really rehabilitate over there for coho stock.

Excuse me.

Look like like the um I said and the PowerPoint that the coho stock that Goldstream receives goes to all these different projects within the Greater Victoria area, peninsula streams included.

Thank you very much.

Councilor Rogers.

Yeah, hi.

Um thanks very much for the presentation.

And I understand the uh the significance, I think.

Uh, you know, you're this is a one-time ask.

Yes.

All right.

And this is uh your $1,500.

And it's because the C container um is is a necessary piece of equipment.

What did you say the cost of the uh container was?

Uh for the purchase of the container, the taxes, and the movement of container to uh on-site at Shaunagan Light School was $9,700.

$9,700, yes.

Okay.

Who are you also applying to?

Um we have applied to C VRD, which we have received monies.

We have uh also applied to uh City of Langford, which we have received monies.

I was made a presentation to Oak Bay.

They they came across with some grant-in-aid monies last night.

Uh so we are still waiting to presentate uh sort of do a presentation to uh Saanich.

Mm-hmm.

You know, it's um I I think the the impressive thing is the amount of work, uh volunteer work, the labors um that you got and and the the hours each year that you apply to this with the with enormous success.

Um and um peninsula streams was mentioned because uh they just did a million dollar um ladder fish ladder system, as you know, at Atkins.

Um and I think what you're doing is you're supplying the fish, the salmon for that future uh the fish ladder.

Oh, most definitely.

Uh as far as the fish ladder, there's often be quite often uh asked questions to me about uh why don't we put a fish ladder in there?

Well, that million dollar fish ladder that peninsula streams put in to bypass a culvert.

We have seven sets of impassable waterfalls with a tremendous drop, which would put it well into the seven, eight, nine, ten million dollars range at this point.

Yeah.

The other sad fact is that you're late.

Um we uh we do our applications in back in February.

So, but I I understand uh the urgency.

Uh this is a uh a sudden hit because of new owners, and um and I appreciate that.

And and your workshop, I'm prepared to, you know, this I can't meet 1500, but I'm prepared to move the worship $500 to uh to help give the container one time.

Or we could just do 1,500, but why don't we wait and go to Councillor Kovalovich first?

Counselor Kavalovich.

Well, first of all, uh I I have to say this: it's people like you and your group that are contributing to the environment and and and fish.

We need more people like you.

We really do.

Um, so thank you.

Um, the seven million dollars for the fish ladder, you're making it up in that hours.

And I can I can see that, and uh what you're doing is remarkable.

Have you uh gone about communicating with the federal or provincial government for any grants or explored that at all?

Or is this too too much of a time crunch?

We have explored that through the years, and uh numerous times uh the federal government and DFO have been on board with that, and then at the last minute they pulled the plug.

If it would have been done initially, uh years and years ago, the price tag was somewhere around $800,000.

But in today's dollars, like I said, it is up into the seven, eight, nine, ten million dollar range, and costs keep uh increasing every year.

Yeah, and I don't want to get uh too deep into your into your yearly financials, but just so for some context here for decision making, what is like your yearly budget?

Uh how is that how what does that look like from from external funding sources?

For example, do you get funding from from the C VRD?

Do you get provincial or federal funding on a yearly basis, or is it is a um kind of a constant struggle?

It we do get a an ongoing uh grant from DFO.

Uh it's not a huge one, it's two thousand dollars uh we've asked to increase that for for years they won't increase it instead there's no money available uh our storage costs uh now are without this purchase of the sea container would would be up into the thirty five hundred dollar range for a year uh so that two thousand dollars so we have to pound the pavement for that extra fifteen hundred dollars uh cvr d has come across with a little bit the last couple of years beyond that if we have to go to the private sector and uh basically put our hands out and just to keep our heads above the water.

Okay.

Last uh last questions for me.

Have you communicated with your member of parliament or MLA?

Uh we have through one of our volunteers, and uh we've sort of got stonewalled at the at the present moment, but uh we will continue to uh pursue that avenue.

We have a standing uh uh um acknowledgement from John Horgan that one day he is going to show up at our project to view it uh and in person.

He's well aware of our project.

This might be a good week for him.

Okay, I'm good.

Thank you.

Actually, I'm I I've I'm hearing your worship that we have funds, so I move um the $1,500 grant application.

Sure.

I'll second the case.

I'll second it.

Seconding, okay.

So that's moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Matson.

And I just wonder, maybe is there an opportunity for um people to come up and see what's happening?

Oh, most definitely.

Uh it is one of the few places on Vancouver Island that you see on TV on the nature channels, so on and so forth.

If these fish jump trying to jump the falls, well, this is in our own backyard that you have the nature channel right there.

And this goes on for uh since really from the first uh big rain in October until they stop coming home, usually around the end of November, beginning of December.

So uh there is an opportunity.

We have lots of uh of uh uh people showing up to see what is going on there for sure.

And just not from around the area.

This is this project.

We were just profiled nationally a couple weeks ago.

We were uh the Canadian press did an article on us, it was picked up by media across Canada, and I was on TV, uh radio, uh I did lots of interviews, so on and so forth.

So now it's a very well-known project.

If it wasn't before, it certainly is now.

Great, thank you.

One more thought.

Well, we do have a motion that further that motion.

Uh if you're um if you're successful, you can get your container.

You may want to wish uh to put the um the decals of uh those municipalities that contributed on that container.

Um mostly we don't need a detailed answer to that.

Thank you.

Well, we can take it under advisement.

Yeah, take it to the remote.

So I'm gonna install the question on the motion that's on the floor.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

So we've supported you with a $1,500 grant, and staff will um let you know of the details for how to get that.

Thank you.

So thank you very much for coming.

Thank you for all the work you're doing.

It's indeed is truly remarkable.

Thank you.

So thank you.

Thanks very much.

And next up we have Mr.

Pierce.

Welcome.

And for the public at home, the public participation period will be directly after Mr.

Pierce's presentation.

So if you have any comments on agenda items for tonight, that would be the time to call in.

Mayor Screech, members of council.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present an idea to concept.

They're just about out.

Excited.

Yeah.

So this is to request the council participate in a pre-feasibility study for a possible overhead cable car gondola over Esquimalt Harbor from Fort Rodd Hill National Historic Park to Department of National Defense to a bus stop right in front of uh Dockyard Officer's Mess.

There's an existing bus for bus line 15.

That would be subject to the Department of National Defense and Parks Canada's consent to considering a new public transportation overhead corridor over their properties.

I've approached both those federal agencies.

I'm still, they're still going through the process, and I haven't heard back from them.

I've had informal comments that uh I'll start with Parks Canada.

Parks Canada Fort Rod Hill is going through a 10-year park management plan.

They advertise for public consultation, public input into their management plan for Fort Rod Hill Fiscard Light Lighthouse.

I saw that and it twigged, okay, this is the opportunity once in 10 years to present this idea.

That's the timing.

I'm doing this on my own.

I'm not representing anybody, but I've been involved in transportation, as some of you know, and I'm concerned about the problem.

The problem, according to an MOT 2007 Corridor Long Term Strategic Options Report, which was done by Urban Systems.

The problem is the ongoing lack of alternative east-west roadway network in the capital region to support local commuter trips, and that has a dramatic impact on mobility in the region.

Because of the lack of municipal road network to support east-west travel demands in the CRD, a disproportionate amount of the traffic growth is forced onto the Trans-Canada Highway.

In fact, the forecast travel traffic demands are beyond the theoretical capacity of Highway One, even if it was to be widened to six lanes.

It can't accommodate all the growth between Millstream and Admirals.

And they that report suggested that it's the local municipalities that have to coordinate transportation, upgrades to the roadways, and change priority modes.

The CRD Transportation Plan of 2010 stated the form of council's consensus was there needs to be better coordination between municipalities through the adoption of a more regional form of corridor management.

However, overall responsibility of implementing the transportation corridors would remain with each municipal council.

CRD doesn't have a transportation function, so it's councils.

You need to that report the CRD Transportation Committee in last year.

There needs to be a focus on solutions that shifts mode share.

Shift people out of private cars.

Pursue fleet greening through electrification and use of alternatives.

So there are three unutilized east-west corridors, if you consider them corridors.

The ENN Railway between West Hills and Vic West, and I was involved in a business case on that in 2017.

And that cost has been recently designated by ICF just this week at $430 million to upgrade train to Duncan from the Blue Bridge.

Or the Royal Bay Ferry to Esquimeat or Victoria from Royal Bay.

That was done in 2019, a business case for 90 million.

Yet to be determined 10 different agencies, being five municipalities, the CRD, DD, Public Works Canada, Parks Canada, each to put in 20,000.

Lankford Council last night committed 20,000 and agreed to participate in the feasibility study and passed a motion of community support.

I've approached the SPIMO Council.

I've I'm approaching you.

I've got a meeting with I I've I presented to CRD committee of the whole on Wednesday.

I wasn't there.

I had a three-minute presentation.

Good.

So all the directors of the CRD are aware of this.

Almost.

Nobody was playing hooking.

If I could have the oversight.

So the overhead slide shows you the Thames River in London, England.

And that's an existing overhead cable car gondola across the Thames River.

If we go back to the first slide, please.

There.

And that's the large view and then a small view of the cable car of the this is very high.

This is a mega gondola.

This is very high, higher than your normal ski ski gondola in a ski resort.

Those are monocable cables going up and lower through going through the trees.

This is above everything.

This is three cables, very stable in high winds, faster, more robust, able to cross shipping channels.

Been operating for 10 years.

London cable car.

If you want to go, if you want to Google it.

London cable car.

Next slide, please.

So this shows federal property managed in red by Parks Canada and managed in yellow by Parks Canada.

Fort Rodhill National Historic Park is red, but they also manage the other yellow property, and that's Ocean Boulevard curving alone.

So that's the opportunity for one terminal on the west side.

Next slide, please.

That shows you the concept and the congestion on the Trans Canada Highway, Old Island Highways, Douglas, and the shorts, the short connection that this would provide.

Next slide, please.

There's a number of routes that could be analyzed in this pre-feasibility study.

One would be to go over to dockyard, the other one would be to go over to the graving dock to the north side.

And that would not restrict, go over the active channel where the navy goes directly out into the ocean.

The other one is to go over to the beach, and there could be other options.

Another option would be to have a mid station at Fort Rod Hill and then a final another twice as long a gauntlet right over to the College Transit Exchange at Juan de Fuca Recreation, right next to the senior center.

So and there may be other options, but I just threw those out for study.

The lower drawing shows you the road route of bus route 46 BC Transit, where it starts at West Hills, goes through Langford, Gold Stream, and then down Island Highway around to Admiral's Road and back into Dockyard.

The travel distance savings between WannaFuca Exchange and Dockyard.

This is only halfway.

That distance is 8.6 kilometers.

This distance is about two kilometers and another two 2.2.

So a bus could take you there.

Net savings is 6.3 kilometers for every morning's traffic and every evening's traffic.

Plus, this connects a dockyard to bus Route 15, which goes downtown and up to UV.

Next side slide, slide please.

This shows you where it would go across D and D property.

So this is uh officers.

The bus stop is right there.

Go across here.

And that's where the bus stop is, and the station should be here.

Lots of room.

That's one option.

I don't know all the logistics of federal property and the sensitivities.

That's up to them to tell us.

They get their they're becoming much more common.

City of Edmonton's looking at it, Red Deer's looking at it.

City of Burnaby Council passed a resolution last week approving the Burnaby Mountain Godola, connecting Translink's Sky Train to Simon Fraser University.

And TransLink has developed a business case eleven years ago on the Burnaby Mountain Godla.

We're going to update that now.

It's been in their shopping list of major projects in the Vancouver area.

So uh if you want to see what one of these is like, you could go up to Whistler and take the peak to peak gauntlet.

And that's the system that we're proposing.

That I'm proposing.

I'm hoping.

I'm not looking for a job.

I'm looking to step back.

I would like you to pick up the ball.

And I'd like the other councils to pick up the ball.

I've got a meeting with transit, a virtual meeting Thursday morning to go over this with them and to answer any of their questions.

It'll go to a transit commission meeting, regional transit commission meeting, June 14th, I think it is.

They don't meet that often.

So I would request number one.

I think there's a benefit to View Royal to have this.

I think you have a responsibility to get involved in transportation.

Uh so I would request that you consider a resolution to show public community support.

You budget 20,000 for your share of the planning study, and you help ask your staff to get involved with other municipal staff, other transportation staff, federal uh people, and uh see if this can be pursued.

Pearce.

I'd be happy to happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Questions?

Councillor Rogers?

Yeah, hi.

Thanks very much for the presentation.

It is it's you know it certainly is um imaginative, innovative.

Um, but just reading uh some uh article this morning, um I the base commander was was commenting on this.

I think he was interviewed by the press, and um I think his words were it's near impossible.

Well, I haven't heard that, and yeah uh that's why we've given a number of alternative routes so that the base commander maybe is less involved and less exposed than he thinks he is if we went over to Graving Dockside.

Uh so uh I was hoping for a more positive.

I I think there's a real benefit to the base to get this system.

There's a real benefit to alleviate their traffic impact on the neighbor, on the on View Royal, on Calwood.

Uh I think it would be a faster commute for their employees.

So I I I don't think this is a a lose lose.

I think there's a win here.

And if they've got concerns with security, they can put all the security measures in place at the terminal stations.

They can search people, they can uh take control, they can operate it.

Hopefully, if they want to shut it down during an emergency, fine.

But we're in peacetime, and uh I think that there's a pretty low risk that can be managed to do that.

So I've I'd look forward to that opportunity to discuss this.

You know, I understand um you know the need to investigate uh just because of the uh you you um you know, how can you estimate the the the payload, you know, how often, how many trips, uh, how long would it take, how many people could it carry in an hour?

Um, obviously it would be electric, which is a huge benefit.

Um, but um it it's also comparing uh the the broader things, such as, for example, um uh rapid transit lines on the TCH and uh uh and up to the ferries, you know, that that network.

That's exactly what the study would do.

We'd do a comparative study, would look at that.

My guess is it's about a seven or eight minute trip on on a gondola compared to uh 46-minute trip in a car.

Uh yes, there's some bus lines of bus connections on either end, but I think this is a time saver.

The capacity of these gondolas is very robust.

You could have a regular eight-passenger gondola car can carry up to 2,800 people per hour.

Okay.

Yeah.

Both directions simultaneously.

Or you could go even more robust with this one up to 4,000 people per hour simultaneously in both directions.

Thank you.

Counselor Lemmon.

Hi, quick question question.

Um, Mr.

Pierce, how much are you looking to raise for your flashing light off?

Thank you.

How much are you looking to raise for your um study and how much have you raised?

Well, I was hoping to, I thought around 200,000 would be, and I've asked 13 agencies.

So if we could get 10 putting up 20,000 each, and how much have we raised?

Langford Council committed 20,000 last night.

So you're just you just starting, just starting.

Okay, all right, all right.

And and that study would presumably answer the big question.

And and it may be that once those municipalities get together and you have a working team and you say, okay, here's the terms of reference.

And I I'm not firm on any of the terms of reference.

That's yet to be developed in detail, and then you could test that with consult the transportation consultants and see if that's enough.

Or but my ballpark is, I think it's enough.

Okay, okay.

Be easy easier for us if you were a fish ladder.

And this is going to take a couple of years.

This is a this is not uh going to be an instant.

You know, this is this is a work in progress and to see if it works and uh it's a pro a process.

And each party will have its say as to what they think they need to study.

Right.

Okay.

Counselor Manson.

Yeah, I I really like the concept.

I think it's novel, and you know, I've been on a gondola, they but it was mainly just for tourists.

And when I was on vacation once, and it was amazing how far it went.

And so conceptually I I like it.

Um from my perspective, I'd like this is something I'd like to sort of send send back to staff and they could sort of provide some comments to us because there's a number of things going on.

So I you know I'm certainly not inclined to making any sort of decision now, but but I would like more information because I think this is a a good concept.

Thank you very much for coming in.

Yep.

It is an intriguing idea, and we'll certainly um take it under advisement and and certainly be involved as it percolates through the process.

And if your staff wish to talk to the other municipal administrators, city engineers, I think it's important that View Royal participate because you are part owner of Juan de Fuca Recruit West Shore Parks and Recreation Society, and that's one option.

So you're you're you're involved as a landowner there, as well as a beneficiary of all the traffic, and it would just make this whole region more livable if you had a more reliable system.

And I'm not against train or ferry.

I'm just saying we need to look at this option.

Great.

And we need to think outside of the box too.

I like it.

Thank you, Mr.

Pierce.

Is is uh can you follow up with the CRD and see if uh the CRD is planning to do any because of the transportation?

Um I think being the chair of the transportation committee, I might yeah.

I I think you know that we uh the CRD should be assessing this with the ENN with the ferry with the Yeah, although the CRD has no transportation service, so they have no authority upon which to undertake any studies like this.

But at any rate, yeah, it's it's early days and it's a work in progress, and it's certainly worth us being informed and in the loop.

Could I ask for a resolution to refer to staff?

Sure, we could be refer to staff.

I'll second for a report back.

Well, let's refer to staff for now and we'll we'll work with the end.

I don't know that we have the in house expertise to um report back on the um on what you're asking, but certainly to keep it alive and and in the loop.

Yeah.

If they would like to talk to me, I'd be happy to talk to them.

Okay.

Yep, that's great.

Thanks, Mr.

Pierce.

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

So next up we have public participation staff.

Do we have any callers on the line?

Your worship, we have no callers at this time.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have any viewers just out of curiosity?

Is anybody out there?

Oh, Sarah's nodding her head, so we must have some.

Okay, so we're gonna close off public participation.

Um, why don't we just in the interest of our fire chief being able to go home switch up B and A?

Because I think B will be very quick and we can send him on his way.

So we'll go next to the fire department dispatch contract, and there's a staff recommendation there.

Move staff recommendation.

Okay.

Great question.

Yep, go ahead.

Um chief, is the is Surrey okay with this?

Kim?

Anybody?

Repeat question please.

Uh is is Surrey all right with this.

Yes they are that they have drafted the document.

Okay.

Okay, we're all good.

Okay, I'm gonna call the question all in favor opposed that's carried.

Thank you Chief.

Nice great presentation.

Excuse me.

So next we will go to the community climate action strategy staff.

Thank you, Your Worship.

Uh this is just a quick presentation just to summarize uh what's happened since last uh the committee climate action strategies introduced at the committee of the whole meeting.

It was referred to council's advisories committees, and we're coming back to recommend that the strategy be adopted by council resolution.

The committee climate action strategy is about is focused on mitigation and proposes a number of strategies to do that.

It also includes uh as a side project an online resource guide to educate and assist residents to reduce their emissions and provides foundation for climate action policies for the official community plan.

So the strategy draft strategy was presented at the February 8th Committee of the Hall meeting and was reviewed by the Parks Recreation and Advisory Committee in March and April 26th for the community development Advisory Committee.

The comments were generally in support of the strategy.

And the staff believe this is, and actually there's no substantive revisions are requested or indicated.

So the conclusion is that the strategy should be adopted as a first step towards our shared pathway, pathway to a low carbon feature.

It will require significant collaborative efforts and a change to all our habits and um and it will also require assistance from level of recovery to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

So recommendation is to adopt the strategy.

Thank you, Steph.

Okay.

Is your mic on, Jeff?

You just you seem quite we need better quality mics on the staff tables.

I'll speak up.

That's okay.

Great questions for staff on the climate action strategy.

Councillor Matson.

Yeah, so there's there's a couple of things, and one of them is just um one of the things I I mean, first off, I really like a lot of what's in here.

So I can't gotta emphasize that strongly, but there's a couple of things which really give me can cause for concern.

And uh I I know somewhere in the in well, first I'll start with an easy one.

Like um it it takes us a while to actually note that these are aspirational targets, and so some of my concerns are we're setting ourselves up for failure if we gauge success on some of the targets, like you know, in all fairness to everyone, there's absolutely no chance we're gonna reduce GHGs by 40 percent in in eight years, but but that's a target, and so I'd hate to see us be evaluated in terms of that as a target.

So I I would like to see us emphasize the aspirational aspects of this far more than you know, set in stone targets that we will or will won't be successful by by achieving because some of them I just don't think we can possibly achieve, but they're very good aspirational targets.

So that's one.

Um the other thing that's gives me serious concern, and it's enough that I can't support this, it's the whole aspect and beyond the car of recommendation 1.1 where it talks about um prioritizing compact development, missing dealing with the missing middle zone, and a focus on infield development.

I didn't see a lot of that coming out anywhere in sort of the various committee meetings, workshops, and so because of that, I I just have a concern that that will be used as a rationale for why in the OCP we need to have um you know townhouses, duplexes and what are currently residential single family residential zones.

So from my perspective that's something that has to be removed from this before I can support it.

But other than that I really like the document.

I think it's well written very looking very professional, but that's one of those sort of game changers for me that I just can't support.

Yeah I didn't think we were into debating it yet.

I thought we were just into questions but I mean I can't imagine how you would have a climate action document that doesn't support dense compact development.

Um, but at any rate, we can debate it when the motion's on the floor.

Are there any questions for staff?

Councilor Rogers?

Yes, thanks.

So um you know I I I think a lot have been done, and um uh but the question I have with um you know the the report breaks it into different categories.

There's housing and there's transportation and and waste.

And what I I need to understand, and I I think we uh is is not only the subject, but the year.

What do we do in the next two years?

How much is that going to cost?

How much staff uh time is required for those?

So uh let me ask the question then.

Have we anticipated a budget for the next two years once this is implemented tonight.

Through the through the chair?

Um if council adopts this plan, staff will bring back a series of budget proposals in order to implement the plan, which is our nor which is our normal process whenever we have a new plan that has substantial implementation items.

At this point in time, council has already uh approved into the five-year financial plan the coastal adaptation strategy.

And that work is is scheduled to begin next year.

You may you may you may recall that.

I do.

Yep.

Um and and there are any uh there are a number of other initiatives that we are already working on, such as implementation of step code, which will have a minimal budget impact because that's work that staff can do.

Um and we we will certainly be bringing back to council a plan for how all of this is going to unfold.

And it may very well be that council chooses to extend the timeline for some of these implementation pieces.

I do note that in the plan, it also recognizes that this is a very emergent area of practice for local governments, and a lot changes year over year.

And there is also embedded in the plan a recommendation that we take another look at it in about five years.

So that will be one of the things that we'll put onto uh council's horizon through the financial plan and the budget process in order to take advantage of the new information that comes to light.

And staff do consistently monitor what is happening in other municipalities.

We participate in a number of regional and provincial committees on this topic, and we continue, we will be bringing back information for council's consideration over the coming years in order to implement this.

I do note though, much of this plan focuses on community action.

So council and staff's role in this is to establish the policy framework and to try and encourage, cajole, or outright uh force people into behavioral changes that will result in the reduction in carbon and GHD that we're looking for.

And that may very well be things that are challenging, such as reducing parking requirements, recognizing that road congestion is going to continue to be an issue until we have substantial other infrastructure available for people to take advantage of.

So I think that all of those things are embedded within this plan.

And council will see a number of proposals coming forward in the coming years in order to support implementation of this.

And then you will have choices to make around which projects you choose to prioritize.

Okay, so if I may another question.

If um is uh council Mattson's uh and I I share the concern that um uh I I certainly wouldn't want to see that uh climate action is uh going to be uh um for lack of a better term, the excuse for high density uh everywhere in V Royal.

You know, jam it all in.

And um, you know, because one of the problems is, and we're waiting for the active transportation plan, and as the report uh and the OCP says, we're woefully inadequate in terms of really the sidewalks in View Royal.

I mean, if we're gonna do all this, it's gonna be an $18 million bill for sidewalks.

Um, and our our bike lanes are, you know, need to be upgraded, and and who knows what we need to do in terms of actually protecting the trees that provide the canopy that so we don't get hit with the heat domes every summer.

So you know, and I'm worried that the density doesn't have that balance to make sure we keep those trees.

I can certainly understand that that would be one interpretation of compact uh compact development.

The other is what we are doing in both our current and our our draft official community plan, which is to focus on our trans, to focus development on our transportation corridors and our existing nodes.

And that that that is that is how our current OCP is has structured development, and that is how the draft OCP also structures development, in part because we recognize we need those corridors to act as spines for excellent transportation.

And excellent transportation being beyond just the single occupant vehicle.

So those corridors function as spines for transit, they function as spines for pedestrians, and they function function as spines for cyclists as well.

And is the policy direction in in the draft OCP that was presented last week.

Steph, you say that um uh the the is and I and I I don't agree but we'll talk about this later that the the primary focus is to put it on the shoulders of the the residents it's their problem but um uh really they they haven't uh we can get there buy-in they have to know they have to understand the the you know is their their children their environment and their future but I and I agree with that but they're not going to be able to do the um you know the really important work I mean there are things that we want to do but the province won't let us so um um it there's clearly um we've got a lot of work to do to make sure that our OCPs, our strategic plans, our budgets, our advisory committees, the sustainability checklist, all staff reports have a climate lens.

And um, you know, that is really an excellent way of being able to keep telling the residents climate climate crisis.

So um I'm assuming that indeed is that the case that we will have a climate lens and in every aspect of our uh staff business and reports.

I think maybe you're getting ahead of us there.

We need to adopt the plan, and then you know the actions are gonna fall out of the plan, and presumably that would be an action.

Um well, you know, it it is it is not an action that we're going to identify tonight.

Yeah, um although I I do see it, it.

It is um, you know, embedded through those different things and and the nuances is there.

But um, you know, the the climate lens um, you know, in is is really, really, you know, very critical.

Because surely the first thing of that is this plan.

You know, and then and then evaluating whether or not we have the resources as the town to have every single decision evaluated through a climate lens, I think would be the one of the steps we would have to take and to make sure the staff have the resources to do that if that's the wish.

I know.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

We definitely the budget implications that you were talking about.

Indeed, it is.

Yeah.

On my left.

I I questions.

I don't read well, sort of a question, and that is um when you speak when you speak of um residents holding and owning much of the think the the outcome.

Um a piece of that is the partner um uh piece that will be how you can help.

My am I right?

And that which is an action, so we're not there yet, but but but the public should know that there will be a uh a program for a pro well I guess it'll be hard copy and it'll certainly be online um on how you can participate and how you can make a difference in your own home and backyard, correct?

Absolutely, and that that is one of the reasons why that will actually be a web based document, um, far easier to sure update and keep current if it's if it's web based than paper based.

Also safe trees no trees yeah got it thank you no good council matsen i'm happy to make a motion i move that we approve it without 1.1 included it okay so we need to read that on page 47 of 22 page 47 well the report it's got on the top right hand corner of each page and yeah oh yeah.

So you're suggesting we would have nothing about prioritizing compact forms of development.

Well, I mean, if there's a second or for the motion, we we can debate it.

I wonder if yeah, my second for the debate.

Okay, so speak to the motion.

Sure, from my perspective, there's too many things in there that the whole aspect of modifying our OCP as it stands to prioritize compact development, etc.

etc.

That particular item could be relooked after we do the OCP, but right now it's premature because we still have a draft OCP that we haven't approved.

And there's a number of things there I just don't agree with.

And I don't, I'm not 100% sure what they mean.

So, in terms of this document, I'd just like to see it removed after we do the OCP.

We can always come back to this one section, but amend OCP zoning bylaw to prioritize compact development.

A lot of things I don't like about that.

Allow for accessory dwelling units through the town and create missile missing middle zones.

What's the real impact of that?

Uh, and the whole opportunity just to further incense and require infill development.

So some of these things I think are really controversial, shouldn't be dealt with until after the OCP is done.

Okay, thank you.

Counselor Rogers.

Yeah.

Uh it certainly would be helpful for uh staff to uh advise of the the intent and what it does mean to prioritize um and and compact forms development.

And you know, I understand that I'm for the most part that's what we were doing, and that's what um uh Erskine Lane said.

Maybe we should just ask the staff the question does this document have any land use authority whatsoever?

Good question.

It it's a it's a policy document.

Right.

So count council, council has the ultimate say as to how they how they wish to apply that.

But the land use authority will be coming in the OCP.

And and and and through zoning.

Right.

Zoning is the is the hard regulatory topic.

However, this is policy, and this policy sets direction for the town.

And so I'm opposed to it for that reason.

So, Councillor Rogers, you still have the floor.

I will take a wait and see.

Yes, thank you.

But I think that might be the first thing that when we put out to the public, they'll oppose.

Because there would be the opportunities to have single family dwellings that are step code five, and amazingly more efficient than many homes.

So I think we can achieve a zero uh carbon emission without uh having to uh we can give it a priority, but we could also recognize that we've got disjustonishing buildings that are single family dwellings that hit the bill.

So I guess for me, I think we should defeat this motion and adopt the plan as it was presented.

I mean, the idea with a climate action strategy that we want to be taken seriously, that we're not going to prioritize compact forms of development.

It just makes no sense to me.

And I don't get this fear that somehow we're paving over View Royal, and I'm actually getting really tired of what is borderline fear-mongering on it.

When we discuss the OCP, we can discuss it.

We've heard from so many residents that they want us to look at things like carriage houses.

They want us to look at things like row houses.

So this idea that we can cling to our single family large lots at all expense is just not realistic and is not realistic in a world that's fighting climate change.

So it's um this is just a policy document.

It's part of an overall plan and it feeds into other things, and it's being made on the basis we've had we've hired professional consultants, we've had our staff work on it, it's being made with community input.

So to take out what is one of the key things at the very end just does not make sense to me.

On my left.

Actually, I had highlighted in this document two lines.

One was um at the beginning, I the um this this was good, that we aim to be a leader in climate action.

And then I had also highlighted this the line that Councillor Matson is referring to for discussion.

And that was, you know, and just in my own mind, you know, it's a chicken and egg thing, which comes first.

The OCP or the climate action strategy.

But I think it's been clarified for me when you say it's it's it's a policy document and it does not um it it it it isn't set in stone.

Every opportunity is still up for discussion.

So I'm I'm clearer on that.

Thank you damien do you want to add anything or uh just from uh more of a global view i mean we're expected to make big decisions that uh will affect future generations and uh and this is uh the type of aspirations that we're expected to um strive for and and may they may seem uh inachievable uh times but we need to uh we need to move forward and and try to reach for the starter, so to speak.

Okay, so can you may i ask a question, your worship?

Sure.

Yeah on on page 58, staff.

Well, as long as it's connected to the motion that's on the floor at the moment.

Oh, the I would well.

I just had a question of clarification in the in the report.

Sorry, no.

Let's let's so let's deal with that, and then we can have a nice if that's defeated or approved, then we can take it from there.

Okay.

Okay, so I'm gonna call the question all in favor of the motion that's on the floor.

Councillor Mattson, all opposed.

So the balance of council is opposed, so the motion fails.

So someone prepared to put the plan in its present state on the floor.

So moved.

Thank you.

So it's moved by councillor Kowalewich, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

Who I'll come to you in a minute.

Councillor Matt Rogers, do you have a question?

Yes, please.

Uh page 58.

And it was for strategies for decarbonizing existing buildings.

So um, and it was the last sentence I did not understand.

Perpetu perpetual locked in renewable gas contracts buying the environmental benefits of renewable gas, produce somewhere, maybe an option in the future.

What is I don't understand that?

I I I believe I I believe that that pertains to the renewable natural gas that claims that have been made.

And I believe that Fortis is currently engaged in this particular discussion to uh basically basically allows them to to sell certain natural gas products as a renewable resource like the heartland road yes for example yeah so all all all it all it is is contextualizing that this is a very emergent area and that things are changing rapidly okay that that thank you that's a and a good explanation and example of heartland uh certainly a little bit of concern but what about um it did the whole um and this is where the uh uh buo uh coalition, climate coalition was really strong about and PRIAC.

That's what is that low emission um energy sources and no sorry, low carbon energy sources, right?

And uh the concern being, of course, that um methane gas, no matter how we want to label it, it isn't natural, um, you know, and with the ton of methane and and all the other health risks therein on tight buildings.

Um, does this um plan work towards um educating and reducing natural gas use in the oil?

That is all part of the energy efficiency and enabling fuel switching.

Um, so fuel switching in in that context around buildings is to consider moving away from natural gas.

There are still homes that are heated with propane, others that are heated with oil, to other sources of fuel, i.e., electricity.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, comments on the motion.

Everybody good?

No.

Very good.

Well, I know you're not, but yeah.

Okay.

Councillor Madsen.

Yeah, I think contrary to some of the things I heard tonight, policy sets out the direction of where we'd like to see.

And this to me destroys potentially what I some areas that I love in View Royal and things I love about our community.

And I have serious concerns that this will be used later on to say, oh, it's part of our climate action study, and we need to we need to allow whatever this is coming through because it supports this this objective and so for that reason while I really like the rest of it I find that just I'm anyways I just can't support this document and I'm really disappointed that we have left it in anybody else I I guess speaking to that you worship um um this is a strategy and and part of the strategy is to develop uh the policies um um to achieve all this and I think we can have a balance of uh meeting the target of greenhouse gases and uh reductions um and uh and still be able to have areas that and and define of compact um is uh um isn't is an open source right now we need to sort that out and we'll see that next at the end of the month with the OCP yeah absolutely yeah yeah so no I want to thank you staff I'm happy to endorse this I don't I mean I I think the idea that I mean I hope we will see policy falling out of this and and recommendations that come forward that'll help us in fighting climate change, um, because that's the whole point of this.

So to try to cling to some ideals from bygone days um because they don't sync with our views of fighting climate change.

I just don't get it without um with respect.

I don't get it at all.

All the recommendations in here are sensible, they've they're they're good, they're well thought out, and when we get to the OCP, um we can talk about uh things like infill and carriage houses and and make those land use decisions separately.

So I'm gonna call the question.

All in favor, opposed, councilor Matzons opposed.

Thank you, staff and the consultant for all the work on that.

It's a great document to start off with.

So we've done the fire department dispatch.

So next we have the committee of the whole.

Second.

There's just two recommendations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

And we have the report from staff on the Glentana village.

Did you want to speak to that?

Or I think we're all fairly familiar with it.

If if you would like a presentation, we have one.

If you would not like a presentation, we don't have to give it.

Are we all comfortable?

I have questions.

I have one second.

Okay.

Well, let's have the questions.

Counselor Rogers.

Thank you.

Uh did we receive any correspondence uh from the residents?

None.

None.

Okay.

Um I really like uh this that the staff's added uh daycare as a uh use for the rec area.

Thank you.

Great idea.

And it was interesting.

I I reading that there uh the line 5% park decay dedication and cash and loop.

Goodness, I haven't heard that term for the longest time.

Um, you know, I thought that went out with the dinosaurs.

We still have that availability for when proposals come in.

Um when subdivision comes in.

Subdivision, yeah.

Yeah, so it it's it's a it's a subdivision requirement when you are subdividing three or more lots.

Okay, interesting.

So in in this, so are these in considered as one big?

I mean, if it's like someone one of the comments you had received, I think was um um redevelopment and what would happen with redevelopment.

So if if a section was being redeveloped, um where would where would that that uh three or more lot subdivision um come be applicable?

Would that be in in the cameo co-op?

I guess I guess.

Actually, what is what is a unique feature of of the Glentana land use contract area is that there are actually multiple forms of tenure already in existence.

So what we are talking about in in this one is the uh the the zones which are the the so the 27 E zone at least one of those is what we call actually all of them are building stratas and what that means is the lot is intact and then you own your house and the footprint of the house it it's a it's a form it's the same form of strata that was used off of Atkins Road that long chili pepper shaped property right right so that too is a building strata.

And what we are finding is that um those property owners are becoming really challenged as far as um insurance.

So what we are what we are proposing is to leave open the opportunity for them to consider dissolving their existing strata and then resubdividing as a bare land strata, which would then give them individual bare land strata lots in order to carry on carry on the use.

That is, of course, 100% on them to do.

We're just creating the possibility of that through the zoning by recognizing uh fairly small lot sizes.

Okay, thank you for the explanation.

Councillor Lemon.

Yeah, um Steph, I'm wondering why that piece of portage park got swept into the land use contract, why why it's not distinct and outside of it.

Um yeah, three of your worship.

Uh that little piece of Portage Park was actually part of the land use contract area, but for some reason it was already zoned for parkland, which is why it's not part of this proposal.

But when when this was originally uh before this site was developed, um that section of Portage Park was was in the uh was part of the property.

So I don't know if that answers the question or sort of um so it was it was Portage Park, but I guess I've okay.

Yeah I I just don't understand why it wasn't why the line doesn't say land use contract here, Portage Park here.

It it think of it as different layers.

So the land use contract is one layer, zoning is another layer.

We already applied the zoning layer to the portion that is Portage Park.

We need to apply the zoning layer to the rest of the land use contract now because that piece of legislation is expiring.

So for whatever reason in the past, we actually already applied zoning to that.

So it actually has two layers right now.

And once the land use contract expires, the land use contract layer will just completely fall away.

But they're not inconsistent with each other because we actually are well Portage Park is is vested in the town.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So we need a motion to receive the staff report.

No, we see.

Okay, thank you.

Seconded.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

For public who may be watching, when this comes to a public hearing, there will be a thorough presentation at the public hearing that we haven't seen tonight.

But council is being kept well abreast of this as it's moved through the process.

So we are very familiar with with what is happening.

So we need a first, second, and third reading.

And move so move at 1101.

Second.

Okay.

So it's moved and seconded, and further than a public hearing for well, first and second, right?

Yeah.

Not third.

Yeah.

Pardon?

Just first and second.

That's what I said.

You said third and june.

I I don't think so.

But anyhow, did I?

We we we know you meant first and second.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

So first and second is on the floor, and that the public hearing be scheduled for June the 7th.

Okay.

Okay.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

Okay.

So that is done.

So now we're on to our favorite subject, which is where election sign should be replaced.

Thank you, your worship.

Sarah.

The last that you saw this will have been one fewer sign zones.

So one has been added, and um you can see on the map in the room and also in your package, sign zone one has been added, and we will see that in closer detail in a minute.

So you can see on this permitted zones key map, a general uh layout of the town, um showing uh a broad distribution of the sign zones.

Next slide.

So this is the new one that has been added.

I did discuss some of the other location as well.

At our last meeting, we spoke of would it be on the eastern portion of Island Highway as you're heading out towards shoreline school, or could it be in the Aldersmith area?

In discussion with engineering department, they indicated the shoulders are quite narrow.

There's quite a few turning driveways in and out, so there's a lot of activity happening on a sloping road.

So they felt in discussions with me, the information was that this would be a much safer place for signs, and um it's spacious enough to create this as a large sign area.

So this is right along the shoreline uh frontage by the Pedover Pass before you get to the turnoff into the C or D pump driveway, that new building for you between the two overpasses there.

And so this is the new sign zone.

We can talk about the others, but you will have seen the others.

So yeah, I don't think we need to go back over the others.

Thank you.

So let's stick with the new one.

Count Councillor Matson.

Yeah, I have no problem with this area, but wasn't the issue that we left with there was nothing in the Aldersmith area?

Yeah, but I think we just heard that shoulders and things along the Admiral's Road corridor are not wide, which is true.

But of course, an innovative candidate might just decide to put it on the other side of the street of land that the town doesn't have any control over.

What's that work?

Yeah.

Counselor Rogers.

Yeah, I I had a look at um Alder Smith, and and I do agree that much of Alder Smith is um uh is problematic, but there is space between 106 and 108 Aldersmith for, even though it's small, um, for a number of signs.

And and um my concern is that um while I appreciate adding number one, it is still 800 meters away from uh the residence of uh Aldersmith, and where you know it's it's a strong turnout.

Um, and um I I think that we could have been um even with small signs, there would have been space um, I think uh to enough to show that people would have had some idea as to uh you know and remind them who was running.

But the the uh the distance uh is is considerable, and those individuals have no other uh well I I can't see where they have much reason to go through the rest of you all.

Um I I think we're just so far down in the weeds on this.

I I thought that last time.

Um, you know, I mean, basically, if if one endorses the idea of these zones, then staff have done a good job of suggesting the different zones.

Um, and there's always gonna be gaps that could be filled, or you know, parts of the town that we may not have proper coverage.

And the reality is you're probably just gonna go and put a sign up on Alder Smith anyways and see what happens.

Well, seriously.

The staff are gonna have a collection of so many signs.

Well, no, they're not because it's they've already assured us that it's gonna be complaint driven.

Oh well, well, that'd be interesting, wouldn't it?

I I guess So if I could say yourself, um um any luck of being able to put signs on on Stradaland is is uh you know also very difficult.

And that's I I don't know if the strata's going to allow um anyone to put signs in in that area.

Well, I think on on individual, like you know, unit forty two, if they wanted to put a sign up, they would be allowed to do so.

Hopefully, maybe put it in their window or something.

So, I mean, if we're good with this, I mean Sarah has spent a lot of time on this, and I think we should be moving, we should either be not endorsing it or we should be moving it along.

I'll move first the second and third.

Okay, so I'll second that.

Okay.

We probably should just before we do that, just re receive Sarah's report.

So moved.

Okay, so moved, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

That's receipt of the report.

All in favor, proposed as carried.

And then first, second, and third is moved by Councillor Matson, seconded by Councillor Lemon of bylaw one zero seven six.

And I've already heard too much about this.

I don't disagree.

Okay.

We're all good.

Councilor Rogers.

I would oppose.

Okay.

Um for um I had um one is I think I feel strongly that the Aldersmith area should be get some representation.

Secondly, I had emailed everybody, staff included, that upon reflection, I do not think there's a fairness with respect to the number of signs.

They're only going to be able to have 27, and whereas the large signs obviously have a much greater area, if you like, probably equivalent to three signs.

And so I think that there should have been fairness so that individuals that if they couldn't afford, uh, they'd be able to have the benefit of placing more signs through view royal.

But that is clearly not the case.

But of course, remembering that anybody can go knock on a door still and say, Can I put a lawn sign on your lawn?

Which is yeah, you know, which is not covered at all by by this bylaw.

Nor is, I mean, without wanting to get too much into this, if somebody wanted to take a hundred signs and put them in the median on the Trans Canada Highway, they can also do that.

Yeah.

So I think it, you know, you have to look at the the big picture.

I think for View Royal itself, we've done a good job of managing signs.

It'll reduce the clutter and the litter, not only in our elections, but in the bigger elections.

But I think it's also, I mean, I think we're creating a huge amount of work for staff to try and please this and control this in the elections.

Um, but at any rate, I'm gonna call the question.

All in favor.

Opposed.

So Councillor Rogers is opposed.

That's carried.

Thank you, Sarah.

Thank you for your work.

Um so next up we have third reading of the Erskine Lane that we had the public hearing of tonight.

So is anyone prepared to move third reading?

Okay, second.

So it's moved and seconded discussion.

Yeah, thanks.

Um yeah, it was um uh I I'm disappointed that um we have not heard from the residents uh one way or another.

Um there was uh I I wrote reached out uh to a number of them, those that were at the um um open house, um hoping that they'd be able to give us further insight to to all this.

Um I think they're shell-shocked and and um and struggling with what's going on there.

Um but I I do think what's um it is important.

I know the one thing that is important to them is to have that sidewalk on their side uh to walk us away.

And when you consider the possibility that all told Urskan Lane could have 600 cars going up and down the street, um they absolutely need it.

There's a projection of what four or 500 bikes going up and down that street.

And I'm I'm pleased that you know that and the street's only 270 meters long.

It's remarkable.

I do have some worries about uh safety all around.

But the uh applicant has addressed the uh privacy concerns adequately, I think, um, for the three suites of number 14.

Um uh the one question I didn't ask, but I guess they'll be forming character, um, is the location of where any air exchangers might be noise, that kind of noise.

So we we probably need to think about that at in a future time.

Um but uh all told I think um they've done their best to provide the amenity, fix the Galactan Goose uh uh access, and um give that privacy.

And thank you.

Counselor Kowalowich.

I am proud that we're starting to thoughtfully develop areas that are close to transportation and that uh are ripe for redevelopment.

And I think uh it's exciting uh for for not only uh our current residents, but for our uh new future residents, which there will be many in that area.

Uh I'm I'm uh anticipating uh what it'll look like in a few years, and and uh I'm confident that I think we're making good decisions here as we move along.

Good.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Councillor Lemon.

Well, you know, I I came tonight um prepared and expecting to vote against this.

Um and I expected to hear from residents and like like Councillor Rogers, I also reached out and and you know, these people have been that we've asked a lot of them.

We've asked them to um put up with a lot and and um and it's it's it's not the sweet little sleepy lane it was just a few years ago.

However, um I think that we received a thoughtful presentation this evening and um if the residents aren't concerned and and um if the residents aren't concerned and if the privacy's the privacy screens and the um revisiting the the the scale are satisfactory to them i'm uh i'm not gonna dispute that so i i will vote in favor of this okay thank you counselor mattson.

Yeah, and following up or echoing the comments and some of my my colleagues um the the developer did a really good job in terms of their presentation and showing how they've attempted to sort of mitigate the impact.

Notwithstanding that there are going to be some negative consequences to the adjacent townhouses.

However, and given what's happened in that area, I was quite willing to listen and support the residents should they've come out and not and said they didn't want this project, but they didn't come out.

And I can't make up their perceptions and views on this because I have some concerns.

We needed them to come out.

They didn't, by them not coming out, they're showing, you know, in a way they're sort of showing their support.

So for that reason, I'm going to uh support their death.

Okay.

Thank you.

And just I'm going to be really brief because obviously it's going through, but I mean, I think it's this sort of development that allows us to, you know, we put housing where the OCP is calling for it.

We put compact housing where there would be a considerable number of units offered.

And it's by approving these sort of developments that we're going to be able to keep, you know, to a certain extent our other neighborhoods more protected.

So okay, I'm going to call the question.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

Thank you, staff.

Um, next is that we schedule a public hearing for June 7th for temporary use permit at two hospital way.

Someone want to move that.

Someone move.

Did I hear so moved okay moved by councillor mattson second seconded by councillor kualowich discussion i guess we'll have that discussion way after the public yeah i i'd just like to say i have tried to get a hold of the the owner of two hospital way and we've been playing telephone tag but it might be a good idea to impress on them that um should be a good idea for me to have this conversation with them before this public hearing date um so if if staff happens to be in touch with them at all.

So we're we're now up to question period.

Um so if there's anyone out there who would like to ask a question about anything that was either on our agenda tonight or really anything at all, this is your opportunity to dial 778-402-927, and when prompted, enter 348-113-524 pound.

So we'll just pause for a minute to give people a chance to call in.

Are there any callers on the line, Steph?

Your worship, we have no callers on the board at this time.

I think likely that's probably the case.

So I think we can probably just move on.

So, Sarah, if you could give us the closed meeting resolution.

Thank you, your worship.

There's a need to have a meeting closed to the public and persons other than the immediate members of council, officers, and employees of the town, and those identified under section 91, subsection two of the community charter shall be excluded on the basis of section 90 subsection 1E land.

Okay.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Kwalovich.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

And we're now in camera.