Council Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and we'll call the council meeting for Tuesday, May the 3rd to order at 6 59.

And I'd like to start by recognizing the Lekwungen speaking people, known today as the Esquimalt Nation and Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This evening we will hear from the public who telephone in during the public participation and question period portions of the agenda.

If anyone on the phone is wishing to call in for the Haagensen Court development variance permit, there is a specific section within that part of the agenda when you would call in.

Other than that, you will call in under public participation for any other item on the agenda tonight.

And I did mean to note at the beginning that we did remove an article of correspondence, which was to do with First Nations issues, and that will be discussed at a future in camera meeting.

So if you're wishing to call in, um, please dial 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 420 867 263 Pound.

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

I'll ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback.

I'll ask that you not use speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and ask that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

And if you can give us your name and address to the record, please.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

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

And public participation will come up very quickly tonight.

So if you were wishing to call in, now would be the time to do so.

And with that, I'd look for a motion to approve the agenda, please.

So moved.

Thank you.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor, posed, that's carried.

There's minutes from April 19th.

Thank you.

Moved by Councillor Rogers.

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Mattson.

Any comments, corrections?

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

I don't really have anything under Mayor's report other than them.

We did have a good meeting yesterday with Tom LaFortune, the carver of the poll, the chief of the Esquimaltt Nation, our fire chief Charla Huber.

And we're definitely working towards that May 28th date at 11 a.m.

And it looks like that'll work.

Um both nations are being involved and consulted, but generally they're deferring to the wishes of the carver.

Um, and so invitations will be going out soon.

And I think it's all well in hand, but do keep that that date free, 11 a.m.

And then, of course, the volunteer dinner that evening, so we'll all be in town, anyways.

So moving on, we have public participation.

Do we have any callers on the line stuff?

Your worship, we have no callers at this time.

Okay, thank you.

So we'll go right to 8.1A, which is the consolidated financial statements and audit results.

Thank you, Your Worship.

Hi.

Uh worship and members of council.

I am pleased to present the 2021 consolidated financial statements this evening.

I'm just gonna share my screen here.

Okay, I think you're seeing them now.

So in keeping with the community charter, staff have prepared consolidated financial statements in accordance with public sector accounting standards.

These statements are then audited by MNP, our council appointed audit firm, and legislation requires that the financial statements be publicly presented to council for its review and approval.

And once council has accepted the financial statements, our auditor's report will be included with the document, submitted to the ministry, and posted on View Royal's website.

So I'm going to provide a brief overview of the financial statements, after which Corey Vanderhorst, who is on the call with us this evening, he's our auditor from MNP, and he represents the audit firm for this report, and he's going to represent his report to you.

So the financial statements are comprised of a set of statements, notes to the statements and accompanying schedules.

We're going to briefly go through these.

Going so slowly that you you fall asleep.

That would that would not be good.

It really is important to understand the role of each participant in the financial statement reporting process.

These roles are actually outlined at the beginning of the document.

Briefly, management is responsible for preparing the statements in accordance with accounting standards.

The auditor provides independent examination of the statements and evaluates the systems of internal controls and then expresses an opinion on whether or not the financial statements fairly represent the actual financial position of the town.

Mayor and council has a role to play too.

Mayor and council is responsible for the oversight of management and they have the opportunity to meet with the auditor privately to discuss any manner of concern.

Statement A, which is the consolidated statement of financial position, presents a snapshot in time at December 31, 2021.

It has also prior year comparatives.

Non-financial assets, physic sorry, non-financial assets, physical assets that are like buildings, roads, sewer pipes, pump stations are shown separately so that we better highlight the municipality's financial position.

The change in accumulated surplus is further explained by the statements, notes, and schedules that follow.

Financial assets, which are those items representing future economic benefits that are owned or owned by or owed to View Royal, the increase of just over $2 million from $31 million to $33 million was what was experienced in from 2020 to 2021.

Financial liabilities, which are those items that represent future economic benefits that are owed to outside entities, increased $363,000 in 2021.

So the net financial assets is the difference between the financial assets and liabilities.

This increased $1.8 million in 2021.

Nonfinancial assets are primarily the tangible capital assets that View Royal employs to deliver the services to View Royal residents and visitors.

Total non-financial assets decreased almost 1.2 million in 2021.

The accumulated surplus number is a rather large number.

It increased 633,000 in 2021.

How did we get there?

That's what we're going to talk about as we go through the statements.

Statement B, the statement of operations, helps explain it.

As well, Note 10, you're going to see later, breaks this down into its various components.

These key numbers are used to determine measures of sustainability shown in the bar charts on the right side of the slide.

Throughout this slide and the following slides where you see a bar charts, look at the yellow bar as that represents where we are at in 2021.

Comparing accumulated surplus to taxes shows a positive number at 15.5, but the trend does indicate that accumulated surplus is decreasing relative to taxation.

Assets to liabilities and financial assets to liabilities represents the degree to which a government can maintain its existing financial obligations without increasing the debt or tax burden relative to the economy.

In other words, can we pay our bills as they come due without having to borrow or raise taxes inordinately?

The financial assets to liabilities ratio at $1.86 represents that for every dollar that we owe, we have $1.86 of assets to cover that debt.

This is up from 2020, which was at 1.78 and indicates a strong financial position.

The consolidated statement of operations, this is statement B, describes the revenue and expense and the resulting annual surplus for 2021 with 2020 amounts for comparison.

You will see that this is the same accumulated surplus number we talked about a moment ago, the 633,000.

Statement B explains the difference or change in accumulated surplus between the prior year, 2020, and the current year.

Total revenue is down slightly from 2021, about 91,000.

In 2020, we had a bit of a kick up in revenue due to the BC Safe Restart Grant funds we received from the province.

And we did not get that, of course, in 2021, but that was somewhat offset by sales of land and repatriation of sewer capital reserve funds from the CRD.

User charges were up somewhat, mostly due to West Shore Parks and REC reopening.

Investment income, you'll notice is significantly down, and that was due to market conditions.

Expenses shown against budget with the prior year comparative as well, and again includes the numbers from West Shore Parks and Rec.

Total expense is higher by 1.8 million in 2021 compared to 2020, but within budget.

And I would I would say that most of the reason for the increase in cost would be increase in cost for labor, goods and services, and some of that also is due to West Shore Parks and Rec reopening.

You'll be able to see more details about that in schedules 1 and 2, we're going to look at in a few minutes.

The annual surplus number is the difference between revenue and expense in the current year, and it totals that $633,000.

You'll notice a rather large number for the budgeted deficit, which represents the net value of reserves, including casino funds that we planned to use in 2021 to pay for operational things like the West Shore Parks and Recreation Requisition, that's a little bit hard to say, grants and aid, and debt interest.

Further details are provided by note 17.

Net financial asset ratios are trending in the upward direction.

You can see in the charts here, indicating improving financial sustainability.

Statement C takes a closer look at the change in net financial assets to better understand what happened in 2021.

We start with that $633,000 surplus number.

We remove all of the items that aren't financial assets like capital assets and amortization because those are tangible assets, not financial assets.

And the net result is that financial assets increased $1.8 million so that the total went from $13.8 million to $15.6 million.

This number includes the changes in year-end balances for all operating surpluses and reserves from all funds and West Shore Parks and Recreation.

Statement D, Consolidated Statement of Cash Flow looks at the change in cash for the period and how the town financed its activities.

So the town's cash position is influenced by various things like changes in receivables, payables, deferred revenue and other balance sheet items.

Statement D accounts for these and other changes and eliminates non-cash items to explain the cash position difference from 2020 to 2021.

So regular regular operations account for 2.8 million of the change in cash.

We spent $2.7 million on capital acquisitions, which did that number does include the developer contributions of just over a half a million.

And the change in proportionate share of ownership in West Shore Parks and Rec.

We received a total of 600,000 from or about 600,000 from the sale of capital assets, including the property on Lund Road.

306,000 was spent on reducing debt.

So the result was an increase of cash or cash equivalents of nearly $427,000.

These funds are held in an interest-bearing bank account or in MFA investments.

This total of $30 million includes all reserve funds and accounts, deposits, unspent DCCs, and every everything we hold in cash and cash equivalents.

I've told I've said it before and I'll keep saying it.

If you read nothing else, read the notes because they really do tell the story.

Notes provide the context, the explanations for how certain things are accounted for, and also further breakdowns of the higher level numbers that we just saw in some of the preceding statements.

We're going to look more closely at a couple of different notes.

We're going to look at just a couple of the key notes in more details here.

Note 10, accumulated surplus, is probably what I consider one of the most important notes when you're trying to explain what we are holding in reserves or in a accumulated surplus.

That's a very large number, and it can be quite overwhelming to try to understand.

So note 10 breaks that all down for you.

You can see at the bottom of this slide that the this number, this $633 number $3,000 number shows up again here.

It is the difference between the totals and that at the bottom of the two columns, the difference between the 145 million and the 146 million.

So we it really does explain that number.

That's what this that's what the purpose of this note is.

So kind of starting at the top, we can see that the equity in tangible capital asset changes as we acquire or dispose of assets.

Record amortization, pay off debt, or incur new debt.

So equity in tangible capital assets is down $606, 765,000, sorry, in part because amortization in 2021 was a bigger value than the value invested in asset replacement.

Casino revenue decreased by nearly $700,000 as the use of the reserves, that reserve to support West Shore Parks and Rec, Grants and Aid, and other projects exceeded the gaming revenue received from the casino.

Community Works Fund, the gas tax account, increased nearly $820,000 because we did receive a double payment from the federal government in 2021, and we only spent $194,000 on projects.

Some of the projects that were planned to be funded from this reserve were did not proceed.

Unrestricted surplus is that amount that you might consider as all of the surplus that is not in any other reserve or reserve account.

So you could also think of this as the amount by which we came in under our balanced budget target of zero.

So our our unrestricted surplus is probably the lowest since I've been here at 160, which in total increased by 1.1 million.

Most of the reserves did increase.

The reserves that decreased were the machinery and equipment reserve, the police we refer to it as the police capital reserve, the one called police equipment property and contract, and the police operations and maintenance reserve.

Those were the ones that actually decreased.

You may notice that DCCs aren't on this list.

They don't factor into this note because they're actually deferred revenue.

They're in a separate account to be recorded as revenue when they are used for the designated projects, and they are disclosedules of segment disclosure by service are much like statement B, the statement of operations.

However, the main difference is in how the expenses are described.

Statement B that we looked at just a little bit ago shows the expenses according to the function or service like general government protective services, transportation, so on.

Schedules one and two show the same information, but they break down the revenue and expense for each service, showing expense categories like labor goods debt.

Budget is provided for both years.

So you can see here that revenue and expense cat, sorry, the services are at the top, general government protective services, and everything's broken down in that way.

And it especially expense categories are different from the way they show on statement B in that they show labor and benefits, goods and services for each one of the services across.

Schedule one is for 2021, and if we look at schedule two, that's the comparative numbers for 2020.

So you can see that they this does provide comparative information in a much greater detail than you saw in statement B.

The consolidated schedule of tangible capital assets provides additional details break broken down by the type of the asset, at it shows that the historical cost, which the amount that it cost when it was purchased, shows the amortization, and then of course it shows the net book value.

So one of the numbers coming out of this schedule is the proportion of our net book value compared to historical cost.

And this tells us what the percentage of our assets are actually amortized.

So we have 183 million in historical cost.

That's what our total assets cost us.

The amortization is nearly 53 million.

So that means that our net book value is about 71% of the historical cost.

So assets are up or are about 29% amortized, which is about 1% more than last year.

So it somewhat relates to the extent that assets are being replaced as the age, and this is something that we watch.

You can see the trend for that ratio here, the netbook value to cost in this upper chart.

And you can see that it's really kind of going down by about 1% a year.

While it is a downward trend, I would argue that at 71% View Royal's assets could still be, you know, kind of thought of as fairly young yet, and we are very nearly keeping up with amortization.

A couple of other ratios that we look at as we go through.

One is own source revenue to taxes.

It is higher in 2021.

I would say probably because of the land sale and the repatriation of the CRD reserve funds.

You can think of this one as for every $1 of taxation, View Royal earned about 61 cents in non-tax revenue in 2021.

In 2021, 1.29% over here with the debt charges, 1.29% of revenue was required for debt payments, which is just slightly lower in 2020.

We did have one of the debt issues with MFA refinanced in 2021 at a slightly lower interest rate.

debt which results in future flexibility as Viewer has significant unused debt service capacity.

Finally, we look at the extent to which View Royal is dependent on government transfers.

It's an important ratio to understand.

It looks at government transfers as a proportion of total revenue and is something that we watch as an expression of our reliance on government transfers.

It is lower in 2021, in this case lower is better compared to 2020 returning to about the level we were at in 2019.

Are there any questions from council before I turn it over to Corey Vanderhurst uh Vanderhorst, our auditor's one Mr.

Rogers, yeah, thank you.

Thank you for the presentation and um in in all this for um for this year, I'm just curious.

Um, as we know the um uh staff of and and the our artist had had uh work with us to uh prepare for the RCMP um uh retroactive pay of 290,000.

Is there somewhere in in this that where we would um we could illustrate how we had anticipated and um uh uh if those two or three years ago and uh in anticipation of of this event coming to us this year?

Is that number yeah you're not going to see that number um specifically isolated out?

Um that would be in um our law our accounts payable and accrued liabilities explained uh by note five.

So it would be, you know, part of the part of the amount that would be included in.

So I I don't know whether you have the note five in front of you, but in note five, it describes the accounts, it breaks down the accounts payable and accrued liabilities, and I can see that the amount increased from 2020 to 2021 by about 200,000.

That would be the amount payable to the government of Canada.

And one of the reasons for that increase would be the accrued amount for the RCNP retro pay.

Okay, so if I look at note five, I'll see that.

Well, you won't see it broken down to the level of detail I think that you're looking for, but that is an explanation for why that number increased payable to the government of Canada.

Great.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Good.

Thanks, Don.

Thank you.

Corey, over to you.

Great.

Thanks, Don.

Hello, Mr.

Mayor.

And thank you to the Mayor and Council for having me here today to speak to you.

So I've got a few slides to take you through our audit process.

I want to start by thanking Don and Steven and the rest of the staff at the town for helping us with the audit this year.

It goes very smoothly.

Your staff is very prepared and has a really good handle on their finances.

So we'll talk a little bit about the audit findings.

We are happy to be providing a clean audit opinion, what we call an unmodified opinion again this year.

Next slide, please.

So we are all all wrapped up.

Everything has uh every last piece of paper, every last uh conversation to have is all done.

So the final step here tonight is maybe in council approval of the financial statements.

Um and I have uh a final audit report ready to send through to uh Dawn after the meeting tonight.

A reminder that when we're doing our audit we we there are there are many steps but the one of the some of the key things that we're doing is we we look at the controls in place uh at the town to ensure that you're getting accurate financial reporting.

So we are looking at how are your controls designed and implemented and are they um safeguarding assets?

Are they reducing uh risk of um theft or error uh in your financial statements?

We sample transactions throughout the year to form our audit opinion we don't look at every transaction uh that that goes through your books.

And next slide, please.

And an important figure that we use to drive that audit testing is the materiality number.

So materiality for 2021 was uh $700,000.

That's calculated as around 4% of your annual revenue.

So that means we looked at all items that were over $700,000.

Um, usually those are large grants, um capital projects, things of that nature.

And then underneath that threshold, we sample transactions and we use a risk-based methodology to look at different areas um of your financial statements, revenues and expenses, and assets and liabilities, and sample those balances to get comfort that we are uh we think they are um accurately recorded if there was any differences discovered i could not give you a clean audit opinion if they were individually over $700,000 or if they added up to in aggregate over $700,000.

Happy to report we're providing a clean audit opinion so there are no significant unadjusted amounts for 2021.

Another testament to typically your staff does.

No limitations placed on the performance of our audit uh we had access to all the documents we wanted to see people we wanted to talk to.

We didn't find any irregularities, anything unusual, no evidence of conflict of interest or unusual related party transactions um a reminder that, of course, we are not specifically um fraud investigators when we're looking at uh financial statement audit.

But if anything came to our attention, I would be required to report back to council.

And I would request an in-camera meeting, of course, if I needed to.

But nothing to report on that on that side of things this year.

The town does not currently have an internal auditor or internal audit function.

So therefore, in our audit process, we do not rely on an internal audit function.

And we are required to review your annual report when it's available.

So I will ask for it from uh from Don and Stephen to ensure that the financial statements have been accurately reproduced, that our audit report is included properly, and that there's no missing pages or um incorrect information.

So thank you again for the cooperation and assistance from management and staff throughout the town hall.

It's not just the finance department, but they do the heavy lifting.

Um so thank you very much.

And I would be happy, I think believe that's the last slide.

I would be, oh sorry, one more slide.

Um I do have to confirm our independence.

Uh MMP as an audit firm didn't do any other projects or any other work with the town that would impair our ability to give you an independent audit opinion.

And that goes from January 1st, 2021 all the way through to today, May 3rd, 2022.

So thank you for uh listening to me speak, and I would be happy to answer any questions about the audit process.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Manson.

Thank you.

Um thank you for your presentation and staff for your report.

So one of the things things look, you know, from from my reviewing this and from what you've said, things look for looks like the town is doing fairly well.

So, but from uh from your perspective, you know, what what should I as a counselor be worried about?

Okay, uh good question.

Thank you, counselor.

Um, I I and I think and I'm gonna refer back to uh some of the comments that Dawn made in in her presentation.

Um I like to focus in on those ratios and the trends and the things that are uh the sort of the direction over the last four to five years.

Um, there are some trends that are positive.

The um financial assets to liabilities, that sort of liquid position is trending upward, more cash and investments on hand to pay for future projects.

Um, the aging of assets is declining.

That is that is a positive one.

Uh I think Don had a really good comment that while it is declining at 71%, uh, it is what I would categorize as fairly young assets, or there's not a lot of really old assets, but it's always something to keep an eye on.

So um your numbers in and of themselves don't really flag anything terribly urgent.

Um, or but what I would, as a generic comment, uh that question of what should we be worried about is I would always look to that long-range planning mindset, um, to the the asset management piece, uh, and being able to balance that with the services being provided.

Um that you need to think about those assets that are coming due for significant maintenance or replacement, or or if there's a large capital project coming.

I know your staff is is doing that work and providing that information on not just the five year time frame, but the the long range time frame to be able to properly build up those reserves um and and manage the the balancing act of taxes, debt, uh, and um and grant funding to be able to to accomplish some of those projects.

That that's always the uh the comment that I would have as a a a general comment to looking to the future and what possible capital large projects are coming, um, to make sure you're ready for them uh and aren't going to have to significantly reduce services to be able to pay for a physical asset somewhere down the line.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

That's good.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your work and thank you staff for all your work.

I know it takes a lot to put it all together.

So and thank you for the presentation.

So we need a motion for the recommendation.

Is it moved?

Okay moved by Councillor Rogers.

Second.

Second by Councillor Matson.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

I agree I I think what um Corey was saying is how much uh he appreciates staff's cooperation and assessment.

Yes, great, great.

Yeah.

So next we have the development variance permit for 34 Hogginson Court.

Welcome, Mr.

Chow.

Thank you, your worship.

Jeff Chow, Senior Planner.

Can you hear me okay?

We can.

Great.

Thanks.

Had some audio problems earlier today.

So just want to be sure.

Um, so this is an application for a development variance permit.

And I'm just gonna bring share the screen here.

And the purpose of this application is to uh reduce the size of a parking space, required parking space, so that um a driveway parking space can be counted as a parking space, and one of the interior garage spaces in a house can be converted into living space.

A similar variance was requested in 2016 for 10 separate dwellings nearby on Lund Road that had short driveways.

In their those cases, the requested variance was five four reducing it from 5.5 meters to 4.5 meters.

This request is to reduce it to 5.3 meters, which is just a relatively small amount.

So the proposal would add a little bit of square footage to the house, but it complies with the zoning requirements.

Here on this sketch here you can see the footprint of the house and a section of the garage that they want to expand into kind of a little office space.

That means that the driveway space will have to count as a as a parking space.

But it's on its public property.

Technically cannot be counted towards the uh the length of the parking space.

Um so the issue here is whether that 5.3 meters is an acceptable variance, um, noting that a standard small car parking space uh elsewhere in in the town the requirement is 4.8 meters, so it's it's longer than than what you see in a small car parking space.

Staff supports the proposal in this case because there would be no blockage of pedestrian routes.

The sidewalk is across the street.

To date, there have been no known concerns about vehicles parked in this driveway encroaching into the travel lane.

Uh there are two vehicles that the owner currently parks in the driveway.

That would not change after the uh after the variance if the variance is granted.

And uh there are also no proposed exterior uh exterior building changes that affect these spaces.

So the recommendation is to uh support the variants, and uh the applicant is um is watching, but I don't believe they're able to uh speak at this time.

Okay, thank you, Jeff.

For anyone who's watching at home and who did want to comment on this, your your opportunity to do so will be coming up very soon.

So you you would want to dial 778-402-9227, and when prompted, enter conference ID 420-867-263-pound.

So anyone at home who is wanting to comment on the Hogginson report variants, you you should phone in now, and and soon we will get to you.

Are there any questions for staff?

Councilor Rogers?

Yes.

Thank you, Steph.

Um, and I certainly do remember the um uh the variants that we'd given a number of parking um uh addresses on that seat already.

And it was interesting by the aerial view, there were uh seven vehicles on the street, but um still lots of room in the street, and it appears that um individuals are are respecting um the intent and requirement to park on the driveways.

Um I like the uh correspondence we received.

I I don't have any doubts that um uh the owners will be um um um complying with um uh you know what they say, and they have every intention to um not park on the street, but uh parking the driveways there.

Um but what what's in the in the scenario where um in the future the property's sold and um someone who buys the house um uh in the future and they want to park a large truck and uh now it's um are these individuals um and well they may not be um um as as uh diligent if you like as as the property owners and but they've got a large truck and now they want to park on the street and uh are is this fix in stone for any future um individuals that um may now be exceeding um the uh intended um uh what shall I say permissions through your worship?

Um this the severance is a uh is a permanent decision.

Uh so if there was a change in ownership and and somebody uh parked a large vehicle inappropriately in that driveway, then I'm sure that there would be bylaw complaints from the neighbors, and I'm sure that the town would respond accordingly because you don't you don't want to block the uh the traveled portion of the road.

So yeah, there would be the recourse of uh bylaw action if the vehicle was exceeding the uh the property allowance.

I believe so.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Councillor Matson.

So just for clarification, my understanding is there's about a meter of town property after the that people would probably that's the area that a truck would potentially be on, and it only becomes an issue if they start sticking the the truck comes out onto the road.

Yeah, I think that's right.

That's when the bylaw complaints would happen.

Right.

Yeah.

So I don't see it being any kind of an issue.

Anyone else?

Okay, so we I don't think we need any comments from the applicant, although it doesn't sound like they're available they're available, although they're watching.

So the comments from the public.

Do we have any callers on the line, staff?

Your worship, we have no callers.

Okay, thank you.

I'll move staff recommendations.

Can you move the correspondence first?

Receipt of the correspondence.

Okay, so we're moving receipt of A and B correspondence moved and seconded.

All in favor?

That's carried.

And then staff's recommendation is moved by Councillor Mattson and seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

Thank you, staff.

So next we have the 8.3A minutes of the West Shore Parks and Rec meeting for March the 10th.

Moving receipt the minutes.

Thank you.

Moved and seconded for receipt.

Do you any comments, questions for Damien?

It's just a comment if I may.

Um the community recreation, I don't know what page it is, page four or five, uh, I was really impressed with the artist who had uh installed uh wooden animals in into the into the Gary Oak uh system so uh you know it's a great idea for children to go in and spot them and you know part of that learning experience and artistic creativity it's really nice the West Shore Parks and Rec Society is uh focusing uh more and more on the arts and there's uh as you know we've we've spoken about it, but there's a call for artists from each community right now.

And they'll all be providing a piece of art for a designated room to represent the community.

And um, so that's ongoing right now.

And of course, we also just had a a clean uh budget review by our auditors at West Shore Parks in Rec uh with a surplus uh because of the staff shortages.

And as well uh the new hockey the the hockey arena that just got uh retrofitted is getting new lighting.

Uh that's the Juan de Fuca one up top, it's in desperate need of that.

So um a lot of good things happening.

Good.

Yeah.

Councilor Lemmon.

Have you received art from Bureau?

We have individuals interested already.

I think we're awaiting the Highlands only.

Uh didn't have any applicants.

So we do have some applicants for um, yep.

Lovely.

Speaking of art, we have to discuss at some point, not that this is the appropriate point in the agenda, but how we're going to use our um top of the cart funds that we put in the budget on what we're going to do.

I'm sure we'll see that on a committee of the whole agenda soon.

I'll tell you about my chat without Bay.

Oh joy.

So any other questions on the West Shore minute?

If I may, just another question.

Um I'm curious about the um uh the dirt bike um facility that's in behind the lawn bowling.

And does does the um uh the west shore have much involvement?

Is that purely run by those volunteers completely self-sufficient?

It's uh mainly run privately, but of course we do own the land.

Um recently within the last year or two it's actually been opened up a lot more to the public and there's there's times where uh particularly youth can go and try BMX biking and it's uh becoming more popular there I'm sorry I'm gonna have to ask one more question the uh the uh um skateboard uh facility any more movement on on on behalf yes there have been some uh discussions surrounding it and it's um it's got some uh forward momentum and um we're we're certainly hoping um for some influx and funding and some uh uh some news soon okay thank you.

Sounds exciting.

Okay, so I'm gonna call the question on that.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

So we've got the minutes from the CDAC committee.

Thank you.

Okay, so receipt is moved, seconded.

Second.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

I do have one question.

I mean well, we yes.

It's just about the minutes.

Okay.

And so so we get these recommendations, but you know, lately, I don't know, we we don't seem to they just seem to disappear in the ether.

Like we don't do anything with them.

So whether we we treat them all the same, and we just basically ignore them.

I don't think that's true at all.

Of every recommendation that comes to us from an advisory committee, we choose to either act on it, refer it to staff, or not to act on it.

Okay, so we just and at the moment, all we've done so far tonight is receive the minutes from the committee, and we have not yet discussed their recommendations.

Yes.

Maybe you're catching 40 winks at that point.

We certainly discuss their recommendations.

I mean, my suggestion tonight would be that these recommendations should just be forwarded to the consultant and staff that are working on our climate action plan.

Part of the consolidation of all the reports.

Yeah.

And that to me is an action.

We're sending them on, right?

I think you have a better idea, Counselor Matson.

I'm I'm all ears.

Um councilor Lennon.

Um I agree with all of that, but I'm wondering about the uh the recommendation that council recommend uh recommended the council explore and support initiatives bring rails through the community.

Would that necessarily be which one?

That's the uh one, two third one.

Yeah, absolutely.

Oh so that that could be a separate initiative, couldn't it?

I mean, I yeah.

So yeah, I mean we could so there's four recommendations here, right?

Yeah.

I mean, you could argue that allocating consisting funding to support expanding greenhouse reduction initiatives isn't really something we're capable of doing at this point.

Um, but there may be things that come forward in the climate action plan.

Oh, director Chase has her hand up.

Lindsay, go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, your worship.

Um, Lindsay Chase, Director of Development Services.

With respect to the third recommendation, regarding rails, that has been a longstanding topic in the town's official community plan and that policy it I uh in the in the in the draft that I'm currently reviewing and getting ready to prepare for committee of the whole next week um there is language in in the OCP that continues to support um rail should should more senior levels of uh more senior levels of government um also contribute funding um towards that so I think that this was very much in light of the recent course court decisions um north of Nanaimo um and and that that have the potential to impact the rail corridor.

So that was that was where this was coming from, and this this topic is uh is included in the MCP.

Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, I'm I'm certainly happy to see all of these uh go towards um and consideration and and incorporation into the uh climate action plan with the staff and the consultants.

Um but I wouldn't want any of these uh to to limit um um options for us either.

Um one of the um uh the aspects of um you know the island quarter foundation and and just both in in our OCP uh as a transportation corridor, um, but also within our our five-year plan uh that that and and uh Colwood's um um ferry idea.

Um but I I think if this is uh an interesting component that uh staff and the uh consultants for the active transportation plan would be um also wanting to be work you know focusing and working on.

Um I I think it's gonna be um really interesting to hear from our consultant on the active transportation plan who's been in all over the world, like uh you know Korea and and seen some very interesting ideas about um uh what uh what could be besides a limited rail.

I mean, there are buses, there are scooters, there's all sorts of other really interesting ideas, and I wouldn't want us to uh uh go down any particular track um if um we see that there's um other more innovative ideas that could bring uh a far greater uh ridership and use of that corridor.

Um we also have a Supreme Court issue that's coming up in a year's time.

Yeah, I I don't think we want to get into a long debate here about what's the best use for the corridor.

I mean, the the reality is that if rail isn't returned on that corridor by March of next year, corridor ceases to exist and it's not going to be available for any form of transportation.

You bet.

Um, but at any rate, with the recommendations that we have in front of us from our committee, let's go through them one by one.

So the first one, do we want to refer that to staff for consideration in future budgets?

Yes, please.

Okay.

So that councillor Rogers is moving that we refer that to staff.

Councillor Matson, or somebody second it?

I'll second that.

Okay.

So it makes sense.

I don't see that we can at this point in time decide.

Um, as we have no idea what strategies are going to come back that will require funding, but obviously we can when they do.

Okay.

So, and just for the record, that is an action that we've taken on that recommendation by referring it to staff rather than simply receiving all in favor, opposed, that's carried.

Um so this this one certainly looks like it could be referred to the climate climate action.

Um obviously we have to work in in coordination with our neighbors.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so that's moved and seconded.

All in favor, opposed that's carried, and we could move receipt of number three and four.

Yes, okay.

All in favor, opposed that's carried.

Okay, so staff's good with that.

Okay.

So next we have 9.1a, which is the Capital bike commuter challenge invitation.

We've done this quite a few times.

I've done it, counselor Rogers has done it, I think.

Several times.

Yeah, he drove though, right?

Yeah.

He works.

So I don't know if anyone else is interested in doing that again, or if we can just receive the letter.

If not.

I'm happy to work with somebody who wants to you ride, I'll drive.

Is there any member of staff that has a burning desire to now that we've lost James?

Yeah, I'm out of time.

We'll work on that.

Your worship, we have some very well, very good riders that may be up for the task.

Right.

Should you accept?

Well, I think if there's any interest from staff, why not let us know on council and one of us would would certainly take part?

Um so we'll leave it leave it with you, but um we can just receive the we'll receive the other all in favor.

And then the next one is the the canoe from um Constable Brewer.

Um which I mean I certainly think if he has an event that where is it here?

That is it June 21st or is we're invited to add a paddler.

Did they ask one of us to be a paddler?

Isn't that it?

That's on NATS National Indigenous Day, but I thought he also talked about another event.

Yeah, I think well, I think he was just talking generically that if he's planning activities in Fure Oil with the um with the schools would we be interested.

Is there a number of how we can get hold of them too because I just see they've through the RCMP.

Yeah I'm sure we could get a hold of them through it sounds odd easily enough.

It sounds a good idea to just a bit more clarification in terms of days and things.

I'll paddle do you want to do that?

I'm I don't add a lot of strength and power to a vote right but but I could take it.

I'd be happy to do something why don't why why don't I get in touch with him and just say that we we certainly would be interested in counselor lemon in particular, but if they tell us when events are being held in Bureau, that we would certainly make an attempt to come and make an appearance.

Just send us an email here.

It's a state.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll um I'll reach out to him.

Thanks.

Okay, so we'll receive the letter.

Okay.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

I think I've paddled one here because I have pictures of me down there on the canal.

Yeah.

Well, the one on on National Indigenous Day.

I mean, that's usually a fairly big event.

Although I would have thought that would have been slightly different now, right?

With the new stat holiday um anyhow we'll find out.

Like in some of these pictures, it looks like it's just kids, right?

Yeah kids so it's hard to tell what's going on okay and then we have for information we have a b and c move a seat of a and b okay a and b is moved to see second all in favor oppose that's carried and then we have c which is the letter from rogers communications councillor rogers yeah i you know it it it is interesting and this is on uh provincial land and it would be very curious to know if um i we've we charted with uh earlier if uh the province is getting any revenue or um share if you like from the tower and and uh is there any option uh for for the town to also do you know take part in this revenue sharing if such a thing exists yeah there's certainly that aspect of it i mean it's kind of a massive tower um 30 meters yeah i mean i don't know what 30 meters compares to but it seems it it's replacing what was on the the the hydro by for the handy dark site, right?

Because those have had to be removed.

Probably give me the same height.

So it's that's incredibly visible spot.

Yeah, but do you think it do you think it's the same height as or higher than those?

Do we have an option?

Well, I mean, Kim will tell us we do not have an option, but I think if we were to write back saying we strive we oppose, um, I think we should ask them to come and present.

Um, and show us some schematics and how it's gonna look.

Yes.

Um, and explain the business model that they have with the province.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with us making that request.

Councilor Rogers.

You know, we did the same uh situation with the crest when they wanted their tower at the fire hall.

They came, presented, yeah, and they they clearly showed that uh it was the uh and and the rationale for that site um uh as it, you know, the way it can reflect um up and down the island.

So are there any other sites is the question yeah they have a simulation on here and it looks big quality well i think it's important that we're prepared for a couple of um um pushbacks on this uh first of all if we're looking to monetize this in any way uh there'll be some issues with that from members of the public if you recall there's a lot of uh advocates that are fairly certain that cell phone um cell phones give off certain uh levels of uh of uh emissions uh through the air and transmit waves that cause uh diseases.

And I know that you yourselves uh we've all received uh electronic messages from advocates about this.

They're kind of um to all elected officials, if you recall those.

I think it's the 4G network and those kind of things.

I don't really know much, honestly.

I I don't know how it really works, but I just know that there's a lot of advocates out there about it, and I think we should be prepared for that as well.

So, to you know, to our um desire to have a presentation, that should probably be included in it as well.

Oh, absolutely.

I mean, you know, I I think other than just this big tower going up being an ISOR, yes, it'll improve cell service.

Rogers Communications will monetize off it.

They just bought Shaw Communications, they're the largest telecommunications company in Canada.

Uh, there's a there's a lot going on with it.

So, yeah, I mean I don't I don't disagree with any of that, but I don't I don't think there's anything wrong with us asking them to come and make a presentation on exactly what they have planned and clarifying the business.

Um I mean, I'm curious about the size of it for sure, because that really does look highly intrusive into the landscape.

But I'm I'm also curious about their business arrangement where Rogers, who is a publicly owned corporation or public stocks, um is making an agreement with the province on a tax exempt property.

Um and I think we have every right to question that.

Yeah.

So a motion to ask Rogers to make a presentation.

Yeah, absolutely.

So all in favor?

Yeah, and could when we ask when they show pictures of what it's supposed to look like, rather than just showing one from the highway from like miles back to the extra.

It would be great to see it in perspective of how how it's actually going to what what are those?

Not a rendering.

What am I looking for, Lindsay?

When we when for developments, when we ask for the sighting of how a six story building is going to look from different angles what would be the the proper way to ask for that for the power we ask for a photorealistic uh context image okay so they would they would take the they would take photos and and insert what they're proposing into those photos okay but but the important part is from what would the residents see as opposed to this nice one from driving down the highway a mile away yeah yeah right okay all in favor that's carried.

Okay, so next we have 10 so bylaws.

So we need to receive the staff report for the 2022 tax rates and that's anyone has any questions.

Councillor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um I would appreciate uh staff including the um uh dissipated tax rates for the CRD in the Capital uh Housing District or Hospital.

Um, do we know what uh school district 61 um tax will be?

What their taxes will be probably not, I said yes, I would imagine.

Don Your Worship uh and Council, yes, we do have that rate.

Do I have it off the top of my head and at my fingertips?

Unfortunately, I don't.

That of course is set by the province.

The reason why that the capital regional district rates are in this bylaw is because we calculate those rates rates, whereas the school, the province, uh just gives us the rates and we apply them to our system.

Okay.

It may be if staff, if you could just email it out to us just for our information.

We always publish those rates on our website as well, but certainly, yes, we can distribute those to council.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I guess the other question, your worship, um, we had some uh some confusion with respect to um um when the taxes are due and the time frames and um payment methods, uh all that uh kind of discussion last time.

Um will we have um uh have we are we sure about um the the circumstances so uh there won't be any more ambiguities or confusions uh this year that has to actually we never did not that that has anything to do with the tax rate but there was a point about modification we we never did get cut after the the business of online payments we never did finish that um close the loop on that was included so your your worship if I may the intention of uh this report and the bylaw that uh you will consider in a few minutes is that there is an additional phrasing in there that allows the collector to reverse a penalty if a taxpayer who was charged a penalty provides independent documentary evidence that the payment was made on or before the due date, even though perhaps the receipt of the payment to the town was delayed due to processing time.

So we believe that we have uh, as you say, closed the loop on that that would allow uh and it's in it's in the bylaw that uh the collector may reverse the penalty upon independent documentary evidence.

Right.

I see that here.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's great.

Okay.

Good.

Okay, so we need a motion to receive staff's report.

Okay, so that's moved, seconded.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And then we need first, second, and third reading of bylaw 109.

So I'll move first, second, and third, second.

Okay, so that's moved by councillor Matson, seconded by Councillor Kowalovich.

Comments, questions, discussion.

It hurts.

Okay.

Thank you for the work, the staff.

Yeah.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And then we have garbage.

Yeah, the staff.

Do we want to hear from staff on the garbage household food waste collection user fees?

Just a question.

Okay.

Go ahead.

So on the uh page two or three, um the staff right at the very top of the calf talked about the land tipping fees uh increasing uh for 2022.

Um have we built in or is the the chart that's provided showing us the uh increments year after year?

Do those increments give some any idea what we might anticipate for the CRD's um plan for annual increase of tipping fees?

Uh through your worship, uh while we don't have a five-year time frame for what the CRD's plan is for increasing those those tipping fees, we have projected, uh, you know, and and just like any other crystal ball gazing, we we may be very close and we may not be as close.

Um, the intention with projecting those into the future uh was to try to avoid uh perhaps sharp spikes and or peaks in our user rates going up and instead have a longer term plan so that our residents can kind of count on a little bit of an incremental increase rather than a big increase all at once.

So a short answer to your question is while we don't have firm rates from the CRD, we have projected increases that we hope are close.

Great.

Another question.

So in uh in the section on user fees, um you said the garbage collection user fees would be projected um based on 2800 dwelling units.

So um over the five years, let's say we you know we're going up I don't know, 200 units every over the time.

So does that uh at the end of the fifth year, let's say we have now 3,500 um um units.

Does the number of those different or increased number of units does that help spread the cost or balance the costs um by year five?

Or does that mean we've got now more for the uh uh the garbage men to pick up and and um uh so their their cost is going to be going up as well than increased number of units?

A very good question.

Thank you.

Primarily, uh there's a couple of factors that I that I was thinking of as you as you were asking the question.

One is that uh our garbage regulation applies to uh single, when I say single family residential primarily, but certainly multifamily is excluded.

So so to the extent that you expect uh single uh family or uh up to a fourplex to increase in view royal, that would be what would drive those numbers up.

The other aspect is that both curbside collection um, I'm sorry, the the collection cost that would be the our contractor cost to drive around and pick up the garbage as well as the uh volume of garbage and that drives the tipping fees are are certainly variable costs that would increase by the number of people using the system so while we might add more revenue we are actually adding more cost as well so that effect of kind of spreading out more of the cost to more users is going to be somewhat in fact quite a lot minimized by that.

Yeah thank you counselor it's a big night for you, Don.

You've got a lot on um will will each householder or or resident be receiving a an individual letter, or will the information about this come out via social media and on town news e newsletters and so on?

We hadn't thought about a direct mail piece, as that's rather a costly way to distribute the information, but certainly sharing the information through our website, through our newsletter, our e-updates, and Twitter, and however we can.

Now I do note that throughout the budget process, we have been, if if the public has been watching any of those materials that have been coming out, we have we we in fact projected that the increase would be $40 to the user fee, and in in fact it's a little bit less than that for 2022.

So we are trying to get the word out and we certainly will make concerted efforts to to make that apparent.

Okay thank you.

Council Matson so just thinking when we put out the average the annual letter on when people get sent their taxes we could easily just note well I was trying to think I I thought it was actually noted in there the yeah but we saw Don was nodding her head yeah, it is.

It will be identified specifically there.

Uh perhaps we can highlight that a little bit more, just bring it their attention.

And and and I think what what I hope will be of interest to our residents is that um while this year may be uh you know a little bit more of a jump than they're used to, uh we are wanting to make it a five-year, you know, frame that they can see what the rates are projected to be over that five years, so they can be reassured that it's not going to be this kind of a jump each and every year going forward.

And so my question would be just following up on that, I guess it's not a question, but so thirty-five dollars the first year, nineteen dollars the next, and then ten dollars for each of the the following three years.

And if you were to compare that to sort of other municipalities where you can actually break it down to uh an annual cost, where's comparable to those municipalities, except for most of them they're bi-weekly and ours is weekly.

Just as a is that a sort of like a quick summary since the public aren't getting a long presentation.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

And certainly it is very, very hard to compare rates between municipalities, but at the end of the day, um, that is what the residents will do is is compare rates regardless of you know how often the service is or how the service is provided.

Okay, thank you.

You know, as rates go up, and this is you know a bit of a segue, but to to Councillor Matson's point, as rates go up, and it you know it people are under um such financial stress these days and and pressures at some point we might want to consider or at least have the discussion about whether or not to go to biweekly.

Well not now.

Not now understood at some point anyway that's that's that I think if I may um maybe we'll we'll have it later but uh I I understand the rationale why we what we did the way we did I'll move did we move receipt so we need to move receipt of staff's report so moved okay moved by councillor matsen seconded by councillor rogers all in favor pros that's carried and then we need first second and third of byla 1098 so moved first second third move by councillor mattson.

Second seconded by councillor rogers.

Everybody's good.

Great.

All in favor proposed that's carried.

Thank you, Don.

So next up we have rezoning application 10 Erskine Lane.

Mr.

Chow.

Thank you, your worship.

The purpose of this presentation is to present some new information relating to the rezoning application for 10 Erskine Lane, introduce the rezoning bylaw, schedule a public hearing, and add a requirement that a covenant be registered concurrent with fourth meeting for community amenities.

This outline we will cover the background, the proposed zone, the development concept, how the official community plan relates, and some impacts on transportation and servicing, and the community managing contributions and some additional information since the application was first introduced to council in January of this year.

This is the subject property, 10 Erskine Lane.

And as you'll recall, it is adjacent to townhouses of 14 Erskine Lane, and across the street are two large properties for which development permits have been issued, and 9 Erskin Lane has started sort of some initial clearing work.

In terms of the zoning history, just recap the property was rezoned in 2008 for 30 apartment units, and the amenities identified at that time was to construct a sidewalk from the site to Erskine to Watkiss Way and another sidewalk from the site to the Galloping Goose access at the end of Erskine Lane and an improvement to the width of that path to the uh to the Gallop and Goose.

The proposal is to rezone from permitting 30 units to 43 units.

As a result, there would be an increase in the amount of uh closed floor area and building height.

So this is the zone.

This is kind of a table that summarizes the uh the zone that's been considered by law 1093 in terms of uses.

Uh there's no there's no change.

Uh the uh the main changes for the number of units, the gross, the uh floor space ratio, um, the building height.

In this case, it's the the height would change from 12 meters to 17.5 meters.

Um, the other text that you see there has to do with um stepping the building down towards the townhouses at at Erskine Lane, and we'll sort of show you that a little bit later.

And it would increase the building from three stories to five stories.

Uh the the development variants, development permit that was approved in 2008, varied the building height to permit four stories.

In this uh this zone, we would actually just say five.

So the previous development further was for four stories.

So you though even though it sounds like it's an increase from three.

Uh lot coverage, there's no change, and uh there are there is um some minor changes to the to the setbacks that relate to one relates to um where the front lot line is, and and originally it was thought to be Erskine Lane, but under the zoning bylaw definition, it's the the cul-de-sac, the far end of the of the lot that's actually the front lot line, and the rear lot line is the uh the lot line abiding the townhouses.

Um and this is just a site data summary that that shows their development concept, uh, which is for 43 units, and they would they would the concept is is to meet all the uh the parking requirements as well.

Um so as council will recall uh this is a rezoning and the focus is the land use, uh, but the applicant has provided uh kind of a concept of what they what they intend to build, and so we'll we'll cover that a little bit and and and um explain visually how that complies with the proposed zone.

Uh so this is um this is a site plan of the property with the building kind of in the center.

Um in the hatched area there is uh it would be a road dedication because the width of Erskine Lane is substandard.

Um as a result, the the it a lot of the quite a portion of the land would be dedicated for road.

Uh but the main concept is for a building that would have a driveway accessed from the uh the furthest end of the site that curls around the building into a surface parking lot and underground parking.

At the west end of the site adjacent to the townhouses part of the underground parking would extrude up to the ground.

Because the property slopes from Erskine Lane towards the Galloping Goose Trail, the south end of the the um the concealed parking would stick under the ground up to 1.5 meters about five just over five feet and that would be used as almost like a like a deck for the for the property here.

Another item to note here is in the back there the Galloping Goose Trail is is uh is a former railbed and when when it was built through there um this uh depression was created uh that separates the site from the galloping goose trail and it's fairly natural and and uh in the wintertime it does hold some water and the design here um uh there are a number of trees at the at the rear of the property that would be preserved as kind of uh as kind of a to help uh accentuate the buffer between the galloping goose trail and and the main building that's one of the concerns for this for the CRD uh this is a revised development concept um that kind of um uh moves parts of the building around a little bit, and the idea here is to create a transition down to the townhouses.

And so when you're looking at the property from from Erskine Lane, um it's got different uh different layers and different levels to it, uh, with kind of a five-story element being being closer to the cul-de-sac end and transition transitioning down to the to the townhouses.

Uh from the rear you can sort of see part of the uh where part of the underground parking would be exposed, but that would be fairly level with the existing grade.

And from the and there's different sides of the building.

The lower right hand corner is uh the view of the building as seen from the adjacent townhouses.

Um the the uh the grade is actually a little hard to see in this illustration.

We'll see it another, but that shows that that's a it's a three-story building element that faces the townhouses with the upper two stories set quite a bit back.

This is the uh illustration shows the previously approved development permit and the proposed.

So the black and white buildings uh is the over 2008 development permit, and you can sort of see that uh that it was uh three stories at seven and a half meters away from the townhouses with the fourth floor setback.

Um the current proposal is for a 5.4 meter uh setback, but it would still be only three meters.

Uh the building is raised a little bit uh which is better from a uh streetscape perspective because the previous proposal the uh some of the buildings were were almost you know half a floor below the the street level uh so in terms of streetscape this proposal is better it's it's a good compromise in terms of um of creating a transition to the existing townhouses uh this is a uh closer view of uh what the adjacent properties would see at the townhouse and uh in this case because there are some balconies that are proposed as well uh that face the townhouses um they would uh some privacy screens are proposed that would that would create another uh visual buffer between the two properties digital design comment again the design will be formally addressed at the development permit stage um this is the development concept which may still be subject to change but the again the the zoning is designed to allow the building to sort of step towards uh step down to five stories to three stories to two stories on the adjacent property which is also further up the slope uh stepping back up with floor uh reduces the building mass and adds visual entrance to the roof line, and again, the uh the building and parking are cited to preserve that stand of trees at the at the south end of the property.

Uh in terms of the rezoning proposal, it complies with the mixed use mixed residential line use designation in the OCP and would provide additional density that would support the commercial and employment needs for the uh for the hospital neighborhood center.

Uh it's generally in keeping with other official community plans, which includes promoting complete streets.

This is an opportunity where additional pedestrian and cycling amenities could be provided in terms of an improved connection to the galloping goose.

Uh, these they've got street oriented ground level units that have a direct connection to the street, which is better than apartments and condos having a single entrance.

This provides more of a connection to the uh to the neighborhood.

The building firm makes efficient use of limited land, and uh it's in a location that has multimodal transportation opportunities, as in it's not a long walk to the nearest bus stop.

Uh but the intent is to mainly maintain trees in the back corner of the property.

In terms of the environment, it's not in an environmental DP area.

And while the trees along the west property line adjacent to the townhouses would be removed, there would be a kind of a one meter uh stretch where a hedge can be placed to sort of um sort of help soften the edge of the uh of the development.

In terms of transportation impact, additional 13 units is not going to improve impact traffic volumes, but the Ministry of Transportation approval is still required prior to force leading because the site is close to the highway.

Uh BC Transit supports the proposal because it would increase density along the local transit network corridor.

Basically, buses that run from the hospital have a high level of service, as well as a couple of I think two routes that are on Watkiss Way.

Exits the site.

The 2019 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan anticipates increased density and modeling is not required for the additional 13 units in terms of additional stormwater drainage loading.

A recent strain and drainage analysis indicates that there's no downstream upgrade needed to the municipal drainage system.

And road dedication is required along Erskine Lane because the width of that road allowance is substandard.

Road dedication was also taken across the street for the two properties to uh to meet our standards.

In terms of community amenity contribution, the applicants agreed to provide the amenities originally proposed as part of the uh rezoning that consists of the sidewalk from the site to uh to Watkiss Way and to the trail connection to the Galloping Beast, as well as widening the uh the pathway to the actual path to the Galloping Goose.

The standard at the time was for 1.8 meters wide sidewalk, so our current standard is two meters.

So it's staff recommends a portion of the community amenity contribution funds be used to make up that difference so that you get a full standard sidewalk that meets current standards.

And of that, the town's CAC policy was recently amended so that 10% of the contribution would be provided to the to the Capitol Regional Housing Trust Fund to supplement the town's annual contribution.

The application was also reviewed by the Joint Advisory Committee in January, and they discussed a number of items, but ultimately the committees advised council that they support the rezoning application as presented.

In terms of community engagement, the applicant held two online public information meetings once in November and the second at the end of March.

And the applicant indicates that the greatest concern was uh just about the extent of development that's happened along this street.

And uh and while the actual number of units was not a concern, uh the height of the building was a concern for some residents due to privacy and shading.

And that's where the applicant has come back with with a building that kind of steps uh that provides a great greater stepping.

Um recommendation is that the applicant that the bylaw be given first and second reading and that a public hearing be scheduled for uh two weeks from now, May 17th, uh as part of um and prior to fourth reading that that a covenant be registered to uh to provide the community to manage contributions and the road dedication.

So that completes the presentation.

Uh the applicant is I believe is in the chambers as well, and uh we will both we both uh available to answer any questions that council may have okay thank you staff questions for staff councillor matts and yes uh thanks Jeff so my my big concern in in a project like this especially given what's happened to the the general area and then you know the the impact with the and the must many hundreds of units that are being built on the street uh isn't the extra traffic on the road, it's the impact on the adjacent townhouses in terms of the heights of the building and that loss of that um sort of the treed the treed area that's it's now going to be cut down and turned into turned into a hedge.

And so I'm really concerned about what the impact is going to what it's going to look like from the townhouses, and and I really don't have a feel from the presentation that they won't be a significantly negative impact on the townhouses as opposed to what was currently allowed.

No, and I I see that, but what I don't get is uh a perspective of what it would look like from the townhouses.

The next picture.

If you're from the townhouses, you you wouldn't be happy with that.

I mean, it looks awful.

Jeff, just back to the other slide just for a sec.

So is the distance from edge of the proposed building to the edge of the existing townhouses?

That's 10 meters, basically, right?

Uh there's a three space there.

Through your ship, that's correct.

There would be uh the balconies do stick out a little bit.

And in for the townhouse, uh the the middle unit of that townhouse is is a little bit closer to the uh to the uh about a meter closer to the uh to the property line.

Um so it'll be a little bit less than 10 meters i mean part of it my understanding was initially when we when this was first put forward that forested area or treed area with the large trees on the property line between the two properties it would have stayed there now now they're all gonna be cut down and so that's a a large concern for me i mean this would be much easier to take if there was a stand of trees in between the two properties sure I I think rather than letting you sort of do one offs maybe we'll get you to come up in in a minute and then you can address the the concerns you hear that would be great.

Okay that's counselor lemmon.

Sure.

And my question is probably for the applicant.

Uh and and that is I'm I'd be interested in knowing um how how much participation there was in the consultation consultations and the and the feedback that you received.

Thank you.

Councilor Rogers?

Yeah uh a number of questions um uh you know it's great to hear from the OCP perspective but also I'd be uh curious to hear from the climate action perspective um you know uh step code and and uh, what your heat source would be um um the the traffic consultant report was really good uh and it had uh made recommendations of bike share um uh to increase ridership on the galloping goose and and modems moto sharing.

Um so interested in that.

Um I I do see the um the screening.

I was uh I got a clear message from that.

I'd be curious to know, I guess, from the public hearing how the residents will feel about that.

But it does seem um from the staff report that there was a variance.

The rear was 10 meters existing, or maybe sorry, it or the existing property was 10.

Um 2008 is 7.5, and now we're dropping down to 5.4.

So it seems like Well, why don't you ask staff that?

That's a question for staff.

Yeah, so is that staff?

Let me repeat that.

So back to original house as it is today is 10 meters.

This uh 2008 drawing showed us it was gonna be 7.5, I guess.

And now we're down to uh 5.4 um setback from property.

Yeah, uh through you, your worship.

Um the the 2008 rezoning and the development permit address used the Erskine Lane frontage that we're looking at right now as the front of the lot.

And so the rear lot um that that was described in the zoning is actually the where the we're the on the galloping goose side of the property.

Um so the way the zoning bylaw defines defines what a front lot line is, it's the narrowest um lot line on on a street.

That is the cul-de-sac end of the property.

So what we're looking at here, uh because so the the proposed bylaw and the previous bylaw looked at the site differently.

Um so this bylaw um the uh so this bylaw um considers the driveway, the far left side of the building to the front lot line, and in which case the uh the setback was was seven and a half meters back then and uh so it wasn't was not reduced from ten meters.

The the the development permit that was approved was for a building that might be seven and a half meters from the townhouses.

The proposal is for 5.4 meters, which is a difference of 2.1 meters, which is uh six or seven feet.

So and let me put it another way.

Um when I'm again I'm looking at your proposed zoning on uh document uh page seven, and uh you show us that the uh the side flanking, which is Urskin Lane, uh I guess that's you know the part facing the cul-de-sac, um the setback is six meters, and there's no change, so it's six meters.

So wouldn't would is it possible that the building could shift down towards the cul-de-sac by one meter?

So the the the setback from Erskine Lane where there's no houses to five meters, thus giving us an additional one meter or s you know, um away from Fortune Erskine Lane?

Uh through you, your worship.

The the left hand side of the the building here, that space is actually a driveway the driveway access to the rear of the property.

It's already as close as it can be to the to the cul-de-sac.

So they're they're out of space.

See.

So again, we could give them part of the road.

Our loss, not not uh to save the uh the tenants or the number 14.

All right, interesting.

Um you you're I'm pleased to see that um uh and I gather there's an agreement with the applicant to um widen the um trail down to the galloping goose.

Um, you know, but I don't uh is there a design uh that uh the town has or the CRD has provided us design specs for uh that trail to widen it for bikes and pedestrians uh through your worship now the covenant would be uh requires them to provide that and that design would be subject to approval by the town okay thank you that's all the questions I have for you good okay well I don't change so yeah if you'd like to come up please to the podium and give us your name and affiliations and all right is this working I think so okay yeah um yeah, through your worship.

Uh, my name is Elaine Gibson.

I work with Wiser Projects, and we're the development consultants for this project, um, which is owned by Parsi Development who are local developers.

Um, yeah, so I'll I'll go through the questions.

I think I caught everything there.

Um, I think Jeff did a great presentation for all of the technical issues, so thank you, Jeff.

Um, the first question was about um the trees of the building uh and the height and how that is going to be impacted or viewed from the townhouse lot.

Um, and it can be hard to tell how these are actually gonna feel and look once they're built out from these diagrams.

Um, but in terms of how the change is gonna feel compared to what the current zoning allows, which is three three stories, um, those upper floors, because we've stepped the fourth and fifth floor back further from the lot line, they're gonna have very little visibility over and into the townhouse property at all.

They might just see some of the roof lines, but they're not going to be able to see into the yards really or into the units at all.

So that step back with sort of the deck on the third floor ensures that there's privacy on both sides for both the new tenants and the existing tenants in the townhouses.

In terms of the trees between the properties, I believe that any trees that are on the townhouse side will remain.

Those should be able to be saved as long as the root zones aren't larger than anticipated.

And initially, when we submitted this application, the landscape concept, which again would be pinned down during development permit, but what we had proposed on that side was a hedge.

But since the first public engagement meeting and speaking to the neighbors and looking at the site a little bit more, it should be possible with the parking structure to allow enough space there to actually plant full-size trees.

So we should be able to replace some trees along that property boundary, which again would add to the privacy for both the new and existing tenants.

And then in terms of the first three floors, as mentioned, it's roughly a 10 meter separation.

The townhouses only have a 4.4 meter setback from that lot line, so they're already fairly close to the lot line, but it wouldn't be, you know, a significant difference in the feel between the current zoning and what's proposed.

The setback is a little bit smaller, but the replacement of those trees will really help with that.

We did hear from neighbors that and everybody always feels that we want to save the trees.

It'll add some greenery.

So I think, you know, our feeling is that obviously it'll be change, it'll be a change in perspective, but it won't be too big of an impact on the privacy, which is what we heard concerns from the neighbors about.

And then in terms of the engagement and the turnout that we had and what we heard, we initially for the November meeting, we dropped off flyers at all of the townhouse uh units, as well as single family homes, you know, on the corner of Watkiss and Erskine, and then even the subdivision on the other side of that road.

Um, the turnout, we only got folks from this the townhouses at 14 Erskine.

Um, I think the first meeting, there was roughly seven people there.

Um, and we did get a comment that some folks would much prefer in-person engagement.

People were feeling Zoom fatigued.

Um, they feel you know, in-person is a more productive way.

So we took that um into account.

And we did offer for the second engagement that was just recently held to have it in person, um, look like on their strata in their community hall.

But when we were holding it, the vaccine passports were still in effect.

Um, and so because of that, they actually requested a virtual engagement again for that.

Um, and that one, I believe, we had five or six people turn out.

Um it sounds like they are um as a whole, you know, there's a lot going on, and there was a lot of engagement for 9 Erskine Lane across the street.

So perhaps people were a little bit burnt out from that.

And that might be why we didn't get more turnout.

I am in contact with the Strata Council there though, and have offered to have phone calls or meetings with anyone that has concerns.

But again, the the concerns were about the scale of change.

There was one or two residents that were from the townhouses that face directly onto that lot, and privacy and shading were the concerns.

And so that was really the driver of this design change that you see.

Previously, the fourth floor would have been right up in line with the rest of the building, and only the fifth floor was stepped back.

And so pulling that back really makes the feel of the building from the townhouses closer to the current zoning as close as possible.

And both meetings folks really expressed the desire for community amenities to be focused in the local area to with the idea that it's supposed to offset impacts of development and provide amenities for that local community.

So we we communicated that to staff, and we're happy to see that the sidewalk, which was part of the original development permit, would be tied to this as well.

And the trail connector for the galloping goose, that was also brought up specifically by residents.

So we're also happy to see that that's one of the community amenities that we would be committing to.

I'm also a cyclist and I've used that trail, and it's very narrow and awkward to get off to.

So personally, I'm excited about that as well.

In terms of climate action and the step code, we haven't gotten that far in the planning process yet because this is just a rezoning, so just for the land use and the density.

We haven't had deep conversations about step code requirements or you know, heating and cooling systems.

But I think our client is interested in providing um comfortable and safe housing and and looking at all the options.

A lot of municipalities, I'm actually not immediately familiar with View Royal's requirements, but in a lot of municipalities, we're already looking for step code three um and sometimes the jump to get to step code four um depending on the the site and the building specifics um it's not too much of a jump in terms of the cost to the developer um so it's something we'll look into um and and pursue a little bit further um there's a question about the screening and what that would look like um it uh the this would be sort of pinned down during the development permit again but the proposal is um sort of a corrugated metal look um a patterned metal um yeah, you can see there.

So if you were sitting on the balconies of this new building, unless you were right up against those screens, you wouldn't really be seeing any activity um at 14 Skin Lane in the townhouse property.

If you're just sitting out there enjoying your balcony, you're gonna have privacy from those units, and vice versa.

And the uh the community uh had mixed feelings.

Some of them really liked them, some felt it wasn't enough privacy.

Um, they felt like you could still see through them too easily.

Um, but I think the actual product that would be used, it would be sort of the aim would be that you wouldn't be seeing a lot of activity outside of it unless you're right up close to it, which most people hopefully wouldn't be doing.

Um, and I believe the rest of the questions were directed at staff, and I think those were answered pretty well about the setbacks and the design for the trail to the galloping goose.

Um, but I'm happy to answer any other questions or clarifications if there are any.

Yeah, good one.

Yeah, well, thank you.

You did a very good job of the ones that were asked.

Councillor Matson.

I mean, one of my concerns when we have uh a project is you know what amenities are there on site for the residents, and then number nine, they've got a whole bunch of areas for the public for the residents can actually go to on that site.

What is what have you got here for them?

Yeah, thank you.

Um, through through the mayor.

Um, this this building is in the scheme of multi-family buildings, still relatively small with 43 units.

And so the current design doesn't have like a specific amenity room that some larger projects might have.

You know, once you get to the 100 unit count, that's pretty uh pretty common to see.

Um, but I think that the the site itself, all the units will have balconies, um, which doesn't always happen on multifamily buildings, and the location of the site is so desirable that I think there's enough amenities through parks and trail access, um, services and transit um that those those specific amenities are less necessary.

Um yeah, I think I think the balconies would be the the biggest private ones for the residents alone.

There's no like play area for kids or places people can go sit on on the on the grass, park benches, those sorts of things.

No, and unfortunately it is a bit of a tight site.

Um, and because we're now um providing that right of way against Erskine Lane to be able to widen the road, it's tightened the site a little bit further.

Um, so to be able to meet the parking requirements um and provide the density that we're looking for, there's not a lot of space, unfortunately, for sort of common outdoor common areas on the site.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilor Rogers.

Yeah, thanks.

Um I'd asked about um um the transportation advisory or sorry, the transportation report spoke of uh ideas like bike share.

Is that is that something that uh your clients will um bring to uh uh the tenants?

Yeah, so through the mayor, um that's not something that we've discussed previously, but I we did note that in the transportation impact assessment.

Um it's not something the developer has done in the past either, so it'd be breaking new ground to see how it would work.

Um it's definitely something we're willing to look into and see how it might work logistically.

And the logistics of managing a bike share would be different in either case.

I mean that's one of the things that number nine um uh up there up the road from you.

Uh they've they've been uh you know we were very impressed with their uh approach on that and and getting keeping uh the people out of cars as much as possible.

Um and you're right next to the galloping goose, so uh I think that would be a um something I would look forward to uh hearing back that uh yes indeed the the uh I think with number nine we did um that was part of the development permit process rather than the rezoning process.

Yeah, yeah, so it's definitely something to work on.

And um hopefully by this time we'll with number seven, number nine and and yours, um modal sharing, car sharing would be um uh something that they they'd finally be willing to pick up on.

You know, one of the huge advantages for this location is the elementary school.

So close.

But you don't have any three bedrooms.

Yeah, through the mayor.

Um that comment came up, I think, at committee of the whole when this project came through, or maybe even I had done a delegation before the the staff report back in the fall.

And the project architect after that comment did manage to rework it a little bit.

And it's possible to fit at least one three-bedroom.

And there's a couple of units that are two bedrooms plus a den, but it's only a den because it doesn't have an exterior facing window.

So, you know, two bedroom units can work for young families depending on the situation.

And there should be space for one three bedroom.

Unfortunately, again, because of the site constraints and sort of the economics of the site, it becomes challenging to fit in.

But it's something that this developer definitely is looking to do is to provide family units wherever possible.

So we'll keep looking at that through the development permit stage.

And if there's anywhere to squeeze it, we would definitely look at that.

Okay.

In your letter correspondence to us, you spoke of two options.

It was option one, option two.

Is this what are we looking at here?

Yeah, through the mayor.

So this is option two.

So in my our correspondence, the developer's preference was that original design that you would have seen at Committee of the Whole.

It just in terms of building design, it's a more balanced look and it provides actually more sort of amenity space for individual units because the top floor units would have those bigger rooftop balconies or patios.

Whereas this design uh limits that to just the couple units on the fourth floor.

Um, however, we we wanted to to look at a design that did meet the or address the concerns of the neighbors.

Um, and in talking with staff, they recommended that we just move forward with one option.

Um just to simplify, and this is the one that that does hopefully meet the meet the needs of the neighbors.

Um so this is what we've presented today.

Okay, all right.

Thanks for the clarification.

Thank you, worship.

Great.

Everyone else is good, good.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So, I mean, I guess the the big question on this is I mean, when you boil it right down, is that they're zoned to do the three stories than the 30 units.

And so the question is the whether we're allowing the extra height and the extra units and receiving the sidewalk and the community amenity funds in in return.

But anyhow, I just throw that out there.

But we we there is a staff recommendation there if someone's proposed to is prepared to move it.

Yes, move.

Okay.

So move by Councillor Rogers.

Is there a second her?

I'll second it.

So it's moved and seconded staff's recommendation.

So discussion.

Yeah.

I think the the if I may, which I thought, I think we've gone as far enough as we can.

Um I I appreciate um the applicant uh having the two open houses, but now it's time for us to hear from the community.

See what they say.

Okay, yeah, I concur.

I'm I'm fine with sending it forward to a public hearing.

Others, Councillor Mattson?

Yeah, I mean, from my perspective, it it's way it's too much building for the site.

Um and and I really have a concern about what what it's gonna look like from the adjacent site, and I really don't like the loss coming closer to the the property line and and the loss of uh the tree barriers.

Um so you know going to public hearing is one thing, but from my perspective, like like there's not enough in there for me.

Uh I mean, I'm really not happy with it enough that I would actually support it at this point in time.

You know, if the residents come out and say that they're happy with it, um, because that would change my mind.

But if I've you know, from my perspective, if the residents come out and say they're unhappy and have concerns, I won't be able to support this.

But I'd have to see what the residents say.

Yeah, I think that's fair enough.

I mean, I think it's important that the residents understand when this goes forward to public hearing that presuming it does.

The the amenities that are, you know, the fact that the 30 units, I mean, that's done.

So there's no all they need to do for that is is apply for a development permit.

So the difference is whether or not for that extra height in resident, the unit numbers that we want to get the sidewalk.

And I think that's an important question of whether that trade-off is is worth it personally.

But just use other people I'm not I'm not arguing your your point.

I'm just saying that's the kind of decision that has to be made.

Yeah.

And and and certainly in 2008, um the sidewalk was a critical component for um.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, yeah, why it was approved.

Yeah, and it's it's unfortunate back then that um we um had missed the um uh getting the covenant, but um now those bases are covered and that won't happen again.

Yeah.

On my left.

Well, I want to thank Ms.

Gibson for your your openness and um for listening and for your candor.

Um I I struggle with any more density on Earth.

And um on the other hand, I do want to hear what the residents have to say.

So I I will, you know, with my vote won't necessarily reflect my approval of the project, but my agreement that it should go to public hearing.

Damien do you want to add anything?

Yeah I guess the only other consideration is uh when making this decision in the future uh obviously hearing from our constituents is is priority and uh the most important thing but uh we do have an opportunity to add more and I know I've said this in the past dare I say it affordable uh you know moderate level housing by adding the extra units as well so it's just consideration right yeah you know it's yeah yeah we're over uh we're giving the variance right but you're also providing 13 more potential families homes okay so i'm gonna call the question on moving staff's recommendation all in favor opposed so that's carried and then we need first and second of bylaw 1093 moved by councillor rogers, seconded by Councilor Kualovich.

All in favor, opposed.

That's carried.

Good.

Thank you, Steph.

Thank you for coming and speaking to us.

And next we're on to our favorite topic: election signs and logo usage.

Which I'm sure will be a captivating discussion.

Sarah, are you gonna lead us off?

I can certainly do that, your worship.

This will actually be a very quick conversation.

Uh it feels like one of those uh serial shows where I say, since since we've last spoken about this topic, uh, which was in April at the committee of the whole meeting, uh, council or the committee then asked for additional zones and clarification around the use, uh clarification on the number of signs.

So this report discusses the addition of two additional sign zones shown in the bylaw as sign zone four, and we'll talk about that in a minute, and sign zone nine.

And as well, it gives very clear information about the number of signs and the sign types, then in those sign zones.

So we'll we'll talk about that.

As well, you will see in front of you the MTI amendment, which wasn't provided but was discussed in the April report to the Committee of the Whole.

And so we can talk, and perhaps uh Carl produce webcast producer, if you will show us uh the sign zones, and we'll just look quickly at those.

And while you're doing that, I'll talk about the number of signs.

The draft bylaw now before you talks about large signs, meaning in the bylaw that you looked at in April, the draft bylaw did discuss this, which is a large sign zone is an election sign with a sign face that does not exceed, and we're going to use imperial four feet by four feet, and having a height that doesn't exceed eight feet as measured from the grade, and I'm going to paraphrase here to the top of the sign or its supporting structure, whichever is greater.

The bylaw also discusses small signs, and again we'll use imperial, and a small sign has each sign face, keeping in mind that an election sign can have just a double side.

So you see it on both sides as you go along either side of the road when you're traveling.

So each sign face not to exceed two feet by two feet, height not to exceed 3.6 feet as measured from the grade to the top of the sign or its supporting structure, again, whichever is greater.

And so that is for the small signs, the normal ones that you'd see in the wire frame that is traditional or typical these days for those types of signs.

And so the bylaw goes on to talk about where or the number of these signs.

So election signs are permitted or not permitted anywhere on town land or on town equipment, building structures, and my favorite word, and appurtenances there too, except for the areas within the nine sign zones that are identified in Schedule A, and we're going to flip through those on the screen in a minute, and with the following conditions.

A a candidate, elector organization, or third party advertising sponsor may place up to one large sign in a large sign area to a maximum of five signs in the town.

So those are those four by four, eight feet tall.

And a sign area is different than a sign zone, and you we'll see that in the in the maps in a minute.

A and and the same group of people, candidate, elector organization, or third-party advertising sponsor may place up to three small signs in each sign zone to a maximum of 27 signs in the town.

So five large, 27 of the small ones.

The five large can go in in only in the large sign areas.

I don't know if we have five or six large sign areas identified in the maps, but basically trying to limit those to those, you know, one one per the area, but no more than five, and then three on each of these zones that we're going to look at.

So this gives you the overview in the bylaw as to trying to get good coverage.

Try to keep in mind when we were placing these or selecting these when I was discussing them with the engineering department and the deputy corporate officer.

Things that made sense where they might have issues of safety, issues of well, what is will it interfere with traffic maneuvers or pedestrians or that type of thing.

So we tried to keep these in mind when we were selecting them.