Council Meeting

Uh good evening and welcome to the Town of Year Royals council meeting for Tuesday, the 6th of May 2025.

And I'll start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Laquanguin speaking people known today as the Koposum or Squimalt Nation and Songheese Nation and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public during public participation and question period portions of the agenda if you're wishing to address counsel regarding the application for 294296 Eltham Road and 242 Helmkin Road.

There will be an opportunity for public comment at that time in the agenda.

To provide your comments virtually during the public participation period or to ask questions during question period, you will see a QR code or a URL in the live webcast stream screen.

Try saying that three times fast, or a URL on the town's website and under the live webcast.

Scan the QR code or type in the URL, and you can use the form that pops up and type your comment into it.

And at the right time, a member of our webcast team will read it out.

You will need to provide your name and just your street name without the number on the form if you are speaking in council chambers or online.

Public participation comments are limited to five minutes for each speaker and must be related to an item on the agenda.

Question period is open to any question and is limited to two-minute seats for each speaker, and you'll be timed.

This meeting will be recorded, and by participating in the webcast, you are consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

Um I get an approval of the agenda, and I believe we have uh a late item as well on the agenda.

Moved by councillor Maxman, seconded by councillor Lemon.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Uh, and can I get an uh motion to adopt the minutes for the 22nd April, the 15th of April, and a special meeting on the 15th of April.

Moved by Councillor Lemon, second by counselor Mattson uh all those in favor any opposed none opposed the motion carries um uh mayor's report uh a brief one uh there's been an election since we last got together as a council uh so i did uh send a letter and correspondence uh congratulating stephanie mclean the new mla for uh the new region as well or the new electoral area it seemed strange changing a place where you normally vote um uh also wanted to uh inform council that we did have a OCP committee meeting last night that uh councillor lemon and i uh attended and kind of uh supporting staff and working through some questions um and some feedback and we um uh we are thankful to Councillor Qualwic for uh getting our youth representative.

Nathan was outstanding, uh and he showed up uh last night, so he is our first youth representative.

Uh it's tax time, and everybody looks to counsel, and you'll see a report and I'll let the cat out of the bag that um we managed to get our taxes down from where we started, I think it was 11 or double digits.

Uh and with some creative accounting, um, we got it down to about seven uh six, uh so seven percent uh for taxes this year, which are better than double digits.

And I think that brings us to our first public participation period.

If you're here for any of the DPs or variances, there's a special section just for you, but is there anybody here that would like to address counsel on anything related to the agenda?

I'm seeing no takers.

You could talk about anything on the agenda if you like.

Carol, I'll go to you online.

Perhaps it's too uh too fast, nobody has sent in a form yet.

Mayor Tobias, we've got no uh messages on the board.

Thanks, Carol.

And I think that brings us right to uh the uh staff reports.

And I think the first staff report was um I'm pulling back as the mayor because I can because I think our conversation got outside of the actual uh development.

The variant specifically is just looking for feedback or a yes or no for height, atrellis, and turning radius.

So we can't keep our comments just specific to those things.

If you want to repeat the same answer you did before, but I think the feedback if if council says a trellis is fine, um, or each one of those things, I'll try to go down and itemize it just so that we provide feedback on what they're looking for here.

Counselor Matson.

Yeah, no, I'm just confused because in terms of the way the presentation is, it says to consider an application for form and character development and variances but what i've just heard you say is we've already done form and character and so we can't bring that up it's just those three variances that are at issue tonight i just just for clarification i'll i'll look to staff for that yeah uh through the chair council is reconsidering the entire development permit with variance application this evening all right it but i mean if you're you're opposed to the project for whatever reason just to articulate it when it comes down specifically to the variances are you opposed uh to it and then say no to everything or is there a particular thing that you don't like I d but what I just heard staff say is the development permit is up for rediscussion and approval or rejection for for the dp and included in the discussion are those three variances so that's where i'm confused because uh it's both correct yeah so um the mayor has brought back the application um the development permit with variance application for reconsideration of counsel so that includes the form of character as well as the three variances so just in relation to what you've said.

Form and character is up for approval or rejection.

Yes as well as okay yeah.

Any other questions before we begin?

Jeff?

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

This is a representation for the uh for the uh development permit application at 294, 296 Eltham Road, and 242 Helmkin Road.

And the purpose is to consider a development permit from a character development permit with variances to construct 20 uh to a site specific site specific zone and that is to permit um kind of a three-story townhouse development.

The proposal is for uh 20 units and five buildings they would have individual entrances and um and rooftop terraces the uh the buildings themselves would be would have uh hardy type siding and the colors are uh generally earth tone type buildings with uh with individual uh colors for doors at the front entrance so that each unit um will be distinct from the neighbor um the proposal generally complies with the uh development area guidelines in terms of um facades, windows, roof lines, balconies would provide some articulation and variations to the building farm to avoid blank walls that face the street.

Materials would be durable and of high quality reflecting the West Coast design character, which has elements of uh elements of wood and kind of a natural color palette.

The um the residential entrances would have weather protection be visible from the street and as I mentioned before individual color accents.

And one of the guys the guidelines call for uh access to private outdoor space, and this is provided at the ground level with each unit having their own yard at the ground level and rooftop terraces as well.

Some existing trees on the site would be removed.

And in our arbor support was provided to make sure those tree rules were really necessary.

Most of the replacement trees would be on the perimeter of the property, and some would be uh some would may have to be uh replaced off site through the in accordance to the tree uh protection bylaw.

This is an elevation, this is a a rendering of what what the elton street uh facade would look like uh showing uh showing how the the different uh elements of the building create kind of a um different planes that so there's not one big rectangular box so from the buildings are slightly set back a little bit and there's some kind of architectural elements that kind of um add add um kind of a 3D element to it three variances are requested uh the first one is for building height uh building height of uh 11.78 meters is requested where 11.25 is uh required in the bylaw um this was a kind of a result of an oversight at the time of preparing the bylaw where building heights were measured to the finished grade, not the natural grade.

The site slopes from the rear to the front and um and so the this elevation the side elevation kind of shows that the building would be slightly raised up at the Helmkin end of the building of the site and slightly recessed at the uh at the at the rear lot rear lot line which is kind of facing the uh the Ashley Ashley Gate townhouses next door um but the buildings are essentially the same drawings that were presented at the time of built aheads are the same as well as presented at the time of rezoning second resident variance is recorded for the maneuvering aisle again these were shown at the time of the rezoning application um and this is to permit a six meter wide drive aisle where 7.6 meters is required the applicant has provided a number of uh turning radius uh to show that uh individual individual vehicles will be able to um exit the sites without uh without conflict within the driveway area.

If you are driving definitely a large vehicle like a Ford F-150, it would be a three-point turn.

But the actual layout is has been verified that with the fire department that a fire truck will be able to enter the site and be able to exit the site.

On that basis, the variance is can be supported.

The final variance is for the location of a trellis at performance that kind of serves to mark the uh the laneway between the two buildings that face Alphonse Street.

Um and the purpose of that is typically accessory buildings typically aren't supported in the front yard.

In this case, it provides uh marks the pedestrian entrance to the site again helps break up the mass of the two buildings.

Um it's not significant, wouldn't have neighborhood impacts, so that uh that variance can be supported.

So the conclusion is the proposal is generally in accordance with the development area guidelines.

Uh the variances are a result of an oversight when when established in the zoning uh bylaw for this site, and the other two variances for driveway width and a trellis were were generally shown at the time of uh of rezoning and are not considered uh significant in terms of neighborhood impact um so the recommendation is to uh approve the development along with the associated variances with some conditions that site lighting be dark skies friendly and the landscape selection um uh installation maintenance and irrigation uh to meet must meet the building uh the BC landscape standard which is one of the the the guidelines and the development preliminary guidelines so that concludes the presentation uh if there's any questions, uh I'd be happy to answer them.

The applicant and their team is also here to help if I can't answer those questions.

I I've got a few to start off with, Jeff.

So just about the variances.

Um so really we're talking about the increase of building height, but it's for a portion of the development, not the entire um development, correct?

Uh that's right.

The the variances apply to the um two or three the three buildings that are kind of uh closer to the Helmoken side of the site.

So the uh the two buildings that are closer to the actual gate town is are three stories and in in accordance with the uh the zone.

So with that, the increase in building height for that portion is from eleven point two five meters to eleven point seven five meters, which in my old school brain tells me it's about a foot and a half.

That they're looking for for an increase in height.

It's definitely less than two feet.

So I think you're and uh the next one for reduce the width of the maneuvering aisle, it goes from seven point uh six to six meters, which is uh significant, but you're saying no impact.

My math, right?

So that's about one point six meters that we're reducing it by, correct?

That's right.

That's because part of the the driveway is a bit of an angle and uh vehicles can still turn in and out, just the way the buildings are laid out.

Uh the space between garage doors is definitely more than more than six meters.

So it's just the drive aisle that's six meters.

And just to to confirm for me, for the trellis, if the trellis was located on the Helmkin side, which is considered the front, there would be no problem with the trellis, correct?

Um actually they're not permitted in any any yard facing the the street.

The usually typically accessory buildings in the in the zoning bylaw are typically behind the front face of the building.

So the idea is that we do not prefer to see car ports in the front yard.

They should be no further, no closer than the front of the building.

Right, but it's a trellis.

Is that an accessory building?

It is an accessory structure.

So that's an accessory structure, okay.

So there would be an issue if that was facing Helmkin, you because we don't want to see accessory structures or if it was in the back.

Where might it be appropriate?

I'm just Yeah, the again the so we don't have an exception for trellises.

It's for any accessory structure or building.

Okay.

Land, did you have anything to add?

No, uh Jeff addressed it all.

Okay, great.

Um, anybody else that got any questions about the uh Council Lemon?

What is the average width of an aisle in, you know, in your experience in other townhouse developments?

I'm you know, I certainly they vary, but what is the average?

Is this unusually narrow um so the six meter width that you usually see is enough for a drive out for two vehicles to pass with lots of space and and and pedestrians uh townhouses sometimes are I've seen the ones that are less than 7.6 or six meters is is a bit too tight for a car to turn around in because that's about 20 feet.

But that's why a larger space is is preferred.

Again, in this case, you see the buildings aren't in a on a solid line, they're kind of staggered and and that kind of uh creates some opportunity for additional turning space, even if the the official width of the driveway is six meters.

Okay.

So on moving day, you know, when these townhouses fill up, and we've got one or two or three moving trucks, um they're stuck.

They can't, they can't, they can't turn, can they yeah, yeah, yeah.

I just don't see how I don't see the maneuverability um with this narrow a laneway.

Okay.

Um through the mayor, uh so a fire truck is able to enter the site and go all the way to the end of the driveway and and and back up uh they don't take up the whole lane uh they are moving vehicles and and fire trucks they're all less than three meters so even if a vehicle is parked in the driveway if they're blocking the garage then yes it can impedes access but in terms of vehicles being able to pass within that driveway there is space okay thank you um just and and I know this was you know this is not part of the DP but remind me the true the two trees and perhaps the the the applicant can remind me the two trees, those are existing, the trees on the Ashley Gate border, those are existing trees.

Am I right?

Yeah, okay, good.

Thank you.

Actually, uh through the chair, um those trees would be the trees shown there would be would be a new tree.

The existing large tree that's there is would have to be removed.

Um, because the arbor said it wasn't it wasn't in the greatest condition and would not be able to withstand the impact of the development.

The buildings would be close to the root zone.

That would be the large tree at the end of the driveway, the driveway shown here.

So there would be replacement trees that in time will grow and provide screen.

Any other questions?

Yeah, just uh approach the uh the mic if you would, because that uh brings comments from the applicant, so you're right on time.

Hi.

My name's Daniel Martins and I'm from the architectural company.

And I just want to point out a few items.

On the driveway, it sounds like the aisle is six meters, but it's only the paved area in the center that's six meters wide.

But when you take the distance from garage to garage, on every single case, it's seven point six.

So it means that the gap between garage and garage is seven point six, you know, it's very staggered sort of format.

And the driver in the middle is six meters, and then there's a concrete sort of little ramp going up to the garage door that makes up the difference between six meters and the 7.6.

So it's not as if the drivewall is six meters.

It's actually a 7.6 drive aisle, but it looks like a six meter drive aisle because it's only the paved area that's six meters and the rest is concrete as a little like 5% ramp to either side.

So, like if there's a moving truck that's going to that particular garage, it would park closer to that garage, and there'd still be try a space for another car to get past, and so on.

So that's the one item as far as the drivewall is concerned.

Um, as far as the height of the units are concerned, um, the height was measured to the top of the structure, and the structure, the highest structure on all of these units is the staircase.

Because when you come up to the rooftop garden, the little staircase roof sticks out.

And when you measure to the top of that little staircase roof, it gives you that 11.75 meters.

But in the bylaw regulation, it says that when you calculate height, you exclude elevator extractions, staircase extractions, and stuff like that.

So it's not as if the top of the parapet walls are going over the maximum height, it's only those little roof pop-outs that are actually on two of the buildings going slightly over.

And the worst one is at 11.75.

All the others are instead of 11.25, they're 11.30.

And they're like a little fraction over because we need that height to have a door, a proper door to get out onto the roof.

And then as far as that trellis is concerned, it's a choice.

This would be uh more than appropriate if you want to make any comments.

So you answered some questions, but if you wanted to add anything that we the council wasn't aware of.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, thank you for the opportunity, Council.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Um, I just wanted to bring up a few a few things uh of note about uh these uh townhomes.

Um originally there were there were two homes that we planned to build uh 20 townhouses on.

Uh not that wasn't without the effort of trying to actually secure the third townhouse or the third house.

Uh at that time, uh the the owner of that house did not want to sell at all.

Uh I I believe he had a business that was functioning in.

The zoning allowed for that to happen, and it just wasn't convenient for him to sell it at any price.

So we we proceeded on and with the guidance of the planning department.

So we understood that.

We worked within what we thought were the OCP numbers.

So we went through an extensive process to secure the third house, which I don't mind saying was um was a was a really, really difficult task uh to get done.

Uh we did get done with very with no leveraging power on our end, but we we were already in uh we were already in uh down the road so we had to figure out a way to just make it work somehow so we we we were able to get that third house so instead of having 20 ho uh townhomes on the two lots we then had 20 town homes spread over the three lots which is the entire block of uh Eltham and uh we what we tried to present here at that at that time is one of the biggest problems facing uh livability in this day and age that we're working with is livability and what's happened is we're not growing any more land we're growing people but we are running out of room and one of the things that uh my wife and I and my family we thought uh integral not just to the to the marketability of the units but and overall establishing uh a structure that would be conducive to families was livability space so the whole idea of trying to it's not that we want to make uh a an upper terrace uh just because it's easy, it's not.

It's actually substantially more expensive to build an upper deck.

But what we're trying to do is we notice these are three-bedroom townhomes.

These aren't two-bedroom townhomes, which, as you know, when we're building the rail down the road, there are two bedroom condos.

There's a a space for that.

But for town homes, really, where families need three three bedrooms.

It's just very, very difficult to live in a two-bedroom townhome structure.

It's just not suited for growing families.

And from what we've noticed in the in the area and overall, is that uh three-bedroom townhomes are very rare.

They're not built, they're very expensive to build.

So we wanted to make a three-bedroom opportunity here, specifically knowing that the school is is a a stone's throw away.

It's so ideally situated for families.

Families that either work downtown that can ride their bike to work, that can, they don't need to use a car to get their children to school.

They don't really need a car to get their kids to softball down the street when the season starts or the other activities that are associated with the park.

So it was a fabulous location for that.

So we we we designed a three-bedroom townhome for families, and we made the rooftop deck on there so that they have space to live.

We all grew up in a time where we could run out in the backyard and play and grow and catch catch insects and look at them and all that type of stuff.

But as life has gone on, we don't have that luxury uh available anymore.

If it is, it's it's extraordinarily expensive.

So, what we thought here is a family is that we've we've and our design crew and our architect was to make a space where kids can play, where families can grow their own vegetables, where they can uh enjoy the climate that we're so fortunate to have here in the South Island, a Mediterranean climate.

So that was some of the thinking that went into why we wanted a flat rooftop deck, it was purely for the the livability of the family, particularly the family that would be moving into these homes.

Um I just wanted to make that uh that comment about why that uh was there.

And uh we really uh done our best uh to work with uh uh planning on what we thought were uh really beautiful townhomes, and we we're even under the density, we we worked with with planning and basically took our cues from them and tried to establish something that we think would really benefit the community and the families that will be moving in here.

That was our sole intent, and that is I think what we've provided here with these.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um so is uh what I'd like to be able to do is propose that um we entertain the DP first and then the variants.

Yeah.

Um and aside from uh the crew that came in support, is there any members of the public that would like to um address counsel on the development permit and variants?

Yes, please.

If you could just approach the podium and just start with your name and uh your street name, you don't have to give a number.

Thank you.

So my last name is White and I live on Eltham Road in the Ashley Gate townhouses.

And in fact, I will be overlooking this uh property because we're on the first block of the townhouses in Ashley Gate.

Uh as you may be aware, I was here at the last town hall meeting and expressed some of my concerns.

I understand we have to build more properties, but one of the things is the density in that whole area now that we have the Royale.

Ashley Gate has 36 units, Lyons Cove has, I think, 80 something, 82 units.

And I feel that in that sort of very small space of the coming out of Eltham onto Helmkin would be an issue, and we talked about that last time too.

That if this does go ahead, we wouldn't be able to do a left hand turn.

But I am a bit concerned about the privacy issue for us overlooking or being on the same level as the um this development.

In one of the slides, you can see how close our units are to this particular property we do have the two big trees that um will be taken down as as the planning department mentioned they will be replacing with two trees but that'll be take some time before we get any privacy from either side from from this new development or the um uh the uh from ashley gate so I just wanted to to voice that you know we understand that it does need to be property built this they were going to build 25 units in the two house block to start with with underground parking, they did extend it to to reduce it to 20, which is which is better, but it's still a lot in a very small space.

And you know, the parking issue on Elfham too was was another concern for us because of being able to get the emergency vehicles through if we have to, because with traffic parked on both sides and opposite is the commercial offices or buildings, should I say.

So they have large trucks too.

I know I've gone over, sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing uh your comments and concerns two times now.

But but thank you for for um for coming and sharing those uh with us.

Um I don't believe Scott, we had any correspondence.

We did.

Hello, can you anyone hear me?

Hello.

Hello, John.

Yeah, we're uh just going through right now and looking at correspondence on this.

Did you have a comment when we're ready?

Yes, um, I have a question coming from correspondence.

Yes, please.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, this is a question to the uh the applicant.

Um, and it's not respect uh with respect to the variances, but um one of the conditions uh with this um on landscaping, insulation, maintenance, and irrigation.

Um the correspondence from the president of the strata corporation of um Ashley Gates um expressed great concerns about the current uh state of of the buildings that uh are there today and um the lack of and I've this is not the first time we've heard this concern about the lack of maintenance and uh landscaping and so forth.

I just wondered um if the applicants can speak to um uh the the credibility of um uh this construction being proposed and and uh keeping the family neighborhood um uh going with uh the um you know the current situation and and what's being proposed and the conditions of maintenance and irrigation, I hope would have uh been a situation that we would see today I wonder if the applicants can speak to that so uh just to get uh be succinct uh counselor rogers you're looking for um uh the the current state of repair and that there would be some sort of transference over on construction uh yeah that um that uh the obviously there's a credibility issue of um how it looks today and and what's being proposed and particularly the staff condition of maintenance and irrigation and so forth of of the properties.

Um so I wonder if we could um you know the applicant can speak to the current situation and its credibility with the proposed sure thank you thanks for the question councilor Roger.

Uh just so I'm clear uh the current uh condition of the landscaping for the three houses that are that are there we do have a property management uh company that uh takes care of uh uh the three homes um we we generally like we we insist upon that they're maintained uh uh properly for the neighborhood as we we've done with the corner uh any any complaints that have ever come our way uh we've never ignored them.

We've dealt with them immediately.

There has been one or two complaints about the length of the grass uh uh on one of the homes there and uh we did have to remove that, the tenant that was occupying that home.

But we do have regular maintenance of that.

And we are actually insisting upon a certain level of maintenance that would be conducive to the neighborhood.

Such a lovely street coming up Helmkin.

If there was an oversight, it would be rectified uh immediately.

We we do we very much care of the quality of the neighborhood.

Well, th thank you.

That's very reassuring and and um I hope you would get a copy of the letter and contact the president of Ashley Gates strata, because uh let me read your quote.

The lack of upkeeped up of the properties and the lack of cleanup of trash can um has continued.

So um yeah, I I think uh some damage control and um and um uh a reassurance to um our neighbors uh would be really appropriate.

Uh yes, I totally agree.

Uh we we just finally were able to remove uh the tenant that was creating most of these issues.

It's very, very difficult to remove a tenant.

Uh it's very difficult to do anything.

Uh it it seems to be a little bit weighted against uh us, but we're in full agreement of uh with Councilor Rogers and the concerns of Ashley Gate, the strategy, but we in no uncertain terms would ever tolerate anything like that.

It's our goal to make sure that we we we're we're providing a benefit to our community that we're living in and doing business in.

And uh that was is always a top priority for us and always will be.

Yeah.

Thank you.

That's very reassuring and and um I'm sure the um the president would really appreciate hearing that as well.

Thank you for that.

Absolutely.

Yeah, yes, um to Mr.

Sangara well while we've got you here.

Um I I know residents of Bashley Gate too are very concerned about parking during construction.

Um how will that be managed?

Council Donman, thank you for the question.

Uh the one beauty of uh building this type of product, it's not a big giant hole in the ground that uh turns into what we've actually gone through like in an abyss.

Uh it's uh a slab on grade uh uh uh building.

So there there is opportunity for uh the site would be uh would be cleared.

So there's plenty of opportunity for on-site parking um uh on that.

Plus whatever there's not as big a of a crew when it comes to this type of building.

There's not a massive uh excavation crew or a massive uh uh farming crew or concrete crew.

Uh there's none of that.

It it's it's just like building a single family house.

There's not the degree of personnel on the site.

Uh it's generally speaking a crew of four or five people that are are doing the form work.

There's a a crew of maybe two or three that are doing the clearing and excavating, and then the framers are again are a small crew, and there's nothing over top of one another.

When the rough ins uh take place, uh that's generally just one or two people at the time.

So there's just not the volume of people or trades that you would have genuinely seen as we were constructing uh the Royal.

It's just nowhere near that type of a of an operation, thank goodness.

And uh it's it's uh building one block at a time, so they're not going to be building all five if we're so fortunate to get to get that uh opportunity.

It would just be one block at a time.

So there's just not not a volume of people there for that.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Uh we can move to um comments, but we'll deal formally with the uh correspondence.

Thank you.

Um and I think Councilor Rogers actually covered off the main uh concerns for the correspondence, and it is uh similar to the the concern of the status it is now uh and and getting into that.

And certainly we've had reassurances that um some of the problems have been readdressed but uh i live on north helmkins so i am aware of the disturbance with parking and construction very intimately um so i get i get the the the concerns for not only the end results but the process of developing is disturbing for a neighborhood and the it it does have uh uh an impact for us.

Um and I notice you're pointing to something there Scott what do you have?

Just some correspondence that was received uh either this afternoon or on Friday and as well um if your worship could check in with the webcaster to see if there's anyone with comments online thank you was there was there more than the one on the late uh item uh Scott I think we covered that and um Carl did we have any correspondence online about this mayor Tavares uh no we have no comments okay nobody's got any questions uh we could move to uh comments what I'd like to be able to do is just deal uh with the the development permit first, because if that doesn't go through, then um there's no sense talking about variances.

Um but any comments about uh the uh DP first.

We'll start with you, Councilor Masson.

Yeah, it was much easier when we were just talking about the variance.

Um to be honest, my thoughts really haven't changed from the last time we discussed this.

You know, I I know we gave them a certain density, but it's covers the whole lot, and there's very little.

It's just I just see it as just looks really dense.

There's no common areas.

I I also have concerns about a rooftop terrace, what's the impact on the adjacent neighbors?

Um since we're talking form and character, uh it's just it just look really square boxy to me.

And you know, I just wish we would have had more opportunity f earlier on to come up with a you know a a different design than this because I really don't like the the design the way it looks.

The site seems to be mainly buildings and the driveway.

There's a huge you know the driveway goes up this covers basically a good portion of the property.

So these are the things I really don't like about it.

So I'll deal with the variances later.

Council Levin.

Well, this is this is the development permit and issues of the size of the um uh of the development in the project were to be addressed at rezoning.

So um we were looking at form and character.

It it is what it is.

I do I do um agree with my colleague.

Uh I and you know it's built into the design, so it I I would I don't know what can be done at this point, but I I am concerned for the um you know the the the peace the peace of mind for the neighbors who especially those that are right on the fence line.

Um, you know, there's a saying that good fences, you know, build create um good neighbors so um i if if there was any way uh um within the design of shielding the neighbors from the from from you know what's going on right outside their window and seeing the barbecue and see you know and hearing if there was some kind of noise protection I would be um much more comfortable and I know they would as well um and I'm getting a nod from an architect okay big ones.

Oh, sorry.

Sure.

Just approach the microphone so we can get you on the record.

Thanks.

Uh thanks, Mayor and Council.

My name's Jim Partlow.

I'm the principal landscape architect with Lombard North Group.

Um we were the landscape architects for the project, and we did hear the concern about the neighbors, and we went out the site just to make sure we understood what we were looking at.

So my son was uh at the last meeting, uh, but he went out and looked at it in detail.

And my understanding is there's approximately a six-foot retaining wall next to Ashley Gate, and there's a six-foot fence on top of that, and then there's uh another eight feet of uh sorry, twelve feet of uh no, eight feet, sorry, of hedge.

So it's very unusual, but because of the grade difference, you basically have a 20 foot screen between the adjacent property and this property.

So, you know, in normal circumstances, you know, that's a gold mine in terms of separation uh because of the height difference.

So that's something that doesn't come out on the plans, and uh, I wanted to have the opportunity to mention that.

The other thing we looked at is uh there were a couple trees that the arborists said had to come out, and we ended up with two trees there, but we had another look at that, and we can increase that number to either four fairly large deciduous trees or even six coniferous trees.

So if the idea was, you know, we want a screen, we don't worry about the sunsets and all that, uh, you know, where we have the room, we can I we figure we can put a six trees, so an additional four trees to what we propose, make them all coniferous so that you get the screen all year round.

And I I think it's an important element because we did hear that comment, and you know, sometimes you can do something and sometimes you can't, but this I think it addresses it as about as well as you can.

I wonder if I could have a question or may I just uh counselor Lemon's going now and I'll I'll turn it to you next counselor um any opportunity for some kind of landscape screening on the rooftop terraces of the townhouses that are going to be abutting Ashley Gate.

So thanks.

Yeah the the planting that was proposed there and there's always the weight constriction um but everywhere there's a separation between units and also between adjacent properties.

There's a planter, then there's a lattice and fine work that grows up the lattice.

So it's not year-round, but for most of the months that you'd be up there using the space, you have a fairly good up to, I would say, with the planters and the lattice, you'd have five to six feet.

So if people were up there and the kids were playing and you were sitting down and having your supper up there or something, all that activity would be at least diffused.

It's not a solid fence because you know it's just not appropriate, but but it would be screened.

So that was taken into account.

That really doesn't show up in the drawings as well.

So Councilor Rogers, did you have a question for the landscape artist as well?

Yeah, yes, please.

Just a point of clarification.

There was mention of a uh very uh tall wall and a fence on top of the wall.

Um but isn't that for the property to the north?

Um because Ashley Gates is uh to the east and um it doesn't look like there's any any walls that I could see um along the um uh townhouse development that's the the end of the driveway of um of this proposed development yeah my understanding, uh, and I've I looked at uh the street maps of it uh and we did an inventory uh for the last meeting.

That that was the east property line.

So it was between Ashley Gate and this property.

The property to the north, which I was I was actually concerned about because we had planting in there, but because it was a service easement, engineering basically made us take all that planting out.

Where the house is and behind it, there's a large hedge 20 feet high, I understand, uh, that provides some privacy there as well.

But my understanding was that that wall that we're talking about, Councillor Rogers, uh, was between Ashley Gate and and this property.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

Okay.

We've got one question about the height differential between Ashley Gate and the neighbors uh overlooking, like how many floors uh would be looking down on your terrace so I'm assuming you're already three stories up right for the top of the level how many stories in the development next to it would be overlooking it yeah my understanding is you'd have 20 feet basically two stories plus so if Ashley Gate is a three story building it would be the top floor that would be looking over the top of the screen.

Well that's that's uh good context.

Oh I see.

Yeah.

Yeah actually it looks like it's less than a full story that overlooks the property.

Once it's all built out then you're not gonna have the whole building overlooking somebody having a barbecue.

It's just going to be very limited for uh for that for the for the view.

Right.

Any other questions were actually in comments but thank you.

Okay thank you.

Uh councilor Lemon did you have any anything to add I'm um well I I think I spoke about neighbors and again I just um I I trust that you know um being thoughtful of throughout the construction process and certainly after but throughout the process um that there is good thought and care given to the to the neighborhood and the the neighbors and so that you know it's not entirely uncomfortable for them.

Thank you, Councilman.

Counselor Quelge Thank you.

Uh first of all, I want to acknowledge that any time that there's new development going into a neighborhood that it's difficult, it's challenging uh to change from what people are used to, and I will acknowledge that.

That being said, View Royal is is growing, our urban centers are becoming more dense, and as a council we need to be more thoughtful and strategic and methodical about how we do that this is an area that is in close proximity to a highly used pedestrian and cycling trail the galloping goose it's on a major thoroughfare it's walkable it's got a lot of positives for density it's also an area that has older homes that are ripe for development and I also should note that the developer in this case has been quite patient and uh invested um a large sum of their time and investments monetarily into this project which will ultimately better the town of Uroil provide the quote unquote missing middle housing for it uh it.

It is thoughtful uh the variances are minimal and I do support this project.

Thank you, Counselor.

Counselor Rogers.

Comment uh yes thank thank you.

Um similar to the uh comments uh from um my fellow counselor council Kalovich the um uh the applicant has been working on this uh for a long time um we had seen a and I'm pleased that there's a was a reduction in the number of units um this was uh 20 units spread over uh three lots not two the um when you consider that um the current zoning um under um uh Bill 44 is um on a frequent bus route.

It could be um uh six units per per lot.

So the difference between um what could be built um three times six eighteen units and this being twenty.

Uh this is uh a lot more uh integrated uh in this in its design.

Um remarkable that we're um actually getting uh three bedroom units, uh a very rare uh commodity in in this town um and how well it's been designed for families.

Uh the points are well taken by the the applicant in terms of um remarkable location to school, to parks, to um uh regional trail, um to a frequent bus route, and hopefully um uh to a corner um grocery store if we're lucky on that would score.

Um yeah, I I think it's um um the applicant has done everything uh they can and that's uh worthy of support.

Thank you counselor rogers uh I I've got a question um on can you approach the mic yeah yeah please um uh my first question is how much do you figure the units be selling for just a personal curiosity we um we would probably estimate they would be somewhere starting uh in the low 900s uh maybe even the high eight hundreds uh for a couple of those units.

Um we want to bring families in uh we as a family uh appreciate uh uh what communities all about particularly this one uh you know my mom was born uh about nine streets over um hearing the stories of how she grew up my great grandfather and my grandfather worked actually about three miles from here they were the first pioneering Indian family to come to Victoria and they worked uh in 1906 they started the at the mill community is a very very important part of what we we do here um it's it's it's not all about the money yes it's about the money right we couldn't do this.

But for us, we would like to build something that families can get a start on, or take a step up the ladder and get moving with.

And uh with these price points, I think we we hit those.

We're dealing with a time right now since COVID where it's just not the world that we grew up in.

Supply chains have never really recovered.

The individual to the south of us has thrown a lot of uncertainty into supply.

Uh, but we we on our costings and and what we've uh done, we feel confident that we can build an affordably priced, beautiful beautiful townhome for a family here.

So I I believe we can start from the low eight hundred uh high eight hundreds to the low 900s for some of the units, which is very affordable for a portion of the units, and I I think they would probably range up to a you know we would probably try to keep it under a million dollars to take advantage of all the uh all the benefits from the federal government.

So we would probably live in that range there.

And um one further question this is about the process of of doing if you were approved um uh how long if yes or when would you start and how long would you estimate the construction phase would be uh if we're uh uh so fortunate to get that approval uh we would uh be working with our planning department here to get a building permit um uh set up right away, and then we would endeavor to get our financing, which shouldn't be difficult because they would be phased, like I was uh speaking with counselor Lemon about earlier.

We would be going one block at a time.

Uh so uh the beauty of these, uh Mr.

Mayor, is that they are very quick to build.

Uh one one phase or one block uh would probably only take about four months to build.

Uh there's slab on grade, there's no going into the earth.

Uh so it's it's it's a very very quick process foundation, clearing foundation, framing, interior work and roofing, and and that's it.

Thank you so much.

Yes, please.

Will there be blasting?

No, absolutely not.

That would be heaven to the ears of most people living in North Helmkin right now.

Um I I will make a comment that um uh I I initially voted against this, um, and it was without perhaps fulsomely understanding um that there were three bedrooms.

Um that and I think uh I was a little bit um concerned about lumping the DP in directly with the the variances, which is kind of commonly done, but I think everybody uh the last time we met as a council, everybody took away from it something different, right?

And and the other thing that made it a little bit challenging was that the representation for council had shifted from the original zoning where we had more people here.

We just had different people.

We have a different kind of mixture as well.

So I'm in favor of this mainly because, as Councillor Kualowicz and Councillor Rogers brought out, that it is really um too shy of a maximum build out likely of what we're required to build in this area under the small-scale multi-unit housing.

That in its proximity to schools is a dream for it.

And I'm I'm also taking into consideration some of the concerns of the neighbors, not only in the finished product, but in the process of development.

Because it is it is important that they're just finishing up being assaulted with the big development on the corner of Island and Helmkin.

So then when we're adding on more development, it's just that level of disruption that I feel in my bones every day.

And council would have had to entertain that.

It defines what we're going to be in the future.

And this is, I think, what we need in View Royal.

And that is likely affordable townhomes that have a sense of community.

And so I'm in support of it.

So if somebody's willing to move, if there's no other comments or questions, if somebody's mil willing to move just the beginning of that one that starts off, that council authorized the issuance of the development permit and we'll just stop at the subject two and deal with the variances separately.

Sure, Mayor, I'll move the first portion.

I second.

Councilor Rog uh Counselor Uh Kwalowich moved and Councilor Rogers second.

Um all those in favor.

Any opposed?

And noting Councillor Matson is opposed.

So the development permit section passes with the three added variances.

Um and we can deal with those as a block, but can somebody speak up if they've got a concern over any one of the variances right now?

I just have a comment just in general.

Again, I voted against this last motion because of the form and character.

I'd hate to see more of these.

I think it's hideous looking, but the variances aren't going to make it any worse.

So I don't have a problem with it.

But it's I don't want to see us duplicate this type of development.

Thank you, Councilor Mattson.

Does anybody else have any problem with the variances that are being requested?

Just yeah, Councilor Roger.

Um can we pass the variances and the uh two conditions recommended by staff uh as a block?

We certainly can.

Thank you.

Uh so moved.

Okay, uh moved by councilor rogers, seconded by counselor Qualitage.

Uh so that includes the building height, the maneuvering aisle, the accessory structure, which is the arch trellis uh landscape uh selection and the uh conditions for the landscape and for the um uh dark skies.

Um we've got a mover and a secondary.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, uh motion carries.

Uh thank you, council, and thank you, uh applicant.

Uh I think uh Ivan.

And you can you can hang around for the whole thing, but don't feel bad about leaving.

It it doesn't get any better.

But uh drainage is just as exciting.

Uh Mayor Tobias, thank you very much.

Uh Ivan Dunn, Director of Engineering.

Speaking before you on uh the recommended award of the drainage master plan project, this is scheduled for this year to be done.

Um it's good to have this done this year.

Uh dov telling with OCP to help with um uh assessing how uh future growth will impact.

But generally speaking, we've had five bids come in and they're all around the same bid price.

Uh, give or take, maybe 10%, 10%, 20% overall, uh very good show up.

Um out of the waiting scale that we've provided an RFP McLean came up top with uh a total of 90 points, and there are also the low bids.

So, what staff is recommending is the award of this project to McElhaney, and also recommending the approval of uh the additional work.

So that's doing field pickups.

Doing this would greatly um, it would be a good help to our modeling.

Um, it will make it a lot more accurate uh it's been something that's been lacking in the last master plan so this would bring it back um up to to to uh reasonable standard um but that said yeah the uh the staff recommendation is that the jury's master plan be awarded to McElhaney in the amount of up to 18172 dollars net of taxes um there are some additional options uh council may choose not to award the optional work to uh McElhaney or reduce it um we can certainly work under that as well um or the other options council may approve the award to another proponent listed.

But happy to take any questions.

Otherwise staff staff recommendation with the options second.

Thank you.

Um, mover and a seconder i i just had a question about this, Ivan.

I didn't want to increase scope.

We've got a problem now where in the winter we have too much water, and in the spring and summer we don't have enough water, and I guess into the fall.

I'm not looking for storage tank solutions or anything like that.

But is there an option to say if we wanted to tap off of our uh field drainage, um, you know, where where would we do it?

Where where could it make sense?

Could that be added into it without uh creating crazy scope?

Oh, yeah, Mayor Tobias, there is a small element in the drainage master plan of trying to find natural assets to help buffer the impacts of climate change.

So it's already in the in the scope.

Yeah.

Uh any other questions for Ivan.

Uh seeing no other questions, we got a mover in the second roll.

Those in favor of uh the drainage master plan uh to be awarded to McKinley for the amount of uh 184,000 and change.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And while you're here, Ivan, you might as well hit us with the transportation master plan.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Yes, so this is brought forward back to council.

Um uh this was brought forward in early 2025.

Uh the terms of reference are provided.

Council provided some commentary.

Um staff also offered additional uh chance for council to provide questions about what maybe can be added, some comments, which um is included as the attachment.

There's a table there that shows council's questions.

Some of them have been incorporated, including the question about uh light rail, whether or not that should be entertained.

So that's incorporated into the to the RFP.

There have been some uh clarification items, for example, um inclusion of future intersections as well, so that'll be assessed.

Um there are also a lot of questions that uh actually staff were on the same wavelength or actually incidental, they're already included in the RFP, so it's it's all in there.

Um but that said, uh, what's the next staff?

The next steps for staff is to release this RFP um fairly soon, and probably in the next week or so.

Um in the meantime, the recommendation or uh this report is just to be received for information.

Um that's it, I'm happy to take any questions.

Uh I just have one, but I'll go to my colleagues first and see if they have any.

Uh Council Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Uh staff, what how long uh once we uh get the um uh proponents and uh um folks uh interested in uh closing the RFP, how long do you think the um our actual project transportation plan would take to complete?

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias, we estimated in the RFP that'd take 12 to 18 months.

That answer your question, Councilor Rogers?

Okay.

Uh uh the uh I I've got a couple of questions, Ivan.

One is uh is there any engagement going on with the public during this period?

Uh yes, there will be.

There is, I believe, two or three stages of engagement.

We will be um uh relying on the but we'll be reviewing the proposals of what the proponents will suggest.

Um it'd be somewhat similar to what was done for the active transportation network plan uh with a few tweaks given the teachableness that uh staff have received at that time.

Okay, we've we're starting to get some good uh data in, I know even from the OCP.

Uh, we're asking questions like what are your primary concerns about traffic congestion is of course one of them, particularly during rush hours.

Is there any way to incorporate the stream, at least that they are that that's made available so that they know uh the the uh concerns of the community from that data?

Uh yes, Mayor Tobias, that's a very important part of the RFP.

It's actually expressly stipulated in there that uh they're to review the ocp process to see what comments come out there's gonna be a good symbiotic relationship between the OCP and the transportation master plan um they're we're going to be borrowing and using each other's information one of the uh things I'd really love to be able to answer at the end of the process is that uh to be able to go to government to lobby especially if it's light rail or a use of the corridor for buses, whatever it would be if we did that to move this many people how many cars might we reduce on Old Island Highway would be the selling point um for um I I think being able to market so if there's any data that came out of the RFP that could address you know if this was because it's not our traffic either but it's our problem um uh it's the same problem that we get stuck in every day right so if there's any metric that we could say by hey increasing this amount of public transportation what might that effect be and I know it's it's hard even being in an engineer Ivan and looking at how fast the population is growing and then extrapolating stuff but if it could provide us any data whatsoever to to provide some relief that would be great.

So we've got a mover and a secondary I believe council right sorry one one more question.

Back many years ago we had the opportunity for simulations uh where um uh you know the um the individuals could Do we have uh plans for uh the applicant to show us simulations uh to help us um guide the uh construction and and see whether the pinch points and where we should not build?

Um yeah, Mayor Tabaiz, we can we can consider that um put that in and see how much of uh if it's a budget extra or not, but uh I believe the this uh the questionnaire was talking about the 2016 um demand modeling because that that was what was done.

So we can take a look at that and then uh the staff will be presenting to the committee of the whole, anyways, about that and something that could be considered.

Yes great thanks Ivan uh do we have a mover and a secondary I believe we do um for this one yes no okay councillor matts and uh moves and counselor levin seconds uh all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries uh thank you Ivan and I think we're going to ongoing review of capital project summary is that you Scott uh that's me Mr.

Mayor thank you um just wanted to demonstrate uh an understanding that council has an appetite to spend more time reviewing the existing 2025 capital projects um and and also demonstrate staff's willingness to carry on that conversation.

However, we're up against some timelines to get the budget adopted uh three readings tonight.

So uh laying out a bit of a schedule for June and July.

Um hopefully by the end of July we'll be further ahead than we have been in previous years, but due to some significant staffing changes in finance.

We're a little behind on uh how we've traditionally reviewed the projects.

Um so uh expect to hear more in June and July in our committee meetings, and we'll delve into the any projects that were not new or significantly changed.

Um we'll review the same old projects uh later in the summer.

Councilor Manson.

Yeah, thank you.

So so my understanding is historically what we've done is we've just looked at the current year's projects and we look sort of partway into the year to approve them.

So the 2025 ones, we would look at the budget and 2026 projects.

We never really worried too much about them in terms of final approvals because we're always looking at them the following year.

So I guess so.

My understanding is what you wanted to do was look at 2026 projects this year so that at the start of 2026, we don't have this long debate on those projects, and we've either made a decision this year or to do them or not.

Yeah, through the mayor.

We did notice a significantly low completion rate for our capital projects and significant amount of carryovers.

Um we're not actually authorized to spend money in 2025 on 2024 projects.

So the way we have been doing it is not giving us a head start on next year's capital projects, and it leads to delays from January till mid-Mart or mid May each year.

So we're trying to shift that forward.

I would urge council to consider not only the 2025 projects, but the 2026 projects, so that staff can get a head start on them and complete them in the year in which we we promise to the community that we'll we'll do the projects and in the year that we tax the residents for the projects to be completed.

So hopefully within a year or two we'll be right caught up on um the year the projects are done in and uh we'll be able to get a good head start on on the future years projects.

Yeah it it's it's uh I would say it's unusual how we have been doing it um and we need to just be a little bit more forward thinking.

So we'll we'll cover that in the June and July meetings and uh get right back on track.

Any other questions, comments?

Councillor Roger?

Yeah.

I think the uh the point was that um uh we did not know.

Um councilor did not know that um uh we were going to change our our practice and uh process um uh through this budget.

And I guess uh and I certainly appreciate uh the staffing challenges that were um uh were uh with us and I certainly appreciate uh them achieving uh this budget.

However, um it's um uh and the point is well taken, but I noticed that other municipalities uh like Victoria have their budget meetings set in November.

So um that would be if we'd had that awareness that the these uh things in 25 2025 that we thought we'd we'd would be discussing at the beginning of 2025, um then um and if we're gonna change that then yes, can we now please make a policy that uh if we're going to consider 2026 uh capital projects uh that we would um review and approve uh those um items in November this coming November or this um September, October, sometime in the fall, so that um we're we're well ahead to um um you know be proactive plan and and assist staff in getting the projects done in the f in the uh fiscal year.

So I appreciate the uh the time that you're setting aside and I really hope that uh council makes an effort to uh to fully attend those July June 10th and July 8th, and that we would also have a date in October to review the projects for 2026 and really get ahead of the plan like the other municipalities.

Thank you.

I think that's the intent, isn't it, Scott?

Uh very very close to the intent to uh your worship.

Um we are actually proposing that the 2026 projects would start being reviewed in July.

So further ahead.

And and certainly had we known we'd be facing these staffing issues, um, we might not have embarked on this change.

Um it's a bit of a cultural shift.

Um, but we were we were well into it um by the time we realized we were having some turnover issues, so um maybe not the best timing to implement this change, but um it's been thrust upon us.

A boot staff recommendation.

Second.

Uh moved by councillor uh Matson, seconded by Councillor.

Uh go ahead.

Sorry, question.

Uh rather than um receiving the motion, um, can we not um approve that um the discussions, the capital assemblies would be held on June 10th and July 8th?

So rather than receiving, we actually uh set dates and and commit to those.

My question to the mover and seconder.

Yeah, I've got an uh I have no issue with that.

So I'm sorry, staff is happy with that.

Yeah, I mean my my name's on the report and uh I'm quite heavily involved in setting the agenda, but if council wants to turn that into a resolution, that's that's uh council's right to do so.

Okay.

I trust staff.

So you're uh you're both happy with that friendly amendment uh suggested by councillor Rogers?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed motion carries.

And I think this was a report that I requested for education from uh staff.

I'm happy to move to uh receive, but I had a question on why our um tax rates for farms were as high as they were when we were kind of trying to address um uh issues with food security and whatnot.

But I think it uh the the report is clear to me, but um happy for any questions to be asked relating to it would be uh yeah yes thank you um um uh just a question we do have our uh property on Lund Road that uh that we acquired and I believe it's still under ALR uh wouldn't that be uh considered farm farm property uh property classifications are determined by BC assessment not by the town so um we we are not really involved in that process but it is still ALR I it could be but uh we weren't asked to provide a report on ALR properties.

We were this was really related to determining the tax rate for farm class properties.

And we're not taxing ourselves.

No, I I would be interested in learning more about the ALR as well, but um that we'll have to wait uh for another day.

Point second.

Second.

Uh seconded by Councilor Rogers, moved by Councilor Matson.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries uh other reports.

Uh um councillor McKenzie isn't uh here to speak to the West Shore Parks uh minutes.

Um can I get a motion to receive?

So moved moved by councillor Matson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries, and I think we're down to correspondence um for action we've got uh one from um t winthrow on palliser avenue and it uh is regarding i think um the speed and um uh it's uh suggestion to refer to stop it counselor lemon did you want to speak to this yeah um i i've spoken to mr.

Withrow.

I'm I'm sure Councillor Matson has too.

And um we talked about possibilities of um traffic calming.

And one suggestion that that is that is that we see in other municipalities is for islands of plantings, little little horticultural islands that are just very calming and and you know narrowing and and uh pleasant.

Um Mr.

Withrow is a horticulturist gardener in another municipality and um has in his own yard plantings that he's prepared to to donate to such a cause if if we were to be able to do that.

Um, um and uh has offered to tend them.

Uh so I'm going to move that um staff investigate uh the possibilities for traffic calming on that stretch of Palisere, which is the stretch where the church is, and um report back.

A second for discussion.

Yeah.

So sure.

Can I comment on the I I live on the street, and the number of mums speeding to drop their kids off is not uh inconsequential.

In fact, I was standing on Palliser Avenue chatting with a neighbor.

A woman turned the corner on Beaumont, was speeding.

I waved my hand, she sped up and honked her horn as she passed me.

And this is on a very narrow street.

She'd zoomed past me to go 50 feet up the road to stop to have her church to take her child out to the daycare.

When I walked up there, I took a picture of her license and I asked her what she was, you know, doing.

Um, she just started calling me an angry white man.

And so I and then she left.

And so I contacted both the RCMP and the pastor who's responsible for the church and the RCMP uh contacted her, but she so I don't know what you can do to stop people from doing that unless we put a chicane up there.

And I I just wanted to point out the two people who live directly across from the church now.

Uh so there's four children under five years old.

So their parents monitor them the best they can, but once they become actually there's five children now, once they get a little bit larger, it's basically an accident ready to happen.

So I would really love to see us put a chicane in there, and I think that's much more attractive way.

And I spoke to a couple of neighbors.

Um, so if we actually had a cost, we could probably get neighbors to contribute to it, as well as the putting the flowers in, etc.

And I would certainly uh donate to a chicken.

Um I I think there's a couple of measures that we can do.

Uh I think formal letter to the daycare from us uh expressing concern and ask for a reminder for parents because it seems to be an ongoing thing, whether it's a school or drop-off zone, that uh uh at Langford had a problem where they weren't allowing kids to cross the road because speeding parents were dropping kids off.

It was not very nice, but we could also have the RCMP show up.

Um, you know, it's not gonna solve, but in the short term, before staff investigates and comes up with something, uh, some measures, and then uh we could uh actually refer this to to staff.

Um I'm referring to staff for uh feedback.

I'm not sure if Ivan's online or not.

We could talk about this at length, but I think until we get um do some intermediate intervention with RCMP presence uh occasionally during those times that are coming in and out, because it's sometimes that's all it takes, is a bit of a reminder.

Um uh send a letter potentially to the daycare, and uh and then of course refer to staff for like a chicane, a flower pot, whatever the heck it could be.

Just uh the they're already pretty narrow streets down there.

I don't know how you get two cars by at one time.

But uh staff, are you uh happy to take that on or any concerns?

Uh so uh councillor Rogers, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I fully support um uh Council Lemon and Council Mattson's um uh approach to this.

Um we've seen the success of uh the chicane on um uh Stormont, uh with Stormont Roddyard um with all the uh speeding cars of commuting cars, which is probably about the same as uh those individuals uh needing to take their uh child to daycare.

Um the as you say uh it's a narrow street just like Stormont.

The success of the Chicane, the in uh the efficiency, the in uh lack of cost to uh to do so, and and if neighbors want to beautify this thing, even put rainbow colors on it.

Um, um I think it would be a wonderful uh deliverable to um uh to the community and and and solve the problem quickly.

This is a no-brainer, chicane time.

Okay, uh thanks.

Then uh we'll refer that to uh staff and uh Elna, if you could just remind me to uh pen a letter, uh I'll also contact the RCMP over that one uh to have a little bit more presence.

And I think the next one um I'm just reclare I could also send you the uh I took a picture of the license plate and they talked to them so they can remind them of the issue.

Thanks for that, Councillor Ratzon, for certain.

Um, and an email concerning an industrial light at CFBS quimalt.

I think that's for the jetty construction.

And Elna, if you can just remind me to write a letter to the base commander, see what he can do about turning it down at night.

Because I don't know if they're working at night or not.

But some way to shield it.

Yeah I'd move that uh the mayor right letter to uh the base commander.

Yeah uh sorry and we'll go back up one Elna just to keep you busy.

Uh we didn't, I think, vote on the last one.

So I think there were three actions there.

One was to send a letter uh or contact a daycare uh I'll have the RCMP present and then refer to staff for a uh more or less permanent solution for traffic calming um uh for the uh Palisar Avenue.

Uh we got a mover and a seconder all those in favor?

Any opposed none opposed motion carries uh and I think the rest are um are to receipt I just wanted to pull uh just make a note as this we go so it seems like the minister is in favor of counselor brown's motion to uh designate school District 61 as wards, um, as well as the caretaker, whatever the person's name is that's taking care of school district 61.

Uh, she's also in favor of it.

She's spoken to me.

Uh, I wrote a letter of congratulations for uh Emily uh McLean.

Um the minister from or the minister of housing uh says thanks for your letter on your concerns with having single stairs and apartment buildings, but we're gonna do it anyway.

Um and uh uh I think uh Miss Rideout had some uh a few things in her subject, but I think everybody's read that.

Um the staff report uh as well from Wishwore Parks and Rec.

Uh I wrote a letter to uh former Mayor Graham Hill on his 90th birthday, and of course, uh Count uh or uh Doug's letter for the official community plan received on the sixth.

Uh so can we get a mover and a second order to receive?

And proceed.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries financial bylaw.

Stephen, you're on.

Been waiting all night for this.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Stephen Vella, Director of Finance.

So the purpose of this report is to consider the 2025 to 2029 financial plan bylaw.

Next slide, Carl.

The community charter requires that council adopt the 2025 five-year financial plan bylaw prior to May the 15th and ahead of the 2025 tax rate bylaw.

The deadline for which is also May 15th.

This reflected status quo service levels plus operational increases, with the largest being non-discretionary relating to police and fire, plus council's commitment to investment in sustainable infrastructure replacement.

The committee then recommended to council the following changes to the proposed 2025 budget.

Permits and licensing portal be tabled until such time as council has considered an options analysis report.

And council chambers accessibility ramp deferred till 2026.

These projects are reserve funded, thus have no impact on taxation.

To reduce the 2025 tax increase, committee recommended that staff utilize accumulated surplus as a source of operational funding, reducing the increase in property taxes on the average residential property from 11.25 to 9.8%.

And finally, on April 15th, council resolved that the town undertake a public competitive process for its boulevard maintenance contract, targeting an annual cost of $400,000.

This decision reduced uh taxation further uh by approximately $330,000, uh, bringing the final tax increase on the average residential property to 7.06 percent or $156 dollars.

Next slide.

Uh this bylaw reflects these changes and staff's recommendation is that financial plan bylaw number 1153, 2025, a bylaw to authorize the financial plan for the years 2025 to 2029 be introduced and given first, second, and third readings.

Thank you.

First thing uh and any questions?

We've got uh so councilor Matson.

Yes, and so this sort of relates to the discussion we had on sort of projects.

So for example, here's one, Island highway and Prince Robert Drive realignment.

As a placeholder, we moved it from 25 to 26.

But the reality is we probably won't want to do it in 26 even if we approved it, unless there's a project going on.

You know, unless that project gets it looks like that project is gonna get redeveloped.

So this is one where I sort of have a hard time.

I I I know what staff was saying about approving things uh a year in advance, but for projects like this we need to build something in so we can get a sober second thought on some projects which just aren't feasible or we've had a change of heart in terms of the of the project.

And that one uh uh which one are you uh referring to it's uh not the Helmkin Eagle Creek it's the island highway to Prince Robert Drive realignment and that is you were speaking to the uh mainly the the uh development that was going in in there as well unless that development goes in we don't need that realignment right uh and so this was uh taken this was 2025 uh but is this this is a subtraction anyway.

So does this mean where this is included, Ivan, this year or not?

Um yeah, perhaps Steven can confirm, but it's not being planned for this year.

I think it's been moved to to next year, right?

That's correct.

Yeah.

And the purpose is because as Councillor Madison has mentioned, it's to to parallel with that one development and the work not get done if development is not happening.

Any other uh questions or comments for uh council just to comment and um I'll be supporting this um but I but I but I do want to go on the record with a concern and that is that this um this reduction of what was what was possible um is at the cost of out of our of the known um um boulevard maintenance budget um that was that was on the books um you know just 25 years ago helmkin road for example was was it was a ditch and uh it was it was a ditch lined street with up with no sidewalks and now it's leafy and it's green it's beautiful and it announces this town and it's the care of this kind of care of our streetscapes that uh define us and makes it you know the distinctive place it is when you arrive over you know off the off the off ramp and you you head down helmkin you know where you are um and I don't want to lose this and I'm sure sure residents will be watching and and um caring that that you know their their town remains the the cared for um town that it is yeah I I can reply to that uh that I believe that we can get the same level of service for less and the reason why is that we've been with the same contractor for a very long time longer than our policy actually allows um and uh I I think it's an opportunity for a younger, nimbler two and a half guys in a lawnmower um that are able to maintain it for uh the same price.

It might look a little bit different.

Maybe it's not gonna have all of the annuals and perennials, or maybe less water.

Um but I I share that concern.

And this is something we can revisit as well if we're not happy with it.

And I think uh Ivan's plan was to post uh the RFP.

Ivan, was it for six months for the first lawn uh or uh boulevard maintenance that uh you're proposing to go up?

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias, it's been released to have the works done until the end of the year, and that'll allow us to assess and reevaluate to see what pivots maybe council may wish to see.

Um in the meantime, it's out there right now, going to close in a few weeks, and then we'll bring forward a recommendation of the council early June.

Okay, thanks, uh Ivan.

So yeah, I I I don't think it it should um reduce it, but also I think as a council, something that we didn't address is we're always concerned about capital expenses, but we never address operational expenses.

And this is 2% of operational expenses at a time.

Um and and if we get this right, and if it's a continual thing, we're saving 2% every year going forward.

And you know, is that worth lavender that might not be as uh sexy as a pansy?

Uh I I think most of my my interpretation is most folks would probably say, well, let's keep the lavender, it's or or some bulbs.

And there's all kinds of creative things that we can do uh kind of around that that might it even make it look more attractive.

I'm not looking for less attractive, because I I I agree with you that it's uh it is the hallmark of UL for sure.

Um any other comments, questions, concerns?

I'll move receiver the report.

Move receiver report.

Counselor Lemon will second receiver report.

All those in favor.

Uh and I think the next uh move is to first to third.

Move first, second, and third reading for um 1153 by 1153, which is the financial plan for years uh 2025 to 2029.

Uh Councilor Lemon, can you uh second that as well i'm seconding all those in favor comment comment i'd like to speak to the motion i am uh voting against the um uh the proposed um tax increase and uh specifically because of the in incredible unknowns um and the quickness of uh the boulevard maintenance amendment um um i understand the rationale why it should be um reviewed i understand if we were reviewing under the same conditions um uh but uh there's been no staff report, no comparison to uh the uh previous year.

And uh in looking at um the documents, I have no understanding of what this is uh going to involve.

Even if it is just six months, um the the point that there may be less watering is quite significant when you consider you know climate change impacts, drowned implications, and um, you know, so it uh this is so incredibly quick by the you know fly by night uh there's uh no information that I can um confidently support this uh budget uh decrease.

I I think we had worked very well, staff had worked incredibly well uh to give us the report.

I understand that we were uh in need to uh reduce, we did, uh to the tune of using surplus, but this is folly, and I am not supporting this budget um this year.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

So I'm assuming you're gonna vote in opposition.

You got that right.

Thank you, Council Rogers.

Any other comments or questions?

All those in favor, all those opposed, noting Councillor Rogers uh is opposed.

Uh and I think that brings us to tax rates.

Stephen, that's you as well.

That's right.

I don't have anything to add to the report.

Um here for any questions.

I guess I'll move receipt.

Uh Councillor Mattson Ru's research.

Is there any questions or comments about tax rates?

Seeing none.

Going once, twice, three times.

Uh we've got a mover uh from uh counselor mattson.

Do we have a seconder?

Oh did we already do this?

Uh we do we're just move we're just moving the um the report right now.

Just moving the report.

Uh counselor Rogers moved um the receipt of the report.

All those in favors of just receiving the report.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed now.

That brings us down to uh the bylaw for first to third reading.

Stephen, is there anything you wanted to add?

No, Mayor, thank you.

I'll move first to third and bylaw 1154.

Thank you, Councilor Mattson.

Uh Counselor Mattson moves first to third for the bylaw.

Do we have second or second?

Seconded by Councilor Quowit.

Uh now that it's on the table, uh just to confirm that this remains unchanged for the rates from last year.

Am I saying that correct?

Uh in terms of the multiples, yes.

Unchanged.

Okay.

Actually, if I may, your worship, if I can just ask a quick question of staff.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, I'm not um opposed to keeping the multiples as they are, um, but I do also want to um vote against the budget.

Do I vote?

Can I vote in favor of the uh tax rates are um being the same, or does that suggest I'm voting in favor of the budget?

No, they're completely separate, Councilor Rogers.

Good.

Um I'll be happy to support it.

Cheers.

Uh any other comments or questions?

All those in favor of bylaw 1154 for second to third reading.

Any opposed?

Being none opposed, motion carries.

And subdivision and development servicing by law nine eight five amendment.

Move it, option.

Second.

So councilor Rogers moves.

Uh all those in favor.

Uh Councilor Matson seconds.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries and new business.

I think that's uh over to Councilor Mattson.

Yes.

Uh in Doug's letter, he had a number of good questions which I thought were worth finding out about.

Um, for example, how can the public comment on a 20-year OCP capacity when V-ROL is not assessed the current capacity?

So there's a couple of questions like that.

And I'm not even asking the staff do it tonight, but maybe at the next, if it's approved, this motion is approved that uh we do it at the next uh committee of the whole meeting.

Is there uh time uh uh Lyan do you have some budgeted time for the next council meeting or the council of the whole for the OCP for for uh council um yes um thank you merit bye for that question staff will be bringing forward um several of the items that um Doug Wilson is mentioning in his letter um to council next week.

One specifically is the housing capacity analysis that has been addressed in this letter.

So we can answer these questions next Tuesday if that is helpful.

Thanks.

Okay, that was uh the correct sort.

Okay.

If I if I may, your worship.

Um so would would staff be able to respond to uh both of Doug's letters?

So there was the one from I think March 18th, and then uh uh the one uh today that um we just received.

So there's there's two letters from uh Mr.

Wilson uh that I think are most relevant and germane to the OCP and and um I would certainly like to hear uh uh answers to his concerns on both of the questions.

Yeah, through through the mayor, my suggestion is that um council have a list of questions that they would like to ask um next week.

And if they're the questions that Mr.

Wilson has in his letter, we are happy to answer them.

Um any other questions uh um please bring those questions and we will also have our consultants attending that meeting um who can also ask some of the more technical related questions.

And so please bring your questions to that meeting um and we can answer them.

Thank you.

Leanne, would you like those in advance if uh they are no?

Um that would be very helpful.

Thank you.

Okay, so yeah, if if council has specific questions that they want, even if it's something that uh a resident or uh Mr.

Wilson has done, if you could spell it out that uh the the uh form that you'd like if you can get that into Leanne prior to next week, then that would be helpful.

Thanks, Leanne.

Uh okay, so I think that uh and and so you're happy with the um the referral to next week with your motion.

Yeah, don't need a motion.

Okay, it's already happening.

And uh this brings us to 2025 capital product projects, counselor rogers.

Was there something you wanted to reiterate or was that covered with the discussion with staff?

It was covered with the uh the the report by staff.

That's that's great.

We've got two days to go for.

Okay, thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Uh brings us to question period.

Unless staff have a question, Carl, I'm gonna go to you if we've got any questions in the inbox.

Mayor Tobias, just checking the board now.

Um, no comments.

Excellent.

No questions either, just to convert.

Uh no questions or comments.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Um, and I think this is over to you for your notice of motion.

Uh Councilor Matson.

Yes.

Um, thank you.

So again, the purpose uh of this notice to motion is for the town to work with the South Island Division of Family Practice to increase the availability of general practice physicians in the town of View Royal.

And the motion, as I will read it out, has been reviewed by and by the Division of Family Practice.

So to the motion.

They've made a few changes, and so they are supportive and are willing to work with on this.

And whereas Council has endorsed a motion to amend the town's zoning bylaw to require that all new buildings with more than four stories dedicate the entire first floor to commercial or public space, which would include physicians' offices.

Whereas the South Island Division of Family Practice has advised it would be keen to help out in any way, and I'm quoting, we can secure the clinic space to attract family practitioners to View Royal and help them with patient attachment and patient access to clinical services.

Whereas the division of family practice has reviewed the space requirements for a small family practice, that's one to two physicians, would require space of 1,200 to 1,500 square feet, while a larger family practice of four to five physicians and allied health providers would require three to five thousand square feet of clinic space.

So whereas the family practice can establish a catchment area for its clinic that is within the town of View Royal boundaries and can attach patients from its catchment area.

So that's specifically View Royal residents.

Whereas each family practice, each family physician can attach 800 to 1,250 patients, a small family practice could realistically attach 800 to 2,500 view royal residents who currently do not have a family physician, while a larger clinic could attach three to five thousand view royal residents who currently do not have a family physician.

And I just want to emphasize this has been reviewed by the division's family practice.

So whereas the town of Vural can encourage the developers to gift the required space to the town through use of options such as the town's zoning bylaw, for giving amenity contributions, providing additional density, relaxation of the town's parking requirements, providing a one time gift or provide a one time tax receipt for a gift of the space to the town, an agreement by which the clinic would offer the building's residents an opportunity to register with the clinic.

Whereas the division of family practice would help establish a nonprofit society that would be responsible for tenant improvements to complete the clinic, recruit family physicians, and manage the family practice clinic.

Just about there.

Whereas the town would own the clinic space and lease it to the nonprofit society.

Therefore, be it resolved that the town of View Royal work with the South Island Division of Family Practice to secure the clinic space necessary to attract family practitioners to View Royal to help with patient attachment and access to clinical services.

I'll second that and bravo.

Yeah, thank you for your work on that, uh, Councilor uh Mattson.

Um that's uh phenomenal.

Um happy uh to have any questions uh to Councilor Matts and our staff about this.

So I just wanted for clarification.

At this point, my understanding was it was just reading it out.

There is no seconding necessary because it's just a notice of motion that will be next council meeting.

That's correct.

Uh yeah.

Hey, you don't need to second it, but it's it's there.

It's uh and then you can save that for next time.

So that's uh great, wonderful news.

Um there's no closed meeting uh resolution for this evening.

I think that brings us to termination, unless I'm missing something, Elna.

Nope, I'm uh on the money.

Uh can I get a motion to terminate and a second or please?

Submitted.

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor get better, Councilor Rogers.