Council Meeting

Good evening, everybody.

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

This is the council meeting for Tuesday, December 6, 2022.

And would like to start first with a territorial acknowledgement.

We recognize the Lakwangan speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and the 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 proportion portions of the agenda.

If you wish to provide your comments to council regarding the development variance permit for 1681 Island Highway, better known as Burger King.

There will be a specific time for you to speak to this application when it is considered during this meeting.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, call 778 402 9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 224-789-916 pound.

You will be immediately muted once admitted to the meeting.

Please do not unmute until you're asked.

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

Ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback.

Ask you not to use your speaker phone to ensure sound quality, and ask the you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

To begin, please indicate your name and address for the record.

Speakers will have five minutes each to speak during the public participation and two minutes to ask a question during the question period later on in the agenda, and you will be timed.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

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

Can I have a motion to approve the agenda and that a motion to also include the late items on the blue sheet?

So moved.

Councillor Brown and Councillor Lemon.

All in favor.

None opposed.

And minutes in receipt.

Uh, can I have a motion to receive the minutes and uh move adoption for the meeting held November 15th.

Second.

Councillor Lemon and Councillor Brown.

All in favor.

Not opposed.

And so for the mayor's report, I have a few items that I managed to jot down.

Uh so the fat past few weeks I think have been busy for all of us.

I have advocated for our residents uh enduring significant highway noise in Thetis Vale.

The petition was delivered by Mr.

Ryan Painter to the legislature, and it was read on the 22nd of November.

I will continue to advocate a resolution with the Minister of Transport and Infrastructure.

Ryan Painter for his leadership in organizing the community petition.

And I want to single out Mr.

On November 28th, I had the pleasure of MCing the announcement for the newly minted PacifiCAN with Minister Sajjan at the not yet opened yet Craigflower Community Center.

The minister announced the opening of regional offices in British Columbia, including Victoria, to invest in our community infrastructure.

And certainly the Craigflower Community Hall was a beneficiary of that funding.

I have met with the Treaty Advisory for in-camera sessions to get the new team spun up.

We have also started our strategic planning for both CRD and View Royal.

We have met with the West Shore RCMP as a council was invited along with our West Shore partners, and we'll do so again on Friday to discuss requirements on a new building that is overdue for the RCMP in the West Shore.

The CRD chair will announce uh CRD committees on Friday of this week.

So I will announce the result at that during the committee of the whole.

Of course, upcoming is the announcement tomorrow of the new provincial cabinet, including a new ministry and that of housing, which we wait with some interest.

This weekend, I will have the pleasure of hosting council and their spouses for a brief holiday get together.

Staff hosted some decorating events here, including the tree by elementary school students, and have done a great job in decorating town hall.

And speaking of festive, a reminder that there is a light up view royal contest for seasonal lighting that will be judged between Christmas and New Year's.

Though you're not encouraged to do so, you may nominate yourself.

There is a space on the agenda where we'll be discussing a bylaw regarding homelessness and camping in our parks.

While I appreciate this has raised considerable concern among residents, it needs to be made very clear that there has been a BC Supreme Court ruling that permits camping overnight in municipal parks, in fact, all parks.

The bylaw as introduced is intended to balance the resources of the town with the Supreme Court ruling.

It's not the town permitting the overnight camping.

That's out of the town's control.

And with that, we can move to petitions and delegations and just checking in with stuff.

I don't believe we've received any.

Again, that's five minutes per speaker.

And public participation period we can move to.

And uh we'll start with folks in the room and state your name and address for record if you wish to speak.

And you'll notice a little uh light show in front of you.

Green means good, yellow means sum up, and red means you're over time.

Um so anybody wishing to speak from our audience today.

Yes, please uh approach the mic.

Hi, my name's Linda Pecos.

I live at 336 Glen Glenarley Drive.

I'd just like to address the uh a number of council meetings that the staff report has brought up about that you you could not be in person for.

Um I'm I like the staff report.

I think there should be a limit.

I like to see that that there is some some uh movement in it too that it's not it's not written in stone.

Um I my my one one point is we just spent a lot of our tax dollars on this very lovely place where you're sitting.

And for for me, I'd like to see I'd like to see people sitting in the seats that we've just paid for.

My tax dollars at work.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else that would like to address the council?

Present?

Yes, sir.

It's still red, so I don't have to press anything.

Is that right?

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Doug Critchley.

I live at 132 St.

Giles Street.

My letter and your agenda describes my concerns about safety if homeless campers are present when I walk in Portage Lanier Park.

For short, PILP.

I have enumerated the violent crime severity index.

I've mentioned the financial burden to VR taxpayers, which would probably be reduced if PILP occupants were added to others camping in View Royal Park instead.

I have listed environmental concerns and I've written of the fire risk.

Tonight I want to enlarge on safety.

As a doctor looking after 32 patients in a psychiatric nursing home for 30 years, I know of what I speak.

Psychotic patients are divorced from reality, are deluded with visual and auditory hallucinations.

They are fairly easy to control in an institutional setting using antipsychotic drugs.

They hear voices instructing their behavior, which is sometimes violent.

I visited this institution once a month and examined patients in my office for a full exam yearly or as necessary.

I cared for a man who had murdered his wife many years ago.

A schizophrenic phone in my house one evening when my 17-year-old daughter was home alone.

She called a few times, but I was out.

She threatened to kill me.

My daughter phoned the RCMP who said, get out of the house.

There was no follow up until she threatened to kill the Minister of Health.

I have certified an ex minister of finance from another province who had just had lunch with BC's Minister of Health.

And therefore the police would not apprehend him without two doctors certifying that he was a danger to be at large.

Meanwhile, he was running down the street naked, scaring families with young children.

He had thrown saucepans and broken windows.

When he told me Hitler had poisoned his eggs, I had him.

Patients living at home can be treated by a nurse administering long-acting antipsychotics intramuscularly once a month.

That worked until the patient drew out all the medication, substituted olive oil, and he was back in the EMI within a month.

Some psychotic patients are living on the street.

You cannot identify them.

So if you walk by them, they may be hearing voices telling them to assault you.

I am two weeks off 90 and can't move fast enough to dodge them.

So I won't go near them, which means I have no nearby park to walk in.

The percentage of tenters who are violent may be small, but you only need one if you are the victim.

The risk is real.

Please exclude Pilp from the allowed parks.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dr.

Critchley.

Is there anybody else that would like to address the council?

Nobody else online.

Yeah, one more.

It's on.

It's on.

All right.

Uh Mike Wilshire um 14 Erskine Lane.

Um with regard to uh uh council meetings being able to be attended uh uh remotely.

Um when I looked at the report in in some the other municipalities, it looks like all but two uh w were seemed to be more flexible than just limiting it to three.

Uh and they did have some sorts of uh some of them had uh particular kinds of measure that seemed to say to try to work um uh to incentivize people not to uh you know take undue advantage of it.

And I think it's possible to be more flexible than to say three and say, well, we're not gonna enforce it very hard.

That's a little bit too loosey-goosey, it's not specified.

I think if you look at what some of the other municipalities did, I think that could be a more workable solution because going down the road, we don't know what's gonna be happening with future knock on with hopefully not pandemics, but you know, we're in a different era here and we're we're entirely new territory.

So I think you know, looking at what uh what they've done elsewhere is is worth doing before making a final decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in our present that wishes to address council?

Anyone on the line?

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers at this time.

Okay.

Thank you.

That finishes our public participation period.

There'll be an opportunity later on for two minutes for questions, should you choose to do so.

Business arising from previous minutes, and I believe there was mitigation of traffic noise as indicated.

So, can I get a motion to receive for information my own email?

Councillor Lemon and Councillor Brown, all in favor, none opposed.

And staff reports, development variants permit uh application 202205 for 1681 Island Highway.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jeff Chow, Senior Planner.

Uh, this is an application to consider uh development variants permit to replace existing drive-through signage with new electronic signs.

This is for the uh Burger King restaurant at 1681 Island Highway.

And can I get next slides, please?

Did work just a second ago.

Okay.

Uh there are two requested variances.

Uh the first is to permit changeable copy signs.

Uh the sign bylaw currently does not permit changeable copy, which is where um the the copy area changes uh electronically.

Uh the proposed is to allow uh changes to uh for for the copy to change.

Uh the second variance is for the uh sign clearance over a vehicular traffic area from four meters to two meters.

Next slide, please.

Yeah, there we go.

This is a site plan that shows the uh the property, the um the existing signs are uh in this location um along the drive-thru.

Uh so they would be replacing three signs with two signs, a pre-order board and a and a and a menu board.

Uh there is one existing freestanding sign along on the property along Island Highway that would remain, and that's a sign that actually has a changeable copy on it.

These are the existing signs that would be replaced.

And the menu board is a sign that is uh roughly seven feet high.

And the order board is a sign that is 10 feet high, and that has a canopy over it.

So when people are pull up to the to the drive-thru, they can they can uh they can order with uh a little bit of cover from sun and other types of weather.

Um the the uh the height variance for the for the uh for the sign can be uh supported because uh it's it has a has a clearance of uh roughly 10 almost 10 feet.

Um and it's designed uh and there are some vehicles that are taller than 10 feet, like semis, etc.

But uh this drive-thru is not designed to accommodate those types of vehicles.

As you can sort of see here in the on site plan, uh there are um there's basically it's designed not to allow large vehicles through it.

This is a street view of the uh of the site, and to the left you see the existing sign that has changeable copy on it.

That sign has a covenant that permits no more than uh 30 seconds uh no for before a the copy can change.

Uh the proposal here is again is for the same.

Uh the difference is that these signs are for uh uh an existing drive-throughs they're not in intended to be oriented towards the street.

Um and they are they will be visible a little bit above the uh above the the landscaping but they are largely screened um on this image here you see the you can see the red and white dot uh that's about how high the uh the the copy area would be uh so you would you would see the upper part of the sign signed through but you can sort of see in terms of the streetscape it's not uh it's not intended to detract the attention from the uh from the road so in conclusion the application can be supported because they are intended for drive-through patrons not to attract attention from the road.

The signs face in the road but are largely screened by mature landscaping and the sign canopy is intended to provide some cover when ordering at the drive-thru um the sign the clearance is higher than what you see in getting into underground parking and drive-thru is configured so that large vehicles wouldn't be accessing it.

So the recommendation is to approve the proposal and um and the associated variances.

If there's any questions um uh the applicant that's right the the business owners here if there's any questions of them that concludes the report followed staff recommendation.

Say that again, Councilor Mattson.

Pardon me, Councillor.

Say that again, Councilor Rathison.

I'll move staff recommendation.

Second.

I'm gonna vote against the motion because of the electronic sign.

Uh we have it in a bylaw for a reason, and one of those it's the sign distracts drivers potentially.

Also, there's light pollution for the people that live above on the condos there.

And I think you're setting a precedent.

And if that one gets going, other ones will happen.

So I'm I'm gonna vote against it.

I don't have no problem with the height of the uh for the vehicles to come on there.

That's that's fine.

I'm gonna be voting against the motion.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Counselor Qualit.

Uh Mayor Tobias, uh point of order.

Those who uh support the motion do speak first.

Were there others beside from Councillor Lemmon that wish to speak for it?

Counselor Mathison comments as the person who made the motion, I I just think staff's recommendation uh is fine, especially in light of the fact that the uh it's it adds to the the business in terms of they don't have the aggravation of having to try to change signage whenever prices change.

Plus it really can't be seen from the road.

I don't think it's uh an abstraction and it certainly doesn't seem to be any doesn't seem that'll be the any more brighter uh with the new signage as it is now so i i will be supporting the motion any other discussion uh yeah it's got a question just uh i i also if i may um uh rec to bias um i support the uh the motion and uh recommendations the um and and i did not think that there was uh any impact on um uh the uh residents uh nearby i wonder if uh staff could just help clarify if if that might be a a situation.

Thank you counselor stabb for you, Councillor Stott.

Premier, um, the the sign here is does not face any residences.

It faces the casino.

Um, there are residences uh in behind the property, but this is this is a drive-through sign that's on on this on the road side of the property.

So the residents are behind the building, they wouldn't see the uh there wouldn't be any lighting impact from this drive-through sign.

Staff.

I believe my turn, yeah.

I believe the sign is the old Madman McKee sign, and it does definitely does face the point of order.

I'll be voting again.

Um I I seconded the motion, I'd like to speak to it.

Um and I'm comfortable.

I've just been reassured by staff that it's not going to be facing traffic or distracting drivers.

So I'm comfortable supporting this.

All in favor.

Call the question.

All opposed.

Noted that uh counselor Brown was opposed.

Sorry, Mr.

Mayor, I just for clarification, I thought I heard Councillor Brown say that it was the Mad Man McKay sign.

Did I understand wrong?

I I believe it's of course it's called Andre's now and they've moved, but uh I believe that building's been empty.

But uh from my work I recollection it was the Mad Man McKay sign.

At any rate, I'm just just make sure there's no misunderstanding on which sign it was.

It's obviously the the Burger King one, which is facing a different direction.

And I'm good.

Thank you.

Comments from the public.

Correspondence, and I think we had an email for the variance staff.

Move received correspondence.

Second.

Not opposed.

I think this is now at uh merging of emergency radio teams.

Chief Hurst.

Uh good evening, Mary Tobias, members of council.

Uh Paul Hurst, Director of Protective Services.

Um, I have a report before you this evening on behalf of uh Captain Troy Mollin, our emergency program coordinator.

The recommendation is that council approve the merger of the View Royal Emergency Radio Communications Team with the Colwood Emergency Radio Team under one coordinator that serves both municipalities.

As this council and previous councils are aware, uh View Royal and Colwood, and more recently our other partner in Langford and the West Shore have shared uh considerable benefit from merging our teams together, whether it's emergency social services, now the radio team, our fire departments, and we're moving in a in a collective direction to see one West Shore unit as opposed to a bunch of splintered units.

Um, there is considerable operational efficiencies in the merging of the two teams.

There is a small financial implication realized by both teams.

It will be split 50-50 with one coordinator.

Um there really is no uh lose lose.

It's uh it's just another step forward and um another um leadership initiative by the emergency program team to to coordinate our initiatives and uh work together with our neighbors.

Counselor Lynn.

Um well I guess first you want to if I don't have a question, so I would move staff recommendation unless there are some questions.

Uh counselor Brown, I I I did have one question when one says small amount of money.

What are we talking about yes?

My apologies, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh the total cost for the annual team will be $9,000.

It'll be $4,500 per municipality.

Uh that uh $9,000 will cover four station managers and one emergency radio coordinator stipend that also covers all the uniform items, promotional items, services, consumables, small tools, and equipment.

So a lot of the infrastructure is in place.

We just need to modernize some of the the Calwood equipment, and that'll also offer us small stipend to some of the coordinators.

Thank you, Chief First.

So uh can I get a motion that council approve the merging of the View Royal Emergency Radio Communications and with the Colwood Emergency Radio under one coordinator that will serve both municipalities?

So moved.

Voted by councillors Brown and uh Levin.

Uh all in favor.

I see councillor Mattson, Council Rogers voted in the affirmative as well.

None opposed.

Motion passes.

The next one is renewal of emergency support services agreement with the city of Colwood.

Yes, again, thank you, Mayor Tobias, members of council.

This is a renewal, a five-year renewal of an existing uh five-year agreement.

I believe this will be the second renewal of the emergency support services agreement between the city of Calwood and the town of View Royal.

Excuse me.

The purpose of the team, just to give some uh insight to our new members of council, the emergency support services is the team that shows up after the emergency services have done their job, whether it be a fire, a flood, uh natural disaster.

And this is the team that takes care of the people who have been displaced from their homes and they're in a time of need.

They've been working together now for coming up on probably I would say 10 years.

And uh this renewal is is obviously a perfect fit.

And now, of course, with the merging of the radio team and other future initiatives in 2023.

Obviously, it's again a win-win.

The costs are already built into the existing budget.

They've been there for several years.

And again, this is their shared expenses with one coordinator.

And just for um to remind council, particularly myself, do we have any agreements with any other municipality for emergency services?

Not talking mutual aid, but uh for emergency support services, the the town of View Royal provides emergency support services for the Esquimalt and Songheese First Nation, as well as the city of Calwood.

And we are in discussions with our colleagues in Langford.

The other municipalities in the core have separate agreements and they work together in a separate entity.

Thank you.

So I think we're at the point where we could have a motion that the town of View Royal renew the agreement with the city of Caldwood for a joint emergency services program to provide emergency support services to both municipalities and mutual aid to others during the term of the agreement from August 1st, 2022 to July 31st, 2027, and that the mayor and corporate officer be authorized to sign the agreement substantially in the form attached to the December 6th, 2022 council meeting agenda.

So moved.

Second.

So Councillor McKenzie and Councillor Lemon uh and all in favor.

None opposed.

Motion carries.

And while you're up there, Chief first, I think the next one is also for you for animal control services contract renewal.

We we're gonna we're gonna bang off a few tonight.

The my apologies.

I'm I had a little trouble uh downloading that particular report.

This is again a housekeeping item.

This is the renewal of our animal control contract with the CRD.

I believe, and possibly Councillor Brown could correct me.

I believe this is our third iteration with CRD.

Um the contract has not changed.

Um, from what I can see, the terms are very similar to what they were in the last contract.

I believe it was a uh 2.9% bump uh per year for the next five years.

There is a slight uh cost increase.

Thank you.

Question.

Council Brown.

Okay, and previous years, I know when I was in charge of that department at the CRD, uh the the chief biofficer came and made a report quarterly to to uh at our committee of the whole meetings.

Yes, sir.

And it'll be nice to see that again because it's nice to know uh how many hours are being spent in our parks doing the patrols, because I I believe there's a section in the contract that's a stipulates a minimum number of hours in parks patrol.

So it'd just be nice to see the the chief bile officer come or or designate come absolutely.

I uh that was mentioned, I believe, in our last COW meeting, and we have reached out to uh CRD to uh have them attend.

It'll be I'm not sure if it'll be the January or the February meeting, but that would be a good opportunity, the first our first COUN meeting.

If that is the if that is the wish of council.

I have no opposition to that.

Uh Councilor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um yes, I certainly support um skitting presentations.

I wonder if um at the other thing we used to have in the past was um uh reports, paper quarterly reports, even if um uh the individual doesn't regularly show we uh we would have paper reports to see the uh statistics for our town.

Is that also possible?

Yes, counselor, it is.

I have those uh those documents available.

They're submitted on a monthly basis to us, and I'll make sure those are included in the uh monthly cow report for your review.

Thank you.

Thank you, counselor.

Thank you.

I'd like to move the staff recommendation.

Secondary Councillor McKenzie.

Uh so uh motion carries that the town of View Royal enter into a contract with the provision of animal control services with the Capitol Regional District for the years 2023-2025 with the possibility of extension in 2026 and 2027.

And the mayor and corporate Offer Officer be authorized to execute the contract substantially in the form attached to the November 29th, 2022 report from the Director of Protective Services.

And I think we're down to we let you off the hook, or you got some more to talk about, uh Chief.

I'll be back later.

All right.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council.

And this brings us to item E, uh, provincial infrastructure grant.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Uh no presentation.

Recommendation from staff is that uh the town of View Royal apply for the provincial infrastructure planning grant program to help fund the drainage master plan update in 2023.

Happy to take questions.

And this is using other people's money to do work in the town of View Royal, if I'm getting this right.

Anything we can do to offset the increased construction costs.

Any discussion?

So moved.

Second.

All favor.

That the town of View Royal apply for a provincial infrastructure planning program grant to help fund a drainage master plan update in 2023.

Uh committee of the whole resolutions.

I'm seeing none.

Uh other motions to receive.

And they are the minutes of the West Shore Parks and Recreation Society Board of Directors, and I'd like to congratulate uh Councillor Quads for being nominated for and receiving the chair for the committee.

But should I put it over you for information for a second?

Certainly.

And thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Very proud to represent the town of View Royal as the chair of the West Shore Parks and Recreation Society.

Just give you some quick updates from the October 13th meeting, which was before the election.

Yes.

At that time, we agreed to forward the 2023 draft budget to all the owners.

Uh that is set to be received by December 1st and will be before us here during our budget deliberations.

Uh the JDF 55 Plus Activity Center was present, data representative present at our inaugural meeting.

They now have over 900 members at the 55 Plus Activity Center.

Uh that activity center was uh converted to a COVID testing site, if you recall.

And West Shore generated quite a bit of revenue off of that actually during COVID.

So uh they're happy that it's open and we're happy that they have so many members.

Uh we also hosted the 55 plus BC Games.

Uh we were one of the host uh facilities for that, and they presented us with a thank you plaque.

And the probably the biggest news is the skate park that has now broken ground that will receive a lot of national attention.

My understanding is we'll have a federal minister attend as well for the grand opening, and likely provincial minister and the mayors, and probably myself.

So it's exciting, lots happening.

And we're proud uh to uh represent it as uh View Royal being the chair and uh we'll advocate for our residents and make sure lots of recreation opportunities are there for everybody.

Thank you, counselor.

Any other discussion?

Motion to receive.

Second.

All in favor.

Proposed.

And we got minutes from parks and Recreation environmental advisory committee held on November 22nd, 2022.

Mover shade.

Second.

All in favor.

Nunopposed.

And now we're to the future of the View Royal Park Community Gardens Management.

And we have a recommendation that the committee recommend to council that staff be requested to provide options for the future operation of the View Royal Community Gardens for Council's consideration.

That was from PREAC.

Staff want to comment on that?

Mayor Tobias staff is currently looking at options as we speak right now.

Okay, second.

Just terms of discussion since it's already happening.

And I think we're down to the active transport network plan.

And it was the minutes from the community development advisory committee.

But let's go with the active transport network plan first.

Councilor Rogers.

Councilor Rogers?

Yes, thank you.

Um, I certainly say support the intent.

I'm just wondering about timing.

Um, is this something because it is in the um uh the the uh draft reports that we'd received and uh identifying uh the various roads, local roads that uh are still 50k, and and I would uh uh support the the whole intent do we wish to do this now or uh do it uh when the overall transportation active transportation plan is before us and we can include it in one fell swoop just a question to uh process i'd be happy to just amend a motion to include it with as a as part of the uh active transportation plan network plan when it comes through second second that any other further discussion counselor quartz uh i support that in principle, hoping that when that happens, we have uh external advice and reports from staff and local law enforcement, as well as potential uh communication from yourself, Mayor Tobias, with other mayors.

If you recall, uh, there was uh um a movement uh to have a 30K across the CRD by now uh uh past Mayor Haynes of Sanich.

Uh so I'm just just put that out there for discussion.

This is something that's been on the table before across the region, and I think it deserves attention, uh, but we should do so thoughtfully.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um, from a staff perspective, perhaps the motion could read uh approval in principle, um subject to a report from staff.

Council McKenzie.

I would be uh more supportive of that because I had questions around you know how do we define neighborhood streets and you know how many would that impact.

So I I would appreciate a report.

Um, but yeah, again, in principle, I'm I think I'm okay with it, but I would like to see a report.

In principle, however, I have concerns about the enforcement of it, uh, because the by previous experiences in RCMP officer and as a bylaw officer, um, we have the authority to put that in a bylaw, but the police uh I mean they could write tickets, but if someone challenges them in the court, they're gonna lose unless they're going exceeding the speed limit by a considerable amount and running a provincial ticket.

So if it if we did do that, it would have to be included in our inner traffic bylaw, it would have to be a bylaw ticket, and it would have to be listed under the uh uh list of offenses that and who could enforce the enforce that bylaw.

So I would I'm assuming it would be the bylaw offer and the RCMP.

And I think we had a brief from staff that they bylaw officer doesn't do moving vehicles, so uh understand.

So I just uh a comment, you missed my hand here.

Uh I I did have an opportunity to contact uh our superintendent, and he provided me an email with how they would handle this, and I will forward that off to uh members of of council.

But but it certainly didn't include passing up tickets, but uh how can I put this probably appropriately encouraging uh drivers who were we're were speeding, they would stop them and provide some encouragement to them to reduce their speeds.

But I'll pass that on to council members.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um I appreciate uh getting the staff report, um, but I think we have a very good example of it working very well in the harbor um area, which is uh 30k uh are all appropriately signed, and and this was uh a number of years ago.

Um, and I think overall uh very successful, and and people are uh respectful of that.

Thank you, Council Brown.

Yeah, I would assume the police officers would always use their discretion and and uh you know step up enforcement if they keep seeing the same people all the time obviously they would ticket them but definitely verbal warnings written warnings then ticketing if if appropriate counselor lemon see your microphone on counselor levin i was just wondering if you had another comment no i'm sorry i didn't turn however if if counselor mattson wants to amend his motion to read in principle i would second act.

Counselor Mass.

That's fine.

And again, uh in principle with the staff report and bring it back, you know, for discussion once we get the local area network or transportation network study because you know that's probably one of the things they're also be looking at.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Notion carries.

So the minutes from the community development advisory committee held November 22nd.

Second.

Seconded.

All in favor?

None opposed.

And the active transportation network plan baseline conditions report.

That the committee recommend to the council that the community development advisory committee have the informal meeting to discuss this.

I think we have solved that one.

And correspondence.

For action, we have a number of emails that are concerning overnight camping and some uh that were traffic noise and one that was for soft plastic recycling.

And of course, we've got the um overnight camping coming up in the agenda.

Um councilor Lemon.

Um the there's two for action.

Um Mayor Tobias.

So the the first one, um, I move that we send a letter as requested to the Navy League of Canada recon recognizing the uh RCSCC Rainbow and NLCC Admiral Rayner Navy League for their support.

Good for you for breaking down the acronyms, Councilor Lemon.

Do I have a second?

Second.

And I'll generate a letter with uh with staff on that.

Uh and then we have an email dated November 18th, 2022, and it was a soft plastic recycle.

And I just want to um announce that right now CRD has not the ability to um to do a soft plastic return along with normal disposal but there is locations to drop it off heartland uh depot island return it lond drugs specific mobile depots uh refuse sydney return it and so tubeline neighborhood association recycle however I will bring it up and uh with the CRD because um it is something that we often can't make it to those places and we should have a reasonable uh opportunity to dispose of those things.

So um so I think right now uh I think for action what I propose is that I bring it up with CRD but right now we're limited in the places to return soft plastics.

Um any other discussion second all in favor npposed motion carries and then we've got um several for information as discussed uh on overnight camping and for traffic noise.

Do I have a motion to receive?

Move receipt nine point two A to AQ.

Second.

All in favor.

None opposed.

Motion carries.

Amendment to procedure bylaw number six seven seven.

Uh electronic participation by council.

Staff.

Thank you.

Good evening.

There's a report before you, and it is concerning uh proposal put forward by Councillor Brown to amend our procedure bylaw by removing the limit or the cap of three meetings per year where one can attend virtually.

I see councillor Mattson has his hand raised.

Um yeah, just for clarification, I understood from um last council meeting and from looking at the minutes, we've already uh eliminated the section of the bylaw that uh restricts the number of in camera.

No, that that has not occurred.

Umcelor Matson, you're saying that we I think there was discussion, but I don't think we amended uh well there what there wasn't yes, we did.

We made a motion, it was second, and it was passed four to three.

So if it's to be reconsidered, it has to be someone has to make a notice of motion and it has to be passed by a two-thirds majority of council.

And I I would like to move the rec staff recommendation to receive the report for information council report for information second discussion yes come mayor to bias while while there is a resolution on the books to actually amend the bylaw requires an amending bylaw and so to conclude the matter you need to give readings to the bylaw would which would be which would be the second item on this particular section?

We want to move there, staff.

We could.

The motion, I believe, was that staff would provide a report of the discussion at the last meeting was that a report or further information was to be provided, and that is what this report is.

Please continue.

Thank you.

So before you, you have the background, and that is in 2021, as the province was beginning to repeal some of the provisions that were put in place during COVID.

They thought, how can we best accommodate some of the advantages that we found?

And uh, and one of them being electronic meetings.

And so when those were starting to be peeled off with some of the legislative changes that they were doing, they came forward uh with legislative changes that kicked in in the at the end of September.

And so council talked about those in June and July of 2021.

And in preparation of that, this council spoke to that and how we would be amending the procedure bottle to facilitate a hybrid meeting model with some in person attendance and live webcasting available.

That um about concern of in person attendance versus virtual attendance.

And some spoke of did we want to limit the number of meetings and the number that was arrived at, um, there was a suggestion of 10, and where the decision was arrived at was three.

And so when it came forward for readings consideration, again, um, there was a comment that um would that limit councils' ability to participate generally in in meetings if they've been elected to participate, if one could only participate up to three times.

And so that was put on the floor.

Um the the amending motion to the procedure byla did go ahead, and uh three was put in place as the rest of the provisions were included to allow this hybrid meeting model.

Uh following that, after the election on November 15th, Councillor Brown did put forward a notice of motion, and at that discussion, um the motion was that we delete that provision and that we refer it to staff for inclusion uh in a letter of expectations about council's attendance at meetings.

And the discussion also from the CAO at the time was we would provide that background information.

And so before you is a table of what other municipalities in the region do.

And there's varying, as some of the speakers earlier tonight spoke to you about, there's varying approaches.

Some have, you know, you can have how many people can be away at attend virtually at any one time, that the chair is required to be in attendance.

That if you are going to be attending virtually, that you would need to give advanced notice to the corporate officer because there's some background work that has to happen and information and meetings setup work that goes into facilitating a virtual attendance for that.

And I think that's generally it.

And some do two municipalities allow attendance of up to three consecutive regular meetings electronically.

So some of them do speak to that while some most don't have limits.

And in this case, because we're amending a procedure bylaw, there is notification requirements um that require newspaper notification.

The report also outlines alternatives, and one is to not proceed uh to remove it, and we'll get to what staff's perspective is on that in a minute um and the other is an alternative to not continue on with the hybrid model that we just revert back to all in-person um we can continue webcasting but that it would not have the hybrid component for attendance reasons or for attendance purposes um in discussion with others at other municipalities um there was some commentary based on their experiences that they would um desire to have a cap in their municipalities where there wasn't one right now um in my speaking with them um in-person attendance does result in better communication.

You can see a hand shoot up better.

They're more focused on the the the conversation, perhaps uh so a little bit more of the visual cue, less time leg or no time legs, less one off handling of late distribution materials, less issues with tech, and more direct involvement with decision making.

The bylaw is provided should council wish to proceed tonight.

And I do note that council has really been flexible, even with the bylaw in place to date when Omicron came out.

When Omicron came out last year, council did decide we aren't going to uphold that provision at this point.

And that was an agreed to yes, we were we were not going to do that.

And again, with the B4, B B5 variant, the B1.

So through the pandemic and its continuation, this body has been very flexible and not stringent with its application.

So I think staff are encouraging retention of the section, but as I said, the bylaws before you tonight.

And I turn it back over to you.

Thank you, staff.

Councilor Levin.

I move staff's encouragement of alternative one.

Thank you.

Councillor Brown.

Wiltshire, who needs to be a second if there's going to be one.

With all due respect to Mr.

I'll uh no, I won't second the motion.

Someone less.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Second.

Thank you.

Um yeah, and I'll do respect Mr.

Wiltshire.

There is actually no municipalities in the region that have a hard, fast a number, not a single one.

True.

There's ones where they have to go call the CAO or the or the deputy or deputy to say they can't come, which is only only makes sense.

Uh not only is there COVID, there's flues.

We have two members here tonight on on electronic.

Uh people get uh tied up at airports at ferry terminals, uh family sickness.

There's so many reasons and certainly it wouldn't be my intention, I'm sure nobody's intention to to exceed that number, but to have a hard fast number in there to me, it's not necessary because you like you say we're flexible.

And I think that should uh you know is it it's a moot.

To me it's a moot point to have that's why I made the motion that was passed.

So if somebody that was in the affirmative wants to make a motion to bring it back, they can do that with a two-thirds vote.

Further discussion.

Councilor Metz.

Yeah, I again I'm quite shocked that we're even discussing whether or not we should be doing this.

We've already approved by a four to three motion that that's the direction we want to go.

The only motion we should be looking at at this point in time, from my perspective, is uh asking staff to go to uh prepare the bylaw.

Counselor Rogers.

Uh I appreciate the uh staff support, and and it that was actually great to see a uh get a refresher of what the other municipalities uh have.

Um and yeah, it it's interesting.

It's um there seems to be that general approach.

There's no limit other than having um a majority of uh counsel available um in person.

Um so it does seem like the other municipalities have a greater flexibility than um what we had um created ourselves so um that has given me cause to um uh if you like go halfway between um uh the hard and fast that we had and abandon it altogether okay so we've got a motion on the floor cut counselor uh well i think uh what's happening here is we're having uh a bit of uh uh extreme uh comments on on the motion itself because what's happening here is uh we're just uh we're voting to say there's no rules at all for attending meetings whatsoever.

It's very clear from the research done by staff that uh that is um not the spirit of uh a few of us here of what we're trying to convince our colleagues of reconsidering.

The spirit here is that there be uh flexibility built in.

Nobody is saying that uh you shall not stay home if you're not feeling well or if you're at the airport, you need to get in a stealth jet and get here.

I mean, that that's not the spirit of this discussion.

That we're trying to come up with some fair parameters surrounding attending council meetings.

The history, the history of attending council meetings at any level of government is in person.

It is.

That's the spirit of it.

We do have a code of conduct that also speaks to our overall behavior.

The community charter governs us as well for attending meetings, but absolving ourselves of ever attending in person, I think is a little irresponsible.

To Counselor Rogers' point, that that this is not halfway that what we're voting on.

Halfway would be something else here present presented by staff uh in the research done with the other municipalities.

And uh that's how I feel.

Uh, and and I hope we can come to a true middle ground.

We've already voted on this.

A point of order, Mayor Tobias.

Councillor Mason, did you have a comment?

Yeah, how do we over?

I mean, I just don't understand how there could be discussion about overriding last week's uh motion that that was approved.

The only question again is you know how soon do we want staff to make the amending motion?

It's already approved.

We voted on it.

Thank you, Councillor Mason.

Counselor Quals.

Councilor Lemon.

We asked we asked staff for a report and we have the report and and um they have some um suggestions that wouldn't require you know the expense and and effort and work of of of um reintroducing um this issue.

Um I'm not I'm not gonna I'm not gonna speak at length to this because yeah, because well it's known how I feel.

I think that um councils have always always met in person and it's only within the last year that this has been an option and and it's simply you know um to and and and and we and and it's a it's it's been very balanced and very reasonable we have two two members here right now who you know are are for personal reasons or illness whatever are at home those aren't being, you know, we're not saying, okay, you, you know, that's one for you.

It's recognized that you know life happens and and and um you know things get in the way.

Um and also when you run for council, it it's an expectation that you come for you that you come to council, then you're not immediately looking for uh options and opportunities to um you know participate from a distance.

Thank you.

I don't believe any of the council members would do anything like that.

Um what I might suggest is we go ahead, delete that section, which I think is is is right off the wall, my my my my opinion, take that out, and then subsequently we could add something similar to what some of the other municipalities have, which makes sense.

You contact the corporate officer and say, for whatever reason you can't come, you let the mayor know, uh, and you get a set up, uh, or make sure there's a quorum.

I mean, that's a no-brainer, really.

Um, so I think to me it's it's really it's rigid and it's not necessary.

I think we punt that.

You're we're gonna be doing amending the procedural bylaw anyway, I understand.

So why don't we do it all at one time?

So when you're doing that, you could add this section being deleted and whatever other amendments, and we can do it all at one time.

So the cost won't be any more, won't be any less.

It'll be exactly the same.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Counselor McKenzie.

Um, so I I don't I see Matt uh Counselor Matson.

Um so I think having a very strict max that we are just not always stringent on, sometimes you know flexible, I I that to me is not a bylaw.

A bylaw is always applied consistently.

So that's why I don't I don't like to see it in there because you can't ever set the certain number.

There's always going to be circumstances where there might have to be um a kind of a one-off exception made.

Um I've also been thinking about this a bit from a diversity perspective too, and you know, future potential candidates.

Um it might impact especially women with caring responsibilities more than than uh other people uh in the future.

So I'm always cognizant of that.

Um and I I do think if uh counselor is not you know representing and coming to council that i would hope that the public would reach out to the counselor and kind of enforce it that way and and give feedback that way so um yeah for that reason i i think we should remove it from the the bylaw thank you counselor and uh i try not to ron's got his hand i'm sorry sorry i'm sorry uh try not to weigh in too much and let discussion happen and encourage it um but i i think that there's something that needs to be captured that encourages counselors to attend uh in person as much as possible.

That may well be reflected in the code of conduct, but I prefer to leave the amount of open participation electronically for all of the arguments that I've heard right now in the room that that have been brought up.

Um I work daily remotely with teams in India, and I've never had a problem with productivity or understanding communication, even though fundamentally we speak different languages.

Uh it actually helps us sometimes to uh to look at a transcription and and see the English transcription.

So I think I I'm hearing everybody that the the mood is positive to be all in one place, and there's a commitment to do that.

There are exceptions that take us away from that opportunity, and we have the technology to support it.

So that's why I'm in favor of supporting it and not putting a limitation on it that we may struggle with in the future for valid reasons.

Counselor Brown, did you have comments?

Yeah, just when I was a school trustee, what we did is we staff created a report, I believe it was quarterly, but it just gave an attendance record and it just showed the number of meetings attended, the number of eCal meetings, number regular meetings, and uh it it was made public so members of the public could see that.

And you could include times the 10 electronically if you wanted, but it just gives people a general idea.

And it's a it's a way of uh um well, the meetings themselves aren't everything counselors do, that's for sure, because there's certainly a lot of subcommittees in that, but uh it's just an idea.

I did pass it on to Kim um earlier by an e by email.

Any further comments?

Uh you're missing me here again.

So besides the issue of whether we have this part in the bylaw or not, the the other thing that aggravates me, and it's gonna be a really contentious term.

If every time some members lose a vote, they then try to refight it at a future at the next council meeting.

I you know, I I just have a problem, and I'd ask my colleagues when you lose, just go you lose gracefully, and and and the the decision was made, and it's now I don't know why we're trying to re redebate this again.

So I mean, yeah, and it's gonna be a long term if every time we lose a a motion, we we we try to raise it in the subsequent meeting.

Thank you, Councillor Mass and Councillor Clinton.

Thank you, uh Mayor Tobias and colleagues.

I really hope we don't refer to motions as winning and losing as a team from now on.

I really don't think that's constructive.

And a matter of fact, the last meeting we didn't have a staff report.

So here we are now with the staff report.

It's only fair to reconsider new facts that have been brought forward and to consider them.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any other comments?

Staff Mayor Tobias, um, the the comments made by Councilor Matson, uh Councilor Brown are correct in that council has made a decision to move forward with this change.

The um the substance to this point is a resolution that has no effect as yet.

For council to come to a conclusion, it does not require the resolution that councillor Lemon put on the floor.

The deciding criteria is their approach to the bylaw itself.

And so it would be appropriate for Councilor Lemon to withdraw her motion and for a motion to go to the floor regarding providing three readings to the bylaw as presented in the agenda.

The vote at that point is the deciding factor in terms of where we actually go.

Thanks, Council Lemon.

That being said, I will I will withdraw my motion.

Thank you.

With that motion redrawn, now we go into the discussion for the procedure bylaw as amended that we'll have to go through um readings if we're proceeding, right?

And I'm assuming we're proceeding.

Council Lunn.

Um would I I would move to that we receive staff's report.

Second.

All in favor and opposed.

So we've received staff's report.

We're going through and um going through with the bylaw that was amended the last meeting with the motion.

There was no bylaw on the floor here.

I'll move first to third of the bylaw.

Say that again, Councilor Maston.

I'll move first a third of the bylaw.

So Councillor Brown all in favor to opposed motion carries you your worship um mayor to bias counselor rogers yes thank you uh just uh um for clarification um so therefore we have no conditions whatsoever on attendance is that where we're we're at at this point is just want to make sure.

And uh if we are going to be considering or in the future time, I would we have to bring it back um again uh to consider uh a more structured middle ground.

So thank you.

No, the bylaws only received three readings, it has not been adopted, so this is not yet in effect.

The other is, and I'll come back to your other question in a minute, Counselor Rogers.

I did not see how you voted, Councillor Rogers, so I would need that confirmed, please.

I opposed.

So I have counselors Lemon, Kualowicz, and Rogers opposed.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

And in terms of this, it would then need to be put on to a um, we would need to notice for it under the legislation.

Once we've passed that required amount of notification and the time for notification, it would then be brought back to the next appropriate council meeting for that for consideration of adoption, at which time council can consider this bylaw for adoption or not.

Totally up to council.

And then it would become a change that would amend the main procedure bylaw.

And in terms of Councillor Rogers' second point, some of the other discussion that we've had tonight could be incorporated into the amending uh procedure bylaw work that's currently underway right now, and we could consider that adding additional provisions uh such that we've seen from other municipalities when we bring that forward in 2023 thank you staff and uh to the to the chair i guess the other comment too is the uh staff are going to look at uh potentially putting something in dealing with this through code of conduct a simple statement like the expectation is that um uh physical presence during council meetings something to that effect okay I think that sets are way ahead on uh our electronic participation uh amendments to parks and public places by law nine eight six and uh chief you're still here thank you good evening mayor and members of council um before you is a um is a report that uh was authored by by law enforcement officer henley at my instruction it uh has received uh three readings back in July.

And I'd be remiss if i didn't um say thanks to Mayor Tobias for clarifying um your opening remarks with respect to camping and recent court judgments.

Uh it's important that this council and mayor are aware of the sympathetic and empathetic nature of our bylaw officers and our RCMP.

Um this is a very difficult time for all people involved, and um I encourage people to be empathetic and sympathetic.

This bylaw is designed to not only assist in the management of this issue, but it's also designed to protect the interests of the town of Uroy.

Um I read with interest many passioned emails, and uh thank you, Dr.

Critchley, for actually showing up tonight to speak.

I appreciate your opinion, always appreciate your uh your point of view, sir.

So thank you.

Um the purpose of the bylaw is to establish amendments to the town of Uroy's Parks and Public Spaces bylaw that limits opportunities for homeless encampments.

And just to reiterate um the opening remarks, um, camping is permitted in any park and any public space in the town of View Royal right now, today.

It is permitted.

If you look on the report, Officer Henley has supplied a list of camping complaints and violations from 2019, 2020, 21, and 22.

This year alone, we've dealt with 81 encampments in the town of View Royal.

This this issue is alive and well, and it's not isolated to one particular part of the town.

It is it is in the town, it is alive and well.

The uh bylaw amendments, and and for those um who wrote letters in, uh, the by these bylaw amendments um are a result of extensive RCMP and neighboring jurisdiction consultation.

It's been vetted through our legal forms, um, it has been carefully thought out, and it is consistent with the other bylaws throughout the CRD.

Um these bylaw amendments are as well uh based on observed experiences in our parks, and they make these amendments critical.

Uh as reiterated the um court uh decisions allow people to shelter in any park in any public space.

These amendments regulate and control where that encampment can be set up and offers enforcement techniques and tools to manage the designated spaces in in the event of an extended encampment.

Without going into uh the details of the um the bylaw and the report, I would uh I would turn it over to uh Mayor Tobias and Council and I'll answer uh any questions that uh you have with respect to the report.

Council Brown.

It's uh a few couple concerns.

One of them is uh kind of housekeeping issue, but on the schedule of offenses, it doesn't have designated enforcement officers.

I know in the CRD, all of our bylaws have uh who can enforce the bylaw.

Obviously, a bylaw officer Henley would be doing that, and obviously the RCMP, but it should be listed because in the Local Government Act, it says that you should be have designated people in your in your schedules of offensive.

Yeah, okay.

So that's just one thing.

I didn't I did talk briefly to Jim earlier today, but I didn't have a chance to have chat with him because I was blocking traffic.

Um the other concern is and it's a really good report, by the way, excellent report, lots of good detail, lots of good information.

Um but in there it doesn't it doesn't say uh it says some parks might be designated, but doesn't really name the parks.

Obviously it'd be Portage Park, um, right?

That would be one of them.

Uh and most of the emails we've got today from residents, they're concerned about that particular park in one.

And and as you correctly said, the uh a person can legally camp in in any in any park.

They can.

That's correct.

Now if this goes through, I mean, like people that want to camp may camp in other places, and it may shift the the problem to to uh regional parks like Thetis Lake, that could happen.

Uh my concern is all the exempted parks, um, which they could legally uh camp in now.

Um it's gonna funnel those people that want to camp into these other sites, uh Veroyal Park, Portage Park, I believe Centennial Park's not on the exempted list.

And not only that, in the summertime, uh, when there's ball tournaments and things on, because the government has so wisely bought all these two star and three star hotels in Victoria, there's gonna be a lot of people looking for places to stay that are very inexpensive.

And I can see people camping in in those three parks that aren't considered homeless people, but maybe baseball players.

That's just an example.

I wouldn't want to see us funneling.

I know the reason.

Yeah, if you can keep the campers into two or three spots, it makes it easier to enforce.

But even at that, if you start writing tickets to two people that are homeless, for example, uh, they won't pay the ticket.

And uh you can issue them ticket every day if you want it, and they still never pay it.

And the only way to collect the money is to take them to small claims court, and which they aren't going to turn up for.

So it's frustrating for me to see all these exemptions to all these small parks, most of them are smaller parks, and then funneling them into these bigger parks, uh where usually there's more people.

So I I really like the bylaw, I like the way it's written, it's it's great, except for the exemptions of the of those parks.

If they're allowed to park all the parks, it should be the same right across the board.

That's just my feeling.

I think some of the correspondence deals with specific parks.

Yeah, but there's no but it says in the report that certain parks will be designated, but it's not I've read through this thing four times, and I can't see anywhere where it says which parks are designated.

But people obviously feel because those ones aren't listed, those are the ones that are going to be designated, and that's Portage Park View Royal Park.

And just there's just lots of people live there.

And personally, if you cluster those into bigger groups, then you're gonna have an even a bigger problem.

And again, I know it's not our problem if we shift the problem on it's like we used to roll cars across the the borderline so some other municipality will have to deal with with the uh the the problem right so um and and really although I know there has been some people camping in those parks personally when I've walked those parks um I haven't seen it I haven't I'm sure it's happened but I haven't seen a lot of it and people I've sewing their dogs they haven't said they've seen a lot of it obviously some people today the doctor's said he's seen it and I I know he has.

But uh this is going to funnel more people into those parks.

And if we would just take the the exempt ex exceptions out of that, I'd be very happy with the way the the bylaws written.

I'm I'm gonna propose perhaps a different way.

Most of the um most of the comments have been around um portage park and uh portage inlet linear connector park uh north of uh north of Portage Inlet.

Um now what we could do is rescind the third reading of the bylaw and amend the bylaw to add portage park and portage inlet linear connector park to the section and give it a third reading as an amended bylaw.

Now, what that would do would be I understand your experience as counselor, but most of the concern, even though the bylaw, if somebody wanted to camp there is not enforceable, we've already said that.

And I'm sure that most of the people uh that that are going to be um considering camping in View Royal Parks are not reading the bylaw.

Uh, but it's going to become known, and you're quite correct in that, I think, that if there's a move toward an area, that's where there could be some congregation.

But I don't think we're there yet.

That's an assumption that we have not seen.

And uh I I would like to propose that we uh amend the bylaw to the majority of uh people's concerned, particularly Portage Park and Portage Inlet Park, uh, to the excluded park area and give it a third reading counselor um so I have an I don't know at what point to raise these but a number of questions and comments is now the right time to do that or if you address your okay um so I guess my first one uh while um you or maybe staff can uh respond too is that is it just parks or could it be for instance uh a parking lot with a washroom as well.

So I'm thinking I I mean just the only one I know of is the one on Atkins Road, like for the galloping goose.

Is that also no that that particular area belongs to the the Capital Regional District.

That is their property.

It's that's an interesting area.

It's it's a culmination of uh M OTI, Ministry of Transport Land, uh, a little bit of U Royal, a lot of CRD, there's the Galloping Goose, ENN rail trail, all congregates in that area.

And there is a content concentration of camping in there right now.

This bylaw does not cover that.

Those those issues when we uh receive those complaints are referred on to the CRD bylaw enforcement and MOI M O T I for um for their action.

So no it doesn't this bylaw doesn't encompass those areas.

Okay.

Good.

Um and then uh so one of my things I would I would really like a little bit more time since it's the first time that three of us have have spoken to this matter.

Um I know we've received a lot of emails, which we're we're saying not here, not here, but I think I would like a more creative other solutions or other alternatives.

Um, you know, for instance, I was thinking I haven't looked into this, but you know, the RV park, could we rent part of that and therefore people could have access to dignified showers and and toilet facilities there?

Um like that kind of maybe we need to do a little bit of engagement to come up with more options other than just the the parks, because I do believe if we give an um if we are able to provide shelter in other ways, uh it wouldn't impact our parks.

If that's maybe I don't know if that can I receive information.

Counselor, there's probably two separate issues that we're dealing with.

I think we're dealing with this bylaw.

And then I I'm not going to diminish at all your solution which could be another thing.

Okay.

Entirely that so I I think they're they're two very important things.

They're very they're they're close together, but I think the the issue on the table would be specific about parks and the solutioning about a problem that we both share that there's a concern over to try to rectify would be another piece.

Am I getting that wrong, Councillor Brad?

Yeah, I appreciate what caught uh what counselor McKenzie is saying.

And that's one of the reasons why we're allowed to uh implement a bylaw.

Because we don't have alternate places to say here you can get some housing here or you can go here, especially in cold weather, uh, you know, weather like tonight.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, that's one of the reasons why we can if we had other places, we wouldn't have to have this particular bylaw.

To me, either you include all the parks or none of the parks.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry.

So I have a few more questions.

Uh and I'll stick to the the bylaw itself.

Um, so I think firstly, given our population size and the size of View Royal and the number of bylaw enforcement officers, I do believe it should be limited in terms of the parks, ideally, one.

Um, one of my biggest concerns with the camping is the risk of fires, which is why particularly Portage Park is a concern for me.

I did do a Google map look of the all the different areas, and you know it's it's pure forest and very close to dense population as well, with the residences there.

So if a fire was to start, it could have really catastrophic um outcomes there.

So, and I noticed in the bylaw as well that there's no um all the other ones said, you know, 100 meters from the toilet facilities, etc., but there was nothing for private property or a distance from uh a house, for example.

Um, so I would like to suggest that we add that in to the bylaw.

Um I think if we do have all these limitations for the bylaw as well, I would like it to see it supported with perhaps a map or or a drawing that both the campers and residents can clearly see what meets all the criteria.

So if we do say View Royal Park, for example, we would identify this this is the part of the park that you can camp in.

Um, just so we don't have people calling bylaw when it's not actually um a non-compliant.

Um, I also wanted to review the hours.

Um, so right now it's 7 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

I did see Victoria uh has later hours in the summer.

Um, I would like to see it moved or that we proposed it move to later, so maybe eight o'clock, because a lot of the emails were about dog walkers.

So I'm thinking at eight o'clock in the summer, the sun hasn't gone down yet.

Um, it would avoid a lot of the people taking their dogs out for walks.

Um, and in the winter it's a bit moot because it's already dark at 4 30.

So um if we could revisit the timings on there, that I would uh like that.

Um, and I think that's I'll stop there.

I I think the timing is set by the Supreme Court.

They've actually come up with a time from seven uh at night until morning.

I'll I'll double check that I think that's because I saw um Victoria had 8:30 during daylight savings.

I think that it's probably not if somebody wanted to challenge it, they could, and it's probably limited.

But I know that the Supreme Court was pretty had actually hours on it from seven, I think, till seven, maybe.

Council Brown.

Yeah, there is yeah, just to clarify, there is there is different hours in City of Victoria because my bile officers assisted them with some of the enforcement actions down there when the the with the big campsites.

Um also in there it's talking about uh concerns about having uh areas cloak camping where they're close to playgrounds, and of course there's a playground in Portage Park.

There's also a playground in View Royal Park.

And I'm not sure about Centennial Park, but I think there probably is.

There's certainly ballparks there, so I'm not sure about that.

But again, to me, um I don't know in my opinion, you should just take that out and just say the parks, period, and and not list any parks.

That that would be my preference.

I just want to point out, Mary, there is a there is a um a notation here that uh it can't occur within a hundred meters of a playground in the bylaw.

So councillor McKenzie, you've got a number of concerns, and this was already um uh addressed before you before we joined council so um we're at the point right now we're um at third reading I think um for the amendment so either we turn around and amend the bylaw um but I are you succinct enough in what you want to be able to do to amend the bylaw I yes uh let's go to um if possible, Counselor Matz in first, just to see, and then I counselor matzon yeah I I have a question for uh Chief Hearst.

I was wondering, uh Councillor Brown makes a good point.

Giving a homeless person a ticket's really not it's not going to work too well.

So, but that's not my understanding in terms of uh how we would remove people who are camping illegally.

So maybe if you could clarify what the process would be.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Counselor, and that's a good point.

I I have to I it I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the the the work that Officer Henley does with our homeless.

The intent is not to ticket a homeless person.

The um the courts do not look favorably on on government or or enforcement agencies ticketing people who have nowhere to live.

Uh I'm sympathetic to that, and that I can guarantee you that's not going to happen.

The reality is Jim has worked extensively with our homeless population to find them doctors, food, alternative accommodations.

This bylaw is designed to protect the town and its interests.

That said, our bylaw officers and myself are sympathetic to this issue and have worked with the people in this community.

We know these people.

We know where they where they camp.

We know where they live, and we work with them to help them get the services they need to take it to the next level.

We've had people come out of tents and end up in homes.

We've had people off their medication, get medicated.

And that's the work that Jim's doing out in the field.

That's that's almost every day here.

The concern here is a large encampment that sets up and the bylaw officer says, you can't have that camp here.

And they say, well, no, we're not leaving.

And we refer it to the police.

The first reaction from the police is going to be, have you exhausted your bylaw?

And we're going to say we don't have one.

And then they would say, well, go to the court and get an injunction.

And the courts are going to say, did you exhaust your bylaw?

And we're going to say we don't have one.

And they're going to say thank you very much.

So all the phone calls that come into the bylaw officer, I'm not sure where to send them because we don't have a mechanism or a tool to manage this.

By laws are one thing, but interaction with human beings is another thing.

And dealing with these people in a way that they feel respected and um helped and recognized is the intent here with my office.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

We work with these people, we help them get the services they need, we help them get accommodations.

But these are these are these one-off events that are going to cripple this town financially.

And and I say that in all seriousness, this is this is in six figures.

If if an encampment gets set up, we do not have the resources or the finances to deal with it.

And and this is following suit from every municipality in the CRD to protect this municipality.

Thank you.

I'll go with you, Councillor Rogers, then Councillor Brown.

Yes, thank you.

Some questions and uh and comments.

Really appreciate the uh the discussion uh uh to date and and again staff thank you for the report um you know it's it's funny when I read the list of um uh thou shalt not uh it completely escaped me that um we have four Centennial Portage Linear Park Portage Park and View Royal Park I think it's just the four um I could be wrong if we if there's actually more um and you know thinking of Centennial Park um you know gosh, um you know the good news is it does have a toilet, but um it doesn't have but it doesn't have water.

It is accessible.

But um uh what worries me is the damage to infrastructure, the fields and the fields maintenance that um uh that would ensue.

And and uh where we we talk about uh cost of the town, well that would certainly be a significant one.

So that I'm worried about that.

Um and and a point well taken uh by comments.

Um uh if we only have one bylaw, sir, maybe we should stick to one park and uh see how it goes.

Um I really um having it the idea of a map and where so it's clear to uh everybody where it's okay is a really good idea.

Um and uh the idea of of good is it it see it appears to be silent whether um people can camp um uh in a park that's only 50 feet away from uh a private fence.

So that worries me um so we do have that those those points of uh ambiguity uh so sorry counselor if i could just clarify uh in the bylaw it does indicate um there are uh measured distances from established trail sidewalks and private properties uh perfect so there there is a distance that they that they can't uh camp within thank you that's very thank you very helpful and i wonder if um and uh question just to um chief hearst 200 meters from playground, if it were something like view all park, why wouldn't it be 300 or 200?

I can always rely on you, Counselor rogers, to ask uh a 200 meter, 300.

I I can't answer that question right now.

But thank you for asking.

I'm gonna take a note here and I'll I can get back to you on that one.

I I'm I'm confident that that that that distance was probably derived from reviewing other bylaws and they they came up with a consistent platform.

Yeah, and and and again, uh that's that's a really good point.

Um uh that the fact that we're trying to be consistent uh with the other municipalities um uh across the board um for all this.

Um gosh, there was a um I oh actually first is is there a a limit or uh to how many individuals may camp in a given park?

No.

No, the bylaw only recognizes the ability to assist and move and and control that uh that event.

This is uh also a Supreme Court thing, Counselor Rogers.

It's nothing to do with our bylaw when it comes to limitations or anything like that.

And as soon as we start to put limitations on it, we're going to, I think, be taken up on the offer.

Uh Councillor Brown and then Councilor Matson.

Just uh give you example we did in the with the California Regional District is we enforced the parks bylaw and also we had campers on the uh watershed sometimes or some water properties, uh and we have legal advice advice obviously from uh our legal uh gov law.

Um what we would do if if someone left their tent there for a long period of time, uh we would uh do a draft letter, a form letter saying that uh you're on um C or D property, you have 24 hours to remove your items.

Otherwise we will come and and seize the items and you can pick your items up at X address and and that's that that proved to be very effective.

A lot of times people don't never come back.

We we Jim does uh employ those tactics right now.

He again the the purpose here is is obviously voluntary compliance and and you know a person is sleeping in a tent in a park probably not by choice and then taking away their tent and throwing it in the garbage is not that's not the intent.

We do we do work with these people if it's if it looks like it's clearly abandoned uh material, then we do we do leave a notice and then we confiscate the material, we hold it for 30 days and we leave a notice of where the material is and we have had people come get their material.

They show up a couple days later and they're where's my shopping cart, where's my tent, where are my belongings?

Because these are their personal belongings.

So we we do retain we do we do hold their items and we do retain them.

Part of this might not be perfect before I go to counselor McKenzie, but I mean I I think Chief Hearst made it pretty clear that his bylaw officers have no tools right now to enforce.

So this I I though maybe not perfect, there might be solutions that we could amend or different things that we could try, but without having this here could open up you know a danger to not only the town, but also the people who so choose to encamp uh in it in the future.

Council McKenzie.

Um I was just wondering if I was thinking about Portage Park in particular, and um if a fire was to happen there, the access for the fire, uh how would that be like by I don't think there's a truck that would be able to access there there is a new road that comes in off the island highway, and we're able to actually drive right to the beach.

What about the other side though?

Because Portage Park is um I'm sorry, are we talking about the same park?

Are you talking portage linear?

No, right here.

Right here in Portage Park.

But then there's the ENN, and then the other side is also considered Portage Park.

Oh yes.

So the access would be off of I want to say Ethos or Falstaff uh off of Glentana and we would we would hand lay hoses in from there.

We wouldn't be able to get a truck in there.

No, it would be it would be hand lay operations not dissimilar to like Thetis Lake Park.

We can get to the main parking lot but I can't get to the rest of the park unless I absolutely yeah I have to hand bomb all the hose in.

Right.

I I do echo your concerns as well for uh for the fire dangers especially in the summer.

Um we had a large uh fire at Theetis Lake Park this year that was a result of uh an abandoned campfire in a camp.

So we're acutely aware of the of the fire risk.

And I think that's why the park that was designated, it's an open space where you can clearly see what's going on.

Um, albeit Portage Park has its challenges.

And what I'm hearing is a possible amendment to some of these parks, which is supportable.

And then uh thank you for that.

And then um I'm not seeing the a hundred meters from the private property.

So as long as we're happy with that, I I just don't see it under um section eighteen.

Stand by counselor.

Um I just want to clarify, make sure that I'm I'm not speaking out of turn here.

Eighteen three.

No overshadow shelters at any time within 100 meters of uh playground, tennis court, sports field or dugout.

Uh let me just stand by.

My apologies.

Let me just find the section here that I just quoted you.

I I hope I didn't misread it.

So while he's finding that, uh Council McKenzie.

So you'd be happy if it included 100 meters from private property, is that what I'm hearing?

Yeah, so um I would propose um excluding Portage Park and including a requirement that it's 100 meters from private property.

Okay.

Oh just and 4.2.

It says 10 meters of an established trail sidewalk or private property.

10 meters 5.

And that was 10.

10.2 counselor mass.

Council 4.

Um yeah, if if I I don't know if Councillor McKenzie was uh you were the amending the the motion.

Can I amend the amended motion to add portage linear park as well, as you mentioned, so that it comes down to the one park.

And I and I think I would like some clarification from staff from Chief Hearst if that would be manageable for staff.

I don't know where I'm I'm a I'm lost on that one right now.

With that, we can make that amendment.

That's that's easy enough to do.

I'm sorry, Counselor.

What was your question again?

The question was if we bring it down to one park, if we um amend the bylaw as it is and and um include Portage Park and Portage Linear Park in the in the um excluded park zones.

Yes, that brings it down to one park.

Is that workable for you and and and for Jim?

Yes.

Yeah that makes it manageable.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

So I'm I'll I'll I'll make that uh amended.

I'm the danger of hearing what what Counselor Madsen wants to say.

He wants to say something.

Okay, just uh just to clarify the motion on the floor right now.

So the idea would be to rescind the third reading of the bylaw as it stands now, 1095, amend the bylaw to add portage park and portage inlet linear connector park.

Um and the private property separation was 10 meters, I believe, as opposed to 100 meters for counselor McKenzie just to lay it on, so that may not have to be amended.

Uh and then give it third reading as amended and come back for adoption in early January 2023.

Councilor Mattson.

Uh yes.

So I'm just wondering if we're letting the perfect get in the way of the good.

And I don't know if Chief Hurst feels this is urgent enough to have a bylaw in place right away, and then we can have uh more in-depth discussions in terms of what we'd like to see the new, you know, how we'd like to revise this current bylaw.

Because it could be two or three months before we actually have any sort of bylaw and and you know there's lots of discussion around you know you know 100 meters.

If you made it 200 meters, we wouldn't have to worry about putting them parking in any parks because you know, in terms of households.

So I mean there's following up to someone else's comment on the map, it'd be nice to just, you know, once we relook at this, see what areas we're actually could be camped in in and the various parks that could be camped in.

For example, Centennial Park, although it's included on the list is uh one they can't go in.

If you've put in ballparks, it can't be near a ballpark.

Well, that basically excludes the whole park.

So it'd be nice to see a map where just where we actually could have camping occurring and in what parks.

But my biggest concern is we have a number of months where we don't have a bylaw in place while we try to perfect this bylaw as opposed to just approving it and then working on amendments to the bylaw to get to get the perfect bylaw.

Yeah, that's what I I think I'm I'm hearing is there there's willingness for the council to amend uh or discuss at least vote on it come up with a motion uh because we had significant discussion on it and then I think that work of continuous improvement counselor matheson to your point is always um something that's going to be salient for us so can we call the question for the amended motion so the amended motion again is to uh add uh portage park and portage inlet inlet linear connector park boy we gotta think of a different name than that uh that's uh that's something to say steph thank you mayor to bias the um the process will require three different motions and so while you're talking about the amendment before you actually pass a motion to amend you need to pass a motion rescinding third reading and then another motion will be required describing the amendment and then third reading by the third motion thanks staff let's dig into that now so can I have a motion to rescind the third reading of bylaw number 1095 so moved councilor brown council McKenzie can I have a motion to amend the oh all in favor yep I can barely see councillor rogers and counselor Matheson up there now, but yeah, I think uh there there's no disagreement.

Uh so we're all in favor, motion passes.

Uh I do counselor math.

So before we vote, before we vote to rescind, I'm just can we actually get this bylaw, even if it's amended, passed today, or do we or are we gonna have to wait?

So that uh so before before I rescind, I would like to know that.

We can give it third reading and then come back for adoption in January.

But if we don't, I'm not sure when it will come back for adoption.

Okay, just if we're still talking on the if we're voting on the motion I'm voting, counselor matheson.

We're voting to rescind, that's my understanding.

That's right.

And so just in terms of discussion on that, I'm opposed because I think we should just pass what we currently have, then take our time to make an amendment, make the amendments and then prove, you know, and then eventually pass it because staff don't have a bylaw, and if we approve it tonight, they'll have a bylaw, and then we can spend the time uh you know having discussions and making improving on the bylaw.

So it question to staff, would this speed up anything uh for getting the bylaw through if we um rescind and go through the process of rescinding and amending?

You are correct, Mayor Tobias, in uh if we rescind, amend, and give third reading, we will have to wait to have a following meeting to adopt.

Currently, the bylaw stands at third reading and can be adopted today.

We can at that point um offer amendments to council to amend the amended bylaw to improve on the basis of council's wishes.

We've been working on this this particular bylaw for I think three years now.

And when it was considered by the previous council in July, when they learned that there were actually three parks that were exempted, they uh they decided that it should be deferred and decided by the following council yourselves.

And so that's why it's on your plate in its present form?

I think I'm happy to get it as right as it can be um personally to uh carry out and rescind the bylaw and then come back for uh adoption in January that still keeps us kind of on track, not too much of a delay there.

Um that balance things out.

I think I see your hand, Counselor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um, so question to staff.

Um if we were to rescind uh and if we were to consider a special council meeting, uh, if we wanted to uh just to uh move this along quickly, how soon could we have a special council meeting to um uh adopt a new amended bylaw?

Thanks, Councilor Roger staff.

I believe uh a clear day, which is actually something like three days, and so we could schedule a special council meeting next week.

Right.

Thank you.

So I think we're at a point where we're ready to vote to rescind the third reading.

The other option there is that we don't rescind it and uh push to try to push this one through and vote on that.

So I think we've had let's go through this again because there was some conceit confusion.

So can I get a motion to rescind the third reading of bylaw number 1095 so moved so moved counselor McKenzie all in favor none opposed uh and then motion passes one opposed one opposed one opposed councilor uh mattson's opposed motion carries uh and then can I get a motion to amend bylaw number 1095 to add portage park and portage inlet linear connector park uh to section 18.4 excluded area or excluded park area list.

So moved.

I'm moving amendment.

That that's on that's on we bought when you're moving in.

I'm moving an amendment to the amendment.

Yes.

Yes.

So we're happy with that staff.

Did we capture that had passed?

I no I'm moving an amendment to amendment to the amendment.

Okay, go ahead, Council Rogers.

Thank you.

Um I want to add Centennial Park as well.

It's already on the list.

It is.

It's uh it's listed under Centennial Park.

Um looking at my list, I don't see is it under C for Centennial?

It's under H for Helmkin.

18.4.

It's listed as Helmkin Centennial Park.

Helmcken, okay.

Okay.

Do you want to withdraw your amendment to the amendment to the amendment?

No, no, no.

That's good.

So at this point.

So at this point, uh Mayor Tobias, there is on the floor, yes, a motion to amend for adding those two parks to section 18.4.

I would just want to know if council would also then like to add as part of that amendment the 10 meter private property separation.

Yes.