Council Meeting

Well, I think we can call the meeting to order, and I'll begin by recognizing our friends and neighbors, the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

So tonight we have two DPs on the agenda, and there is, they have their own slot for the public who wishes to speak to them.

So any public wishing to speak to 280 Island Highway or the West Park Lane can call in at that time in the agenda.

And any public who wishes to speak to any other item on the agenda should do so under public participation, which will come up very quickly at the beginning of the meeting here.

And so to do that, you dial 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID number 132-260-538 pound.

And you'll be muted once admitted to the meeting and at the appropriate time in the agenda I will then announce the last four digits of your phone number, ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback, ask you to not use speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and ask that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

If you could give us your name and address for the record, please, and then you may give us the benefit of your views.

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 so, with that, if I can get a motion to approve the agenda, please.

Second.

Yeah.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And there's minutes from June 21st and June 28th.

Moved option.

Second.

Opposed, that's carried.

Thank you.

Comments, corrections?

No.

All in favor?

So under Mayor's report, I just want to acknowledge Director Chase.

This will be her last formal council meeting unless we have a special one.

Um so thank you, Lindsay.

We were talking yesterday and Lindsay's being with the town for 14 years, which is pretty remarkable.

And at a time when the town has changed in leaps and bounds, and um and a lot of process changes and improvements and things for the better, and significant things like Eagle Creek, the 2011 OCP.

Um, so you've left left, I think, a really strong foundation of good work.

So we appreciate and we wish you all the best in um Savage.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Staff, do we have any callers on the line?

Your worship, we have one caller, last four digits, 5493.

Okay, I suspect that caller is just listening.

Um caller 5493.

If if you wanted the to say anything, you could let us know.

Otherwise, we'll just carry on.

Is there anyone in the room who wanted to say anything under public participation?

Yep.

So then we're going to move right into the first development variance permit, which is 280 Island Highway.

Stop.

Thank you, worship.

Thank you, worship.

Jeff Chow, your planner.

I'm just going to load up the uh presentation here.

This is a development variance permit application for 280 Island Highway.

Um the variances that are requested in this case are a variance to the number of class one secure and covered bicycle parking spaces from 37 to 24, and a variance to the required width of maneuvering aisles in an underground parking area from 6.7 to uh 5.5 meters.

Thank you.

So this is a building that was constructed uh several years ago, the Maija London at 280 Island Highway.

Um when uh when the building was occupied, this the uh bicycle storage room in the underground parking area was converted to lock to a lot to storage lockers uh due to a uh real estate disclosure statement, and a number of U-hook bike racks were installed at the end of uh bicycle parking spaces.

Um this was not satisfactory for some uh some residents and so a uh development variance permit application was submitted to um to create a uh covered uh the cover part of the courtyard interior courtyard area to provide uh 24 parking uh bicycle parking spaces where the zoning bylaw requires 37.

As part of the proposal uh the the bicycle spaces in the underground parking area uh would be retained, but they don't meet the definition of uh secure and and covered uh bicycle parking spaces, but they will offset um some of the uh the the uh the difference in the in the variance.

Um as a result of that, uh it when bicycle spaces are parked at the end of an underground parking space, it narrows up the drive aisle a little bit, and hence the uh second variance is requested, which is to um to vary the width of uh drive aisles.

The variance is from 6.7 meters to 5.5.

That's really happens in the case where uh two opposing uh parking spaces have have uh bicycles parked in them, and that would cause the uh the vehicle space to sort of extend out into the drive aisle area.

Um the applicant uh conducted a parking study and uh and found that vehicles were still able to move uh in within that uh more narrow area.

And a petition from the uh from the property owners um 37 units, uh there were 32 people that responded to it uh that were in support of the proposal.

Um the one thing that would change in the underground parking area would be two floor-mounted uh bicycle racks that uh when a bike is there conflict with some parking spaces, those two parking spaces, two bike racks would be removed.

Uh so the recommendation is to uh support the variants.

It's not an ideal solution, but it is a a compromise that that's balances the interests of those that want storage lockers and those that want to use want to have a secure place for their for their bicycle parking.

Um having the the U hooks remain in the underground parking area is a way to uh provide additional storage to supplement the uh courtyard area if, for example, that courtyard area is is full up.

So the recommendation is to um support the proposal and the applicant is here if there's any questions.

Okay, thank you, Jeff.

Are there any questions for stuff?

No.

Oh good.

Um so there is an opportunity for comments from the applicant, but I don't think you need to.

No.

Okay.

Is there any public who'd like to speak to this?

Do we have any callers on the line, staff?

Your worship, we have no callers.

Okay, thank you.

There's no correspondence, so there is a recommendation there.

I'll move staff recommendation.

Thank you.

It's moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Just in terms of comments, if should they find out it's not satisfactory, they'll be able to sort of make the changes necessary.

So yeah.

Let's not go down that problem.

Well, in the future, I mean if it isn't working, they'll yes, but yeah.

Their residents it would be the ones having a problem to deal with it.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

All in favor.

All these things.

Opposed.

That's carried.

Thank you, Alan.

Thank you for coming to see us.

That was it, Alan.

Don't go, Alan.

So next up we have the development permit for 2000 West Park Lane.

Thank you.

This uh application is for a farm character development permit for a multifamily building at the uh West Park at Thetis Comprehensive Development.

Um this is for a five story condominium apartment building, well, four-story apartment building with two levels of underground underbuilding parking comprising phase four.

Uh there are some variances that are requested for the spacing and heighting height of retaining walls and for uh setbacks really related to the uh phase strata uh declaration.

So this is phase four of a comprehensive development that was rezoned in 2017 for a combination of apartment and townhouse um development.

Phase one and two are complete.

Uh those are townhouses.

Phase three, which are another uh group of townhouses, are under construction right now.

And this development permit is for phase four, which is um in the center of the site and and will be an apartment building.

It's got um it's got it's accessed by the central driveway, and it does slope down to the to the east.

And uh this building is a 48-unit building that's four stories on the street side and five to six stories on the back side of the building.

Unit mix is comprised of one and two bedroom units.

In terms of landscaping uh this is kind of a area wise it's a very it's kind of a small uh phase within the uh within the overall development uh so it's primarily building and there's some limited uh landscaping around the edge of it and it is kind of on a on a rock face because the site is essentially on two levels, and this is kind of the up the upper level, and this overlooks a um uh a uh tot lot in the in the earlier phase.

In terms of reviewing the development from an application, you have to look at how it complies with the development permit area guidelines, the zoning requirements, and how it meets on site servicing requirements.

It's in the mixed residential, it's in two development permit areas the mixed residential development permit area for form and character.

And this building is um is um has a has a look and feel that's very similar to the earlier phases, so more kind of neutral tones.

Um there are some variations in kind of the roof format from you know, pitched roof and townhouses compared to a flatter roof here.

Uh, when the application originally went uh to the community whole, um, there were concerns from staff about the the massing of the building, and part of that is mitigated by being a V-shaped building.

Um since that since that uh meeting, the applicant has added uh some roof features.

Um the uh the cornice with the fascias on the top of the building, and also the um at the back side of the building, um the uh the the balcony arrangement has been rearranged so that there are there are fewer blank large walls.

Uh this is the rear view of the building viewed from the uh from the playground area, and you can sort of see there's four stories of living area, two levels of underground parking.

Uh, there's also a kind of a retaining wall on two levels that we'll discuss a little bit further in the various section, and part that covers the uh lower parking area, the upper parking area, um, has some open uh walls in there to provide uh ventilation into the underground parking area.

It's also within the sensitive terrestrial ecosystems development permit area that has to deal with uh protecting the natural environment and and from hazard.

And uh, although this particular site is a cleared site, uh it's part of it's there was an overall environmental development perimeter area that looked at protecting and retained retained uh protects and retained trees on the perimeter of the property and addresses geotechnical steep slope uh issues.

Uh it also requires uh sediment, um control of sediment and erosion.

Uh in terms of interface fire hazard management um there are those uh those requirements were set out in in the in kind of an earlier development permit and were carried through through this one and that would include uh keeping low low fire fuel areas between buildings and the forest edge this one is more central to the site so that doesn't apply as much but it will have more fire resistant roofing and gliding materials and enclosed soffits and the building is to be sprinklered in terms of how it complies with the zoning um it the own it complies with the zoning in terms of um height and setbacks of to the to the property lines um and building height and uh the only variances are are basically two groups of variances.

One is for uh some retaining walls on the back side of the building, and a set of variances for setbacks to the phase boundaries, and we'll discuss that a little bit later.

In terms of the retaining walls, this has to do with the overall site being on two kind of general areas, two levels of development, this being on the upper level.

In this case, because the slope is quite steep, and there's and the building occupies quite a bit of this phase, the retaining walls need to be closer together, and hence the variance for setbacks.

Typically, they are required to be one to one.

So basically, for every meter up, you should go one meter back for a retaining wall.

In this case, the spacing is tighter because of the steeper slope at the rear of the site.

There are also a number of stacked boulder walls on the side of the buildings, but they are not visible from the street.

And as shown in the diagram there, they are terraced, so they comply with height regulations.

The visibility of the set set, the uh the retaining walls, uh, they are concrete.

Uh, and this building elevation on the left hand side, the rear of the building, you can sort of see how it's tiered.

Um, that kind of breaks up the height of the wall and also would have landscaping on the ground level, the second uh the first set of walls uh and on the top set of walls uh landscaping that would help mitigate mitigate the impact of the of the uh of the massing so on the left hand side um in term most of the retaining wall will be less than 1.5 meters but you can see as the the along the length of the building there's a couple of spots where there's some dips and that's where it could it may go as high as two meters but but uh this is what the variance is for.

Um in terms of impact on adjacent properties and dwellings is not significant and um being in a kind of an urban type development, the landscaping the the more um the uh the the intense planting along that wall will help uh break up the massing of that wall.

The phase the setback variances that are requested from six meters to 5.5 from the driveway, rear setback of uh 5.4 or 6 meters is required, side set side yard setback of uh 4.1 meters where 4.5 is required.

Um, those have to do with the phase boundaries because those this is a phase development, and uh, whenever you have a phase development, um, you do have to treat those phase phase lines like lot lines um in the event that future phases do not happen.

Um, and as each phase uh gets um gets completed, it gets built in, it gets added to the existing strata plans so we what you see on the plan there is you see the site is between future phases and built phases so once it's built um it would become part of the built phase the existing strata plan and the future phases will be well again will happen in the future uh but in the worst case scenario there are instances where um for whatever reason sometimes phase developments do um do not move forward for a long period of time and this uh this becomes a uh a lot line in that interim uh so in terms of uh impact on adjacent residents, there's no impact because there are no residents on along these phase boundaries to the future phases, and um they are kind of basically interim until the future project um builds out.

So the the variances can be supported.

In terms of servicing, um this is a comprehensive development.

So in terms of how the overall project connects to the town's um water, sewer, storm drain, and and kind of transportation systems, uh those are already in place.

Um but uh as each phase goes, uh you need to double check that uh each phase will meet the expected demands uh for the for servicing and conform with the uh the what the ultimate uh build-outs is going to be.

Uh in terms of stormwater management, there's an overall stormwater management that has been received and accepted by the town.

There is a requirement that there will be ongoing erosion and sediment control during the during the construction phase.

So overall, the project complies with the development permanent guidelines.

The variances can be supported, and the servicing is in place as it's part of a larger project.

The recommendation is to uh approve the application along with the variances, a number of conditions uh that kind of came out through the review process, including ensuring that rooftop mechanical units are visually screened, um, that sighted exterior lighting is to be dark skies friendly, uh, there'd be security deposit for for landscaping, and um and again meeting meeting the um the overall the environmental development prepared requirements for steep slope and uh interface fire hazard.

Um one note is the the retaining walls will require a separate building permit because they're not part of the building, and as part of that, they will require uh geotechnical engineering.

So, again, the uh the recommendation is to uh is to approve the application.

Uh the applicant, I believe, is online and uh staff are also available to answer any questions that council may have.

Okay, thank you, Jeff.

Questions for staff, Councillor Matson.

Mine's more of a water question.

I mean did I get from the the letter from the CRD water board that there's an issue of of the amount of water that's available.

Line's not big enough or something.

Through the chair I think I think the water line well a whole water line was built for the entire uh comprehensive development which includes this site as well as the uh as well as the CRD housing site.

So so there is adequate water to the site within the site is something that we need to they'll need to verify.

Okay.

So that's part of an ordinary kind of design.

You know, they just size the pipes correctly.

And so nothing for us to worry about at this point.

Okay, thank you.

Officer Rogers.

Uh got um I think questions to the applicant.

So, applicant, if you're on this is your opportunity if you if you have anything you'd like to say, or and I believe there's some questions for you as well.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, no, I thought uh counselor uh the uh presentation was uh complete, so I don't have nothing to add, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Counselor Rogers.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I was up the uh the site last night, and and I must say that I'm a lot happier now that I've seen uh the work that's been done since the last time.

So um I don't have any uh uh I have a much better understanding of how it's going to go in and um I don't have any problems with uh the variance requested.

But um unfortunately we didn't get a um a color board or or what do you call it uh uh materials board.

And um I'm a little concerned uh from the street perspective.

Um I think it's uh enticing and and uh you know quite inviting.

Um but from the other sides, particularly facing south, um I'm concerned about um the how white the uh the building exterior might be.

Um I when I looked uh from that viewpoint, I could see the Coho down on uh Wilford Avenue, and the Coho has um got a really uh strong uh West Coast um coloration, if you like.

I don't know, board materials uh they it really blends in with the um uh the landscape uh there.

And my so can you help me with um the color, you know, the the the whiteness of the materials?

Can you help me uh understand what color that really is?

Uh it's a soft gray, so it's not actually white.

Um, but the intent was to have a sort of play on the gray on gray and then let the uh cedar sort of be the accent piece.

Um doesn't necessarily show up that well on the renderings, but uh you know, we have the the horizontal cedar all along the base, and then we have the cedar at the soffits uh at the roof overhangs.

And uh it was thought that that would sort of be the the accent for the building.

Mm-hmm.

Okay, and then certainly I I like the the cedar that you've got in the bottom, I understand what you're saying at the top.

Um you know the um the the large piece if you're like in the middle um you know that I'm I'm hoping that we can get some kind of breakup so it's um I and I'm pleased to hear that it's gray not not a a white but um and that that would help I I think reduce the reflective light uh down to onto the buildings below.

Um have you got any ideas of can you go back to the architects and see about um um maybe putting more of a west coast um uh breakup if you like of that centerpiece?

Sure, sure, yeah.

No, we'd be happy to do that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh if I may another question.

Yeah, go ahead.

And then I'll I'll go to you, Lindsay.

Thank you.

Um along the landscaping along the uh the base there, um, pretty attractive.

Do you do you plan to put any larger trees to help break up the um the back massing?

Well, we're sort of limited by the uh way the retaining walls are, but it the hope is that over time those trees will grow and actually you know be fairly large.

But yes, we would like to maximize the height of the landscaping there.

That was the intent with the terraced uh retaining walls.

Uh my last question.

Yeah.

It certainly looks attractive from what I see there.

Um, staff have noted that the lighting will um uh reflect the dark skies uh aspects, which is important.

But um is there any exterior lights that you will have on again on the uh south sides uh where lights may be shining down onto the uh residents below?

Uh not on the south side, on the street side will have um some lights at the entry, but other than that it'll be um you know resident controlled lights at the balconies, and that's it.

Okay, thank you for your help.

Lindsay, you have a comment i if if uh council isn't satisfied with the design of the building that would be a reason to not approve the development permit tonight any changes would to the building design would necessitate uh amendments to the development permit just just to be just to be clear in terms of process i i think we can just leave it in the applicant's hands that if there's a way to make that less white um rather especially since we don't have meetings now till September, so it'd be quite a chunk of time for them.

Councillor Matt.

You know, just in terms of what I see there, it I'm really not very satisfied.

I mean, the front looks better than I mean, I looks horrible, and I'm not sure what it would look like to the residents.

And um, the sort of first times we've sort of seen what it looks like before we sort of get to this point.

But I I have to agree with John.

I mean, I'm really dissatisfied with what I see, and I you know part of I don't want to make too big of an issue because there's some of the other things on the site that I think are even worse than this, but that I would just hate to, you know, this this is something I really wouldn't want to see duplicated anywhere in terms of what I see there.

Well, I mean, I guess a couple of things.

I mean, A, the I think our main decision point is whether it meets the requirements of our development permit area.

Um but I mean, I don't, for example, I think they're far more attractive buildings than the CRD buildings.

But for what that's dabbing with brain, yeah.

But I mean, that's like you know, you gotta admit that's just not some something that's going to look good to the people who are you know staring up at it.

It's very not it's not very I mean, I you know, maybe we've gotten too far, but along this, and it's the first I've seen this, but it's it's just not very attractive.

Yeah.

Well uh Lindsay.

As as I said, if if council is not satisfied with the building design, we we can certainly send it send it back for additional work.

What council would need to do though is is provide clear direction as to what would make an acceptable development permit application with respect to the exterior design of the building so if there are particular features that you would like to see on the outside of the building or particular color schemes or materials this is the opportunity to give that feedback to the developer.

Or or we could conversely um approve it with a commitment from the developer to work with staff on the the issues that have been identified which I know is a little bit more um but yeah I mean I I'm just thinking of the developer's time right I mean it would have to come back now and I think we only have one council meeting in September because of UBCE.

Do we have two?

Yeah well I I don't feel that strongly about it.

I'm not sure what the thoughts are on my left and Councilor Rogers.

Yeah.

Like I say given the um uh my my increased comfort level since the last time we talked um if um if there is a commitment from um the applicant to um consider those thoughts and and um uh make more of a west coast uh um appearance if you like on the South side um then um I'd be happy to pass it tonight maybe just yeah we would certainly be happy to engage any uh comments um and and do design revisions as we move forward yeah thank you so just moving on in the process before we're gonna get to discussion did does are there any callers on the line staff your worship we have no callers yeah thank you.

And is there anyone in the room that wanted to speak to this yeah yeah so there's two items of correspondence maybe see thank you.

Second.

Move by councillor rogers, second by Councillor Mattson.

All in favor, proposed that's carried in.

Then there is a recommendation if someone's prepared to move it or an alternative.

Worship, can I make a recommendation that um are we we have to move it exactly as it is and then just leave it with the applicant to give any any kind of wording that we could add to?

Well, I mean you you you can certainly move it and with the proviso that staff work with with the applicant to improve the color coordination if that's if that's what you're after.

But it will of course just be up to staff and the applicant to sign off on that rather than it coming back.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, I I know what you're going to say.

Okay.

Well go ahead Kim sorry but it's inappropriate for staff to make making decisions on behalf of council we've certainly done things to staff's satisfaction in the past in orders to not have a log jam i mean are do you really feel it's better to make the you know I I don't I don't hear any hugely strong dissatisfaction up here I hear one member of council who really doesn't like it one who feels that it can be improved somewhat I'm okay with it I think councilor Kualovich is okay with those so I'm just trying to move it along in an order of conduct of business.

I I I agree with your motives and I I would like to get to go along.

I understand that the um west coast flavor that's expected, and in the absence of a color board or a materials board, it's it's difficult for that counselor to easily support it.

Yeah, color board color.

There's a couple of options.

We delay it or council makes a decision today.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Or we could if if you know if the applicant and staff are prepared to, yeah.

Okay, well, what's what's council's prerogative?

I'll move staff's recommendation.

Okay, thank you.

So staff's recommendation has been moved.

Is there you can always make an amendment to it if you yeah, I'm moving an amendment.

Well hang on.

Let's so let's second it first.

Okay.

Um second.

Okay, so the recommendation is moved and seconded.

I move an amendment that um uh the applicant worked with uh staff on on making uh a greater effort towards a west coast um cladding or exterior on particularly on the south side.

To staff to staff's satisfaction.

Yeah, yeah.

Or we could delay it until we like I mean part of my point Well Jen just hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.

Um just hang on is a motion, an amending motion on the floor, and I'm deciding whether or not to second it just for the sake of um I think I already seconded it.

Pardon?

I already seconded John's second time.

Well why would you do that when you're gonna debate against it and stuff?

Would you second his amendment?

We're gonna have to well then so the the so if you second it then it's on the floor.

I didn't hear you.

Okay, so John.

Yeah.

Um I I have enough faith in the applicant um to um make the necessary changes and I don't want to hold up the process uh any longer than there needs to be.

Yeah, counselor Matson.

Yeah, just just in terms of process, it'd have been nice if we would have got this at a stage before we have to sort of make the final decision.

Well we we did see it a few months ago, and you didn't you didn't like it then either.

It hasn't improved a whole lot either, but yeah.

So I mean I'm okay with it as it is.

I think that if if the staff if the applicant's prepared to you know look at toning down the gray a bit, then but I do get staff's concern that they're being now put into a situation of having to make a judgment call on what's acceptable.

And what happens if you still hate it?

Yeah, no, I know.

Yeah, no, I I get that completeness.

I think, you know, I think improvements are better than nothing.

If I may reach I think, you know, we've we've we've talked about um uh and we do have a good example of the West Coast um with um the coho down down the way.

I know we're not gonna replicate it, but there are the color schemes and and um um I I I think breaking it up, even making uh one section um more of the cedar possible.

That's right.

Yeah, no, I I tend to agree, and that's a very easy direction to give if you wanted to do that, is is to double up the um the cedar that's on the bottom floor.

Yeah, and that would be much more clear direction for stuff.

That's that's a good point.

Yeah.

Again.

So through to the applicant.

How would you feel about that if you were asked to put one more floor of the the cedar that's on the bottom?

I know we're getting way down in the weeds here, and I'm sorry for that, but I am just trying to get it approved for you tonight.

No, and I uh completely appreciate um you know your efforts in that regard.

Uh yeah, we'll you know we are not necessarily a hundred percent satisfied with it either, and we're willing to to work on it and certainly expanding the amount of cedar or some other things you know, are completely reasonable things that we'd be happy to entertain.

Okay, yeah.

So I think we should pass the amendment and leave it with staff to look at.

And I I think the staff has enough, you know.

We we promise that as long as it's an improvement, of course.

I know that's subjective from what is there, and we'll be happy with staff's decision.

Yeah, I think your your uh suggestion makes it a lot easier and a lot clearer.

Yeah.

Um, for both the staff and the applicant.

I agree with you.

So I'm gonna call the question on the amendment.

So all in favor, closed, that's carried, and then the question on the main motion.

All in favor, proposed, that's carried.

Kim is not happy.

I think it'll be, yeah, anyhow.

Well, my my concern goes to the the notion that you know the first iteration was rejected, and you you just offered a a uh solution and uh wasn't outrightly accepted and so we're supposed to use our judgment in terms of well I mean we we can put that solution into motion if you like I think that it may be that way yeah no absolutely so then let's just have a a motion arising that the the cedar that's on the bottom level be added into at least one more floor in in a balanced manner which I think will give it more of that west coast flavor that you're looking for.

Okay okay so that's moved by counselor rogers seconded by councillor Mattson.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

Done like that.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, that was entertaining.

So now item C, which is the UBCM.

Thank you to the applicant.

Thanks.

The UBC Extreme Heat Mapping Assessing and Planning.

So this is just to apply for a grant.

Staff recommendation.

Second view.

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Kowala.

Quick question.

Yep, go ahead.

Paul, um, excellent uh that we're going to get this going.

Um, are we is just re-roll the lucky one, or is this a would these be a model for the rest of the region?

This is provincial.

Um, I think every municipality in the province is probably making application for this particular grant right now.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay, everyone's good.

All in favor.

Opposed, that's carried.

Item D is the financial planning process and calendar.

Thank you.

We have staff recommendations.

Second.

The only comment I have on this this year, especially.

Um, and I guess there's nothing we can do about it, but just the idea that just immediately after an election with at least two new members of council, the practically the very first thing they're going to be asked to do is identify projects that they would like to see in the following year's budget.

And I just I have an issue with that, so I'd like staff to maybe take that away and think about a better way to do that because I can see that as just being a terrible way to start a new council, really.

That you know, the there won't be an understanding of capital projects as opposed to operating and all the different bits and pieces that should be there.

I was thinking that they won't be that they're not until they uh at least six months under the process.

Yeah, exactly.

But for us to engage in the budget process and cost out things, we do need to get that early in the process, and uh it may well be then set that they may not be uh they may not have a lot to offer each or even during that budget process.

No.

Well, maybe just keep it in mind that, you know, because we don't even get sworn in until the first Tuesday in November, so it'd be the first official meeting.

And yeah.

So I think at the very least it should be delayed until the December count, if nothing else.

Fair enough.

Council Rogers.

Well, I was saying the maybe even um the last council meeting of November, which I suppose probably only gives it another another week.

Yeah.

We can leave it with staff.

I can just see it being kind of a messy um long meeting.

I mean, even members of council who've been on council for years sometimes don't understand what's operating and what's capital.

I'm gonna call the question all in favor opposed that's carried so item E is the short-term regulation amendment bylaw.

This has been kind of interesting.

You know the I've had CBC, CFACS and um and CHEK News all call me and say what View Royal is banning short-term rentals and have all been very disappointed when I told them that we already have and this is essentially just just housekeeping because none of them noticed when we when we initially did it so go ahead no wait yeah go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Sterling Score, community planner, uh introducing short-term rental amendment bylaw, um, amendment bylaw number eleven oh five.

Uh purpose of the report in tonight's presentation is uh to introduce this bylaw and uh uh provide counsel with a bit of a an update.

Um just as a reminder, um, short-term accommodation or short-term rental STRs refers to Airbnbs, uh, VRBO, other uh rental platforms.

Um, the relate regulation of what is referred to as vacation rental is not currently um sufficient in the U.S.

The new bylaw, staff are uh looking to bring forward report uh sorry with the new bylaw um staff had previously brought forward reports pertaining to the regulation of short-term rentals uh in previous months.

However, after looking at the proposed amendments, staff uh and the information that staff had relied on at the time, it was found that in drafting regulations there was uh inadequate there's inadequacies.

The new bylaw that's being uh proposed tonight as an attachment, uh 1105, would be consistent with the existing zoning definitions and is enforceable.

Uh the previous bylaw 1092 would be abandoned.

With respect to the changes, definitions saw revisions to the definition of dwelling unit and added revisions to the existing definition of home occupation.

With respect to the prohibited uses, and largely this is the one of the bigger changes, was the definition for vacation rental and making it clear that a short-term rental was a prohibited use in that section, while also making clear that home occupations such such as bed and breakfasts could continue to be permitted in the town.

With respect to process and moving forward, as I said to move forward, staff are recommending that the existing bylaw amendment 1092 be abandoned, a new bylaw by law nine bylaw 1105 be considered and that council consider first and second reading in September at the first meeting and then consider through adoption at the September 20th meeting.

No.

The recommendation for council to consider is just to receive the report report tonight.

And we'll come back with a report uh with recommendation for first and second reading in September.

Okay.

Thank you, Sterling.

Councillor Matson, uh thank you for your presentation.

Uh couple questions.

So one of Paul's favorite um Airbnbs was across the street from where you used to live and it wasn't an issue at the time if they rented out part of the place if they were currently living there.

And so I'm wondering how this relates to this now.

Okay.

So our zoning by law has long allowed bed and breakfast as a home occupation use.

And a bed and breakfast by its by its nature is where you live, and you happen to be renting out a few bedrooms, limited number of bedrooms in your home for overnight guests, paying guests.

Okay.

So the question would be if you have what would otherwise be a secondary suite.

Yeah.

How does that work?

This would not allow a secondary suite to be rented for overnight commercial accommodation.

Which is what should also not be happening right now.

Right.

Okay.

So so like there, there so what what this what this does is the term vacation rental is what we have used in our is what we use in our current zoning bylaw.

There's no definition of vacation rental.

We rely on the definition of dwelling unit.

And what we have found over time is that vacation rental is not adequately descriptive because the nature of vacation rental has shifted over time.

Vacation rental, uh BRBO, that type of uh Airbnb, those are are just platforms, and people aren't always on vacation when they are using those platforms to secure a commercial accommodation.

But it is always it is space that could otherwise be used for somebody to live in permanently, especially if it's it if it's occurring in a secondary suite or or a complete unit.

Okay, so you got a two-level house.

People are living on the top, and the other ones, you know, sort of ground level and with walk out to the backyard.

And it's it's got a couple bedrooms, it's got a bathroom.

Is that and they haven't gone in and got it designated as a secondary suite.

Would it be okay to rent that out as an Airbnb or would that not be I think again I'm just trying to get some clarification.

We're not changing anything but it's purely wording.

Yeah no I'm but but I'm I'm just okay.

I want I don't know how exactly how it works and what we pre see a law and don't law.

Okay.

Well, if you if you go back to the definition of zoning by uh the definitions that are being proposed for inclusion in the zoning bylaw, the definition of dwelling unit is changing.

So the definition that we would use would be means one or more rooms, which can constitute a self-contained residential unit that is used or intended to be used by one household for living and sleeping purposes, and includes only one room equipped for the preparation of food and at least one bathroom, and specifically excludes commercial overnight accommodation.

So the definition used to stop before the end specifically excludes overnight accommodation commercial accommodation.

So if it a suite is a suite.

If it has a kitchen and a bathroom and it's a bedroom and it's self-contained or a sleeping area and it's self-contained, that is by definition a secondary suite.

But it doesn't have a kitchen.

If it doesn't have a kitchen, then I think that you're looking at a um a bed and breakfast because I'm assuming you wouldn't have that type of space unconnected from the rest of the home.

Right.

So that's more clear now.

Okay.

And so part of it is just for our bylawn officer to go in and make that tough designation.

It it it'll it allows Jim to be very clear uh in terms of what he's looking for.

Yes.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um for those reporters that are shocked that we're doing this, um, and they'll probably want to follow up after, but uh I, you know, his historically we've gone down this road because um we want to focus on residential housing, not short term.

And so that's that's the key focus.

And and I suppose if um um the hotel industry would also be satisfied that the people would be staying in hotels and or bed and breakfast is that are legitimate, and maybe hopefully one day we'll get a hotel.

Um so once again, can you refresh my memory?

What um uh municipalities in in the region are having some similar approaches as we are.

I know who aren't.

I believe that Victoria has gone through a number of iterations of um definition changes.

Um in Victoria, it's generally referred to as transient accommodation.

Um, and there are provisions there for um transient accommodation in certain certain areas, um, certain zones.

Um interestingly, where Sterling um came to us from, West Kelowna has taken a more uh proactive and permissive approach to short-term rentals.

Um so they that generally speaking, they facilitate that use within certain boundaries.

Um but in in terms of what other municipalities regionally are doing, I'm I'm not aware of of many that that are tackling this particular topic.

But as you say, this is very much about ensuring that our housing stock is continues to be available for people to live in year-round.

And as a pioneer in secondary suites, which the town of Urua was, that that would certainly be consistent with that longstanding interest in making sure that there is a range of housing topologies available.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

Thank you, staff.

And next up, we have approval of the annual report, which is now complete with Mayor's message.

Oh my gosh.

Just uh quick recommendations moved by Councillor Mattson.

I'll move staff recommendations.

Thank you.

John's looking for your second advice by Councillor Rogers.

You can read it later.

I just want to compliment on.

We always put up really nice reports and they they look really good.

I'm just hoping the public is getting a chance to read them.

But always you can tell there's a lot of work and lots of nice pictures, and it's a very interesting and entertaining document.

Yeah, I agree.

A lot of a lot of work goes into producing it, and um, it is one of those things that you you do hope that the residents um take the time to to scroll through it.

Question.

Councillor Rogers?

Yes, thank you.

Um uh thanks, staff, for uh noting my suggestions um on page five, which is the map of the town.

And I noticed that yes indeed um you've identified some parks, but we still have um the um I want to call it the little road um uh agricultural land that's not identified as park.

And I thought we did that this year or last year.

We haven't zoned it as park.

Pardon me?

We haven't zoned it as park.

Oh no, it is not zoned as park.

Okay.

No.

All right, that's good.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna recall the question.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

So the first recommendation here, the for the the West Shore RCMP.

Um I'm gonna write this letter, obviously, but I don't I don't want to send it to the committee that that did the report because I think their work is finished.

Um I think we just need to send it to Minister Um Farmworth and Premier Eby.

Oh whoever it might be.

So that would just be my my change to the recommendation is that we send it to the print to the premier and to minister farmworth, and I will work on getting it written.

I'll move the two recommendations with that amendment.

Okay, thank you.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

Um so that's now we're all the way up to 9.1A.

Move the sheet.

Well, just let let's hang on.

Staff are gonna put a graphic up um for us on this.

I I've asked for this because I I don't I don't really like what's happening here.

Um and you I think you'll see why in a minute.

This is a call, it's not the Callwood OCP, it's something called an action plan or a gateway plan.

Okay.

Um and what they've done is they've put designations on the West Shore lands.

Um West Shore Lands.

Yeah, the West Shore Parks and Reclam.

That's what Lindsay's gonna bring up.

Which yeah, so that's one of the pages.

There is one page that specifically has the West Shore Parks land and has residential.

Maybe that's, yeah, you can't really, it's COVID.

Yeah.

So so a few a few newsy notes because I did speak with um uh Jill Collinson, senior planner in Callwood earlier today.

Um she reminded me first and foremost that this is a plan that is looking 30 to 50 years in the future.

Um, and it was a conscious choice to include the West Shore Parks and Recreation Lands, knowing that um this would still require a significant amount of collaboration between all of the owners of that site in order to work through.

And that I understand that the board will be receiving a presentation from staff.

Their business is providing recreation.

It's not deciding the futures of those lands, right?

That's the owners that should be doing that.

So I don't know why they would be going to the parks board hoping to get feedback on it.

I don't know why they'd be wanting to turn the park's land into housing.

And she has also indicated that they are more than happy to come and make a presentation to View Royal Council as well.

So thank you, Lindsay.

I would like us to write a letter objecting to there's residential and commercial designations.

Those lands have a covenant on them that they are for recreational use.

When they were given by D years ago to the CRD, there's a covenant overriding on them that they are only to be used for recreational use.

So I don't care if it's 20, 30, 50 years out.

Putting any sort of designation on them, you know what it's like once something's in a plan, and someone comes along and says, Well, look, it's right here in this plan that we're going to have a 12-story residential building.

Remember that when we have that.

So, I mean, I personally would like us to write and just stay to Callwood.

Please do not put any designations on the West Shore Parks and Recreation lands that are owned by five municipalities that should be involved in any conversation.

Second.

I'm assuming that was a motion.

Sure.

Well, I'm just moved by Councillor Matson and seconded by Councillor Mudson.

And I I'm happy to write that letter.

Um and just explain.

Um, you know, and and furthermore, that it should not be the board of West Shore Parks and Rec that is going to be involved in those land use discussions.

We'll take everybody, all owners.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, I was kind of floored to see it actually.

Um on a separate and another note.

Um, it's interesting to note that Wilfrid Road has a through road.

At least it looks appears to be.

It does look like a through road, doesn't it?

Yeah.

And we could object to that too.

But the um, and I mean the the the land where the transit depot and the park and ride is.

I mean, the ownership of that has also never been satisfactorily settled.

Lindsey.

According to that title, it's owned by the city of Calwood.

Yeah.

I know.

Um, but it it was part of the original land granting from the the West Shore Parks and REC.

So anyhow.

Okay.

So I'll I will.

That's another letter that I'll write.

Not to rain on Colwitt's Parade, but just to suggest that I mean it'd be almost like us putting a designation on View Royal Park.

You know, there's not much difference.

Well, except except except we own a park, right?

Part.

Except that we own the park.

Yeah, but I mean we own that land as well.

That's what I mean.

They shouldn't be telling us.

Well no, this one.

That's right.

Yeah.

So okay.

All in favor.

That's scary.

Thank you, Lindsay.

So the um on the letter of your worship from Mayor Haynes.

Right.

So that's up next.

Yeah.

So we so we dealt with 9.1a, so now we have 9.2A, which I think is just for receipt.

Yeah, but I I wonder if we shouldn't also um uh because I I think uh Sandage raises a lot of uh good points about um ensuring proper safety for children and um and school district sixty one stepping up to the plate and working with the municipalities.

I I think it's a uh it's a point well taken and we should support um I think we should support uh sanage's position.

Yeah, I I mean what I find odd with both Sanage and Victoria's position is that they are asking school boards to take over the crossing guard program, but they're prepared to fund it 100%.

Um which I've just find I I find the dynamics of that so strange that you agree to use municipal taxpayers' money to fund a program that you have no control over.

Um what's gonna so I I agree with you completely on that and happy to write a letter.

I do have the chair of the Greater Victoria School District and the superintendent coming to meet with me next Monday morning to to discuss this.

It's is Quamo has has a um I think an interest in this, and as well as the uh First Nations, you know, because that yeah, it really is something that um uh I think we we all need to uh coordinate and and ensure that uh the children's safety is well, and it's done differently um throughout the region to at the different school but I mean we we can certainly write um agreeing that we we believe that the school board should be taking over the crossing guard because we were on record as supporting that position um but I I don't I don't think we want to agree that we are pre we're prepared to fund whatever they come up with at this point.

I mean we could we can certainly enter the the into the discussion but um at the the status quo at the moment where um it seems like the school board is washing its hands of it uh that's the position I well why don't why don't we wait until I've had this meeting yeah and um and perhaps meet with Mayor Hameson?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So I'm gonna call the question on receipt.

All in favor, proposed that's carried.

And that was for A and B.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And next up we have 10A, which is amendment to parks and public places, bylaw 986, which I presume is why we have the honor of Chief Hearst here tonight.

He's fresh back from Tuktoyaktuk.

Yes.

One of our city flags is flying prominently in their council chambers.

Yeah, good.

Yeah.

Um thank you, Mayor and members of council.

Um, this stems from a committee of the whole report uh a couple of months ago.

I've got our bylaw enforcement officer here at the C if you have any specific technical questions on the bylaw amendments.

Um, as you know, uh our current bylaw uh lacks some of the necessary tools uh for municipal enforcement in our parks.

We heard from council at the last committee of the whole they wanted some amendments to that proposed bylaw, and those amendments have been made, uh, and we have put down a list, extensive list of uh parks that uh camping is prohibited in uh in the event that there is no available accommodations.

No other real changes.

There are some housekeeping items uh attached to this as well with the MTI bylaw, just updating some of the uh fines and some of the amounts for the municipal tickets, and I'm open to any questions that you might have or for our bylaw enforcement officer.

Counselor Matson?

So I was in reading through this, I could definitely see the ones that were capping that wouldn't be allowed, but we don't specifically designate a park.

So is that voters?

Yeah.

Which parts does that leave them?

Well, there's a there's a section in the bylaw that discusses specifically, obviously, the parks that are excluded.

But there's also um in the section of the bylaw, it talks about um exclusion where it's next to, for instance, you know, wetlands, beaches, bike parks, boulevards, uh, pathways, bridges, etc.

So it it it does limit the uh the particular areas.

And I I leave that to the the the by law enforcement officer to to manage it, it narrows the scope down considerably and to a manageable uh section of the town okay so my my other question would be is i'm assuming that our bylaw enforcement officers reviewed this too and for from his perspective it's it's manageable and he's understands how we could enforce it absolutely okay yeah you're very pleased with the outcome councilor rogers yes thank you um the yeah code would uh and thanks for providing coat's example as well uh covert had a section that um uh where it's typically that uh individuals must not obstruct highways or obstruct city employees yes is that something that um i i couldn't see it in ours so would we consider that uh phraseology there is there is and and perhaps officer henley can clarify believe there is a section in the mpi on obstruction um can't interfere or obstruct a town employee so there is there is language in the mti bylaw that the officer can do we need to have it in the um the the you know and and if it's just uh I'm just wondering if we have to put it somewhere or is it in if it's in the MTI then is that good enough sounds like we've got a defer I'm deferred officer henley just so you get a clear answer.

Okay thanks uh Jim Hanley, our bylaw officer um speak in the um parks bylaw, the one that exists currently, uh we have the section uh 2.1a, which is obstructing or interfering with another person or traffic, and then there's also um 2.1 G, which is interfere or obstruct with a town employee, not just that person using the park.

So there is sections in there which with the the MTI um amendment uh aligns it with the parks uh bylaw as it will be hopefully put forward, and that allows us to have an enforceable section for either one of those um behaviors by someone using the park.

Okay, does that answer your question, Councilor?

Uh hopefully.

Uh yeah, I as long as you know we're um you know it was quite obvious in the COVID one, but if we got it uh to to uh staff satisfaction that that's that's great.

Um the other um and I'm trying I'm sorry I can't find okay um I may have to refer to COH but I know that we've got something similar.

Um and it's where there's no accessible overnight shelter accommodation available within the city of Colwood or vicinity thereof.

I mean we've got something very similar right within the this the town of Uh or vicinity thereof.

Yeah if we don't have that um but we don't so uh what does uh the vicinity thereof refer to?

Uh that's a good question.

And if you if you uh it wouldn't be outside a reasonable approach to look at it from a uh CRD basis uh because you can easily utilize public transport to access um other areas where there are shelters, uh Victoria Saanich, uh I'm not sure what is available in Langford.

Um not nothing.

I didn't know there was much.

Probably not.

Um most of the stuff uh I know is in in the the core areas.

Um but it's not um a distance or a challenge that would I don't think anyone would view as being um excessive.

So if someone wanted to um obtain shelter at you know one of the hotels that are being that have been uh moved into to uh short-term accommodations or one of the shelters Sally Ann or um our place it's it's a short bus ride so I I personally feel that's that's a reasonable um distance to have to travel.

No I agree and um I guess that you know I I agree with you I think that's a reasonable distance to travel and and um um but that that I'm just wondering if this gets challenged in court um and and maybe it's already been tested in in Colbert Squamo Petroya, um where they do note the you know the municipality and the vicinity thereof.

By um initiating these changes to the parks bylaw where we have um permitted a albeit a small number, but parks that are conducive to overnight temporary sheltering, uh most of the ones that are in the prohibited list are not conducive and would not um allow it because of the restrictions that we have in place, and they're just not geographically conducive either.

Uh by having those ones in place that are allowable, for example, V Royal Park, which is large, flat, and close to many of the amenities of V Royal, um, we have permitted or we have followed what the court's direction is in the pro in the province.

So we we don't put ourselves in jeopardy of being challenged.

Uh if we said no pu camping at all, then we would be in in jeopardy of of being challenged.

Okay.

Yeah.

And and I appreciate um I like uh the fact that we've got a hundred meters cold with 40, and um, you know, that our our times are seven to seven.

Yeah, and I uh uh with when in putting that seven to seven timeline in place, uh I leaned heavily on my experience in the city where uh dealing with the clientele that are packing up camp in the morning at parks, if you put a seven o'clock start, that's not when you're gonna start writing them a ticket, but that gets the ball rolling and gets them moving at a reasonable hour.

If you move it to nine or ten, you then start the time the clock later and now it's noon or one o'clock.

And it's not uh acceptable because then there's children and families and walking dogs and everything else at the same time that you may have someone who isn't very efficient at getting themselves moving in the morning.

So seven o'clock gives us a start time.

Yep, gotcha.

Thank you.

Counselor Kowalovich Thanks.

Uh more comments from my colleagues.

It's a good opportunity to discuss kind of the future of the unhoused in the CRD in particular the West Shore.

I know we've spoken about this in the past about some kind of a movement to discuss uh a shelter kind of headquarters in the West Shore.

And I would just like to take this opportunity to uh remind all of us that that's something that should be on our minds moving forward.

I don't know how that would look, whether it's a a multi-council committee or lobbying or whatnot, but I think part and parcel with this, uh, with the economy the way it's going, this is a certainly an issue that is going nowhere.

It's gonna be around for uh a long time and probably getting worse.

So it's something that I'd like you all to put your minds to, along with myself.

Yeah.

Yeah, no, I don't disagree that there needs to be a shelter on the West Shore.

It's um that's crazy, crazy that we don't have one.

Yeah, I think Recommend Colwood put that into their plan if they're working out.

Okay, we'll put it put it on the West Shore park so it's excellent.

Um, but no, absolutely.

Yeah.

There are any more questions for Jim or Chief Hurst.

No.

Okay.

So I need a motion to receive the report.

That's carried.

So second.

Yep.

All in favor.

Opposed.

And then we need a motion for first, second, and third of bylaw one zero nine five.

By councillor Matson, seconded by Counselor Rogers.

All good.

Go ahead.

Did we miss eight point two A two?

The pedestrian street lighting project?

Did we talk about that?

It was included.

Was it included?

Okay, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Good.

Yeah.

Okay, so everyone's good on the first, second, and third.

Okay.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

Thank you, staff.

Thanks for coming, and it's good to get that underway.

So now we are on to the first, second, and third of bylaw 1094.

Move shill move.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Madsen.

Okay.

Sure.

Everyone's good.

Okay.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

And we have adoption for, or no, first and second for um 110 high street.

Second.

Okay.

So that's first and second of bylaw 1104.

Yep.

Yeah.

And so it's first and second, and that a public hearing be scheduled for September 6, 2022.

Yep.

All in favor.

Posed.

That's carried.

And we have adoption of Town of View Royal Building by Law Amendment by Law.

Um number 786.

1103.

1103, yeah.

Yep, so move.

Yeah.

Okay.

Second.

Everyone's good.

Okay.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

For anyone watching who has questions, um, question period will be coming up almost immediately.

So this would be the time to call in if you wanted to.

The numbers on your screen.

And your question can be about anything.

It doesn't have to be about something on the agenda tonight, just as long as it is in the form of a question.

So lastly, we have the adoption of bylaw 1093.

This is my least favorite one, isn't it?

It's one you don't like much, but I think you did vote in favor of it.

So adoptions moved by Councillor Rogers.

Um second seconded by Councillor Kowalowicz.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, just a point.

Um it was it was very handy and convenient uh for staff to remind us um you know about um what the his only amendment was for one ten high street, but this particular one I had to rack my mind you know to to remember it was lot 10.

Uh so if if we could have you know some aid to the public and maybe to aging counselors to remember what it's what's applies to what the street address is.

Yeah, it's just nowhere to be seen.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, I'm gonna call the question.

All in favor, opposed.

That's carried.

And that brings us to question period.

Do we have any callers on the line stuff?

Your worship, we have no callers.

Okay, thank you.

Um, so I'll look for a motion to terminate.

Yeah, thank you.

So have a good summer, everyone, and we'll see you in September.