Council Meeting

And uh I'll now call to order the council meeting for Tuesday, November 4th.

Um we've already proceeded with the um territorial acknowledgement.

Um so we've got uh the next item up would be the approval of the agenda, and that would be uh one uh late item that we've got on your blue sheet, uh, and that we do have a consent agenda, and I believe that is 10 for the consent agenda.

Is there anybody that would like to remove something out of the consent agenda item number 10?

Uh we'll go with councilor brown first.

Item uh 10 C, please.

I was good to say C as well.

10 C, okay.

Okay, so uh C becomes 11A.

And uh Councillor Lemon.

And is there anything else?

Councilor Rogers.

Yes, please.

Um I'd like to table um our staff report um seven.

I think it's somebody in my light.

Yeah, uh 78 UBCM grant application resolution amendment.

Like to table that.

7A, you would like to table that um I think we need a seconder to table and uh now, correct?

So we got a mover, Councilor Rogers, Counselor Brown has seconded, and I'm okay if you want to justify your move to table.

Yes, thank you.

And it's it's quite unclear.

And I think the the um we we do not know what uh the application uh will consist of um in in specific details uh in terms of the designs i know it's from the active transportation plan um but um um um there's great concerns about that plan and it's uh inconsistencies of road design with um our uh neighboring municipalities um i'm also concerned and we should uh seek further information about uh what uh it means by council support uh proposed activities and support any potential cost overruns um that so i move that uh we could have the debate but i think we need to table it and uh get a much more wholesome report back from staff about what this is all about and so that's my motion anything you want to add counselor brown uh no just a point of order i don't believe we're allowed to have uh discussions on tabled motions i don't i could be wrong uh i just just looking for justification there it's it's not a debate i agree with what uh counselor rogers said uh but thank you for the point of order so uh we've got a mover and a seconder to table uh item i think it's seven e yeah seven e um all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed that was seven easy table.

Mayor Tivise.

I was opposed.

You're opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Um Councilor mackenzie.

Sorry, I didn't see your hand.

Um so with those adoptions, can I get a mover and a second or to approve the agenda, please?

Second.

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Opposed.

Councilor McKenzie, did you oppose or were you okay with the agenda now?

I'm okay.

Thank you.

Motion carries um for the agenda.

And that brings us right down to public participation period.

Again, we can hear of anything on the agenda, but nothing on the bylaw because we can't receive any new information on it.

So would anybody in council chambers like to address council on any issue on the agenda with the exception of the official community plan bylaw amendment?

Everybody here and nobody wants to talk.

It's your only opportunity unless there's to ask a question.

But there is categories to um uh actually make comments under um some of the items that were uh zoning bylaw changes as well.

Um if nobody wishes to address council at this point.

Uh Carl, have we got anybody online?

Uh Mayor Tobias, we have no messages so far.

Okay.

Thank you, Carl.

So I think this brings us down to um the bylaw.

We've heard concerns from uh a number of the public.

We had an opportunity to ask questions.

Um so the official community by plan by law number eight one one twenty eleven amendment bylaw number uh eleven fifty six um is up for our third reading.

Um so uh normally we've got uh three motions that are associated with this uh one is to receive the report that I suggest we do before we do anything else so I can can I get a motion to receive the report for the bylaw moved by counselor lemon seconded by Ella sorry mayor to pias are we on uh OCP bylaw and uh amendment bylaw number 1156 correct yes so we could just move to third reading right but we got to receive the report first no the report is for the next item for the next item.

Okay, gotcha.

Thank you.

Uh so for 1156, then we could uh move to third reading, but I think people might have some comments or questions.

Counselor Brown.

I'd like to make a motion that this be referred back to staff to address some of the concerns that were brought up today.

Second.

I'll go to you, Councilor Brown, first if uh you want to motivate.

Well, uh yeah, I understand the concerns, and I think if i if if it's ex precise exactly right, well, yeah, there should be some changes made if if that's the case.

That's why I'd like staff to look at it again.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Yes, uh this is such an important document.

Um I I think we've got to be absolutely certain.

And uh if there's any questions that um uh 400 lots don't uh qualify the the uh the density and implications in the Choco area, 126 exempt lots uh and um you know the apparently inconsistencies so there there seems to be a lot of things that um um the public is flagging uh us to to review um things that don't match up and I before we um actually get into voting on this amendment we need to have a thorough understanding of what those aspects are and and um be comfortable okay uh thank you.

Anyone else have a comment that they'd like to make now?

Councilor Quach.

Is there an opportunity to hear from staff today?

Perhaps we certainly can.

Leah.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

Yes, and thank you for the opportunity to address the comments.

So I think it's important to know the difference between an OCP and a zoning bylaw.

So an OCP has high-level land land use designations, and how we develop a parcel is further refined through through zoning.

And the way the small-scale multi-unit residential land use designation is defined.

Our uses include detached and attached dwellings, such as detached residential, duplex, secondary suite, garden suite, row house, townhouse, houseplex, apartments, up to three stories and up to a maximum of six dwelling units.

Which then so it's more of a catch-all.

And so the the idea was to sort of collapse the residential and large lot residential land use designations and create one land use designation.

And then a lot of these parcels that have already been have existing zoning, which dictates what can be built on the site.

But again, this is just a land use designation, like a description, and we thought it would be just having one land use designation that sort of captures it all.

However, if council wants to go back to um separating out that um staff are happy to do that.

What that process wise I think is important staff to for council to know is that it will require um rescinding a first and second reading and um and then we have to give the bylaws new readings and then another public hearing which is is is is fine in terms of process we're happy to to do that but um I think it's just important to know sort of the intent of of that.

Thanks, Leanne.

I appreciate that.

Any other comments.

So I I got you we could go ahead now and uh but uh with with your motion, but with that we'd have to also uh let's do that uh and put that up for vote and then we could go into rescend first and second and refer back to staff.

Council Rogers.

Yeah, just for discussion.

The um appreciate the this the the staff's offer here and and um and I would feel much more comfortable um you know getting a firm understanding about what these are is you know I I need a map, I need to see this stuff.

So if we can identify those areas and and um and um what's in the zoning, what's in the OCP, um, and have some um report that clarifies the concerns and confusions that uh me and the public might have, um then i think it's well worth our while to um uh take it back to first and second get the information and uh come on back to the public and make sure that we're good to go thank you councilor rogers the end yeah um thank you mayor toias um just a point of clarification that we do um council does not need to give does not need to rescind first and second reading of the bylaw this evening that would happen when staff brings forward a new bylaw understood okay so we could simply go with the motion that's on the floor now and then when you bring back the bylaw then we can rescind first to second.

Okay.

Council lemon, seems like you almost have your hand up.

Um Steph is a new bylaw when you come back, will it be with a new bylaw or will it be with a report to um explain the areas that were identified by the residents?

I I i Lund Road.

Through the mayor, yes, there would be a report accompanying the bylaw and we would specifically outline what the uh changes are.

And uh what I'm hearing this evening is that um the I guess the the parcels that don't have the SMA zoning the SMA zoning to keep those parcels within the residential and large lot residential land use designation and then just so we'll have three residential land use designations in in the OCP.

Happy with that.

Uh Council McKenzie, did you have any questions?

I'm my eyesight's kind of fluctuate, so I can't always see your hand up.

Did you have a comment?

Yeah, so um the way that staff has explained it to me was uh or just right now was really helpful.

And I would like if it's possible, I don't know how much work it is for staff to r uh to do um as they've been asked to do, like to do the comparison, etc.

Um I kind of almost would want them just to come back with the report explaining as exactly as they have uh what it is and give the opportunity for people to then speak on that um first because to me it kind of answered this the question and I don't know that we need to ask staff to do that additional work if um if it's okay uh as it is.

So yeah, that would be I but I think the motion on the floor is that we're just asking staff to come back with the report, but my request is that it doesn't they don't have to do all the work of changing it because it might not be needed.

I think what you're requesting is either an amendment uh or another motion, Councillor McKenzie, because I uh I'll go to the mover I think the intent is to alter not just have a staff report but I think your intent if I understood it correctly was to bring back a new map essentially yeah Leanne um yeah through through the mayor thank you um so it's important to note that the public hearing is closed council cannot accept any new information so what that means is that a new public hearing would have to happen uh but uh my my specific question, Leanne was that uh I think there's two thoughts right now amongst council, will this report fundamentally change the um bylaw that you're going to the staff's going to work on it, look at it, and apply those land uses, or is it just going to be an explanation?

No, it would be a change to the bylaw.

So council would have to risk re you know, should council wish to move forward with establishing like three o residential land use designations, uh I won't repeat myself, but um then uh what that means is that uh yeah, we uh council would have to rescind first and second reading of the current bylaw and then staff would be coming forward with a new bylaw um with updated amendments.

If I may uh Steph, you suggest nobody should do reason first and second now, or should we just hand it back to staff.

Yeah.

Okay.

So council Mackenzie, uh, if you didn't catch all that, the so the intent is not just to for a staff report, but to fundamentally change uh the bylaw reflecting new land use designations.

Okay, thank you.

And if we um didn't change the bylaw, would we need to do another public hearing or anything like that, or would it just be essentially a tabled to a future meeting?

Uh I think there'd still have to be uh Leanne.

Uh through through the mayor, uh no new information can be accepted from by council after the public hearing, and so a new public hearing would have to be scheduled.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, we got a mover and a seconder, and it was to refer back to staff.

Staff indicated they would make substantial changes and land use uh designation criteria that's already there, essentially coming back with a new map.

Um moved by councilor Rogers, seconded by Councilor Um Brown.

Um any further discussion?

All those in favor of Councilor Rogers motion and all those opposed.

Noting councillor McKenzie is opposed to the motion, motion carries.

Uh so that's referred back to staff.

Um and I think now we move to zoning bylaw 900.

Elna, do we cover everything off for the uh public hearing portion of that?

Yes, everything for the OCP amendment bylaw has been covered.

So now we can move into the zoning bylaw item B.

Thanks, Elna.

Uh Jeff.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Jeff Chow, Senior Planner.

Uh the purpose of this, the report that I'm presenting on is to introduce uh amendment by law 1160, which would amend the zoning bylaw for um the CD 26 zone.

Um and that is so tonight is to introduce the bylaw and uh if first and second reading are passed, call that a public hearing be scheduled.

Next slide, please.

It's the Royale, which is the six story building that was recently completed at the corner of Helmkin Road and Island Highway.

Next slide, please.

This zone permits uh apartment use on the upper floors and on the ground floor a neighborhood grocery use.

Um the conditions of use for that North Neighborhood grocery is um to be located on the first story, and the limit limits the hours of operation is 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Now that the building's been completed, the space is still vacant.

The applicant has been working on trying to fill that space since the development permit was approved and construction, you know, but uh but no viable tenant has been found.

So they've come forward with a request to amend the zone to permit uh different uses.

Uh this application was first introduced uh at the committee of the hall meeting, and um there were uh and council had uh uh concerns about now asked staff to look with the applicant at um to reconsider the kind of proposal and uh the proposal.

Next step, next slide, please.

Uh, is to bend the zone to permit um a couple of other uses, including cafe use, medical clinic, personal services establishment, and retail store.

When the original, when the proposal was in applications introduced, it included office, but that space was removed.

Personal service uh establishment is basically uh things that relate to a person's appearance or apparel.

Uh so for example, a salon or nails or or um other other similar things to that.

Um and condition recommended conditions are similar to that of the uh of the neighborhood grocery use, that'd be only located on the main floor with hours of operation between 6 a.m.

and 10 p.m.

And a minimum floor space of 150 square meters on the first story for cafe use.

When this property was originally rezoned, there was a community wish for the grocery store.

That was certainly the big selling feature.

With no tenant, then that's an issue because the space is vacant, doesn't serve the commonly found in mixed use buildings that you see around town, and they're and these settings do provide an opportunity for uh so what you want to do is create a setting that that supports um uh community gathering and a cafe is actually the ideal use for that because it anchors the space, it gives the neighbors a place to visit and and and socialize.

Uh next slide, please.

Um so the reasons in support of the the uh the difference in land uses here is first of all, it complies with the official community plan uh designation for for this area for for mixed uses.

Uh neighborhood groceries use is still permitted and with the same conditions.

And for example, if um if a there still has potential for the site to be operated entirely as a neighborhood grocery, or it could operate at a smaller scale if some of the other uses are are are put in um it provides that community gathering place um providing this that these uses provide for complementary diverse small scale commercial uses to create that kind of urban village kind of feel where residents kind of walk and congregate and and have interesting things to to look at and these photos here are examples of what you can see in Cook Street Village and Oakme Avenue Village.

So that is the um the proposal for the amending the bylaw next slide, please.

Um, so the recommendation is to cons is if first and second reader of this bylaw is supported that a public hearing be scheduled to consider the bylaw.

Thank you, Jeff.

You open to some questions.

Yeah.

Uh counselor quality, please.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Cho.

Are you able to just remind us casually just how much the applicant and staff have worked together to try to secure a grocery store in this area?

And please walk me through from the very beginning from the timeline up until now.

Um the application was the rezoning actually happened several years ago, uh probably about three years ago.

Um, and that was you know it was it was a significant rezoning, uh and that was sort of the community wish for was for that community gathering place to have that neighborhood groceries use uh development permit was approved uh approximately two years ago uh two to three years ago as well for the actual building and and once a development permit is issued it allows um property owners to start marketing the property so uh I'm aware that this property has been marketed for two three years the sign is still on the window uh the listing is still out there if there's a potential for that tenant they you know I think the applicant has spoken to many of the similar size operators in town and they explained at the community whole that uh that for whatever reason you know either other spaces were committed elsewhere or economic changes to the local economy that uh that particular use was was you know um is not working at this time for this location so the next best thing the or the heart of the heart of the matter is is trying to find that space for um to anchor the corner because this is now a landmark building and this is an ideal place for people to congregate the settings ideal for a coffee shop because you've got the outdoor patio you've got um exposure to to sunlight and it's and and the site is actually ideal for that.

Those coffee shops you see around is is always uh neighbors always want that neighborhood coffee shop where you can you could take the family to for for coffee.

But you often find that a lot of them are not very viable because as a standalone use, they depend on customers.

And within a walking distance, there's a limited number of people.

Uh, but that's where in a building like this where you have an opportunity for other small-scale uses to bring that kind of walk-by traffic.

So if somebody's going to a doctor's office or bookstore, uh, or actually, you know, whether it's a doctor's office or a physio, um, you know, if your spouse what, you know, your spouse could wait for you in the coffee shop.

It gives you that kind of opportunity to have that what's called the third place.

That's not your work, not your home.

It's a community gathering place.

This setting is ideal for that.

Councillor Lemon and then Councillor Rogers, please.

I like this plan much better.

Um I appreciate the diversity.

And the idea of a coffee shop is great, but um the originally the residents didn't say we want a coffee shop, we want a place to buy milk and bananas.

So will there be uh a space that is dedicated to, you know, doesn't have to be big, but you know, a place to it a small store for people to go and pick up their milk and bananas.

Uh to the mayor, that's um there are opportunities for that within within space.

So retail use includes bakery type uses.

Um certainly neighborhood grocery store is still a permitted use, would just be a little bit smaller because of the the the space committed to the coffee shop.

So certainly like a neighborhood bodega or grocery store is still a possibility uh if the market will bear that, if the community will support that use.

I would like it to be a required use.

I think that was a comment, not a question, but there'll be time for that, Councilor Lemon.

Uh Councillor Rogers and Councillor Brown, please.

Yes, uh, these uh the personal service um uh establishments is uh you know is a is a curious thing.

I had to uh look it up on uh gym when I ask AI what it was all about.

And it's uh beauty and grooming services, barbershops, hair salons, estheticians, nail salons, body modification, which is tattoo parlors built, body piercing spas, health bars, massages, flotation tanks.

So are we going to be permitting all those uses under that one umbrella?

Um through through the mayor, um, those are some potential uses in there.

Uh I'm not sure if we may have some other regulations on tattoo parlors, but there's certainly uses some uses are most of those uses would be permitted as personal service.

Yeah, yeah.

So I think rather than just having that cash-wall phrase, we better make sure that we define it really well.

I know that we we don't permit um uh tattoo parlors, but uh there were a few other things that I was curious about, and uh very stress have a just to um uh uh answer the rest of that question.

So the way our zoning by law defines uh personal service establishment actually specifically states that um it specifically excludes massage parlors um unless such use is accessory to a licensed aesthetic care facility, tattoo parlors, uh brothels, um, and other escort services.

So those are excluded from our bylaw.

Okay.

Um so it I it may we may want to look at the other ones.

I also note the other services are shoe repairs, tailors, dressmakers, laundry, dry cleaners.

So there's a gamut, and I think we have to consider what the implications are on some of those.

One of the big important things is to is the cafe.

People wanted a gathering place, and I think the applicant is willing to secure a minimum floor space for that ground level and have to have that act activated street front.

But I I'm almost thinking that the first thing that goes in is a cafe, nothing else until we get the cafe.

Just as a motivator that um because that's that was really the what the the bottom line that um um if it wasn't gonna be a grocery store, it was a place to gather and and uh uh I just want to make sure that when we have this discussions and you come back check with the applicant, that um, you know, he may be coming back and said, Nope, I've looked and there's no possibilities that's not really gonna happen.

So um I think we need pretty good self-assurance um given the uh um community's disappointment that's happened so far.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers, Councillor Bradford.

I agree with what uh Counselor Lemon has to say.

Uh I know I'll personally I've gone to uh London Drugs, for example, and I'll get a quart of milk there or the eggs, they have little coolers there.

So I don't see a big problem with uh any kind of a store whether it's a dollar store, dollar stores you can buy small items, grocery items, and I think that would be very uh appropriate.

So I don't know how how we could build that in to make that a requirement.

Obviously, if you've got a shoe store, you're not probably not gonna put a cooler in there.

But um I think they've already done some stuff in the store correct.

I think they may have already done some items there or uh prepped it for like coolers and things like that, I think.

But I may be wrong.

But uh um yeah, I again I agree with the councillor lemon has to say it'd be nice to have a store that has that extra little uh tidbit in there that you can pick up something.

Thanks.

Uh Councillor McKenzie just reaching out to you because I can't see you always uh is uh do you have any questions for uh Mr.

Chow?

Yes, uh uh and I think I can actually put myself on the screen, so maybe I'll do that when I uh have a question.

Um so originally it was just um zoned for a grocery store, which meant essentially that that bottom floor would have to be one grocery store.

So with this proposal and increasing the uses, uh it can essentially cut down or make smaller spaces, I believe.

So I wondered if staff uh know how many different businesses could actually be located on that floor based on like minimum business sizes?

Um space could probably be well with the 15, you know, hundred 150 square meters of uh would be would do cafe.

The other space could probably be divided into two reasonably sized spaces.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

Uh and uh I I've got one question.

Um Jeff, I wasn't here, this was previous council that approved this, but when it went to public hearing, because I think it was an uh OCP amendment to uh to uh place that structure there, um was there an extra density that was conditional on the grocery store?

Um it wasn't the uh the the proposal was approved as a package.

So it wasn't um it wasn't in exchange for this grocery store, you get additional space out of it in just one package.

So obviously there was some negotiations made to put an amenity on the bottom floor.

Did that incur the proponent to allow greater density on it?

I know it was a package, but was there in order to get the the first floor as commercial, was there uh some sort of agreement on through public uh input that that was uh you know a a something that was the selling point of the extra density.

So the official community plan and the rezoning applications kind of went together.

Um I think my recollection was that originally there were other uses that were that were proposed uh when it came down to uh decisions for the zoning of the property, uh that's where council um the council decision interest was in focusing it down to that one particular use.

So that was actually done in the community plan, and sort of the in the zoning process, not the community plan.

The community plan just talked about mixed use and and general general density.

Okay, thank you.

Um I think there's um Councillor Gwelvin.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chow.

I just wanted to get your professional opinion on businesses, uh potential businesses remaining empty in the town of U Royal and staff's outlook on how that may affect future developments and the economic prosperity of U Royal.

For example, we've been pursuing solutions for this building now for several years and uh trying to stick around around into a square, and it hasn't worked.

And now I'm hearing a lot of my colleagues being quite prescriptive about businesses, and I'm concerned that perhaps if those are unsuccessful again, that we may be back here again doing the same thing.

Commercial uses are not regulated to this extent.

Council supported that because it was important to the community.

And these are uses that are commonly seen elsewhere in multi-use buildings uh that are, you know, and that are consistent with people living above um a a lower intensity use on the main floor uh question uh jeff if the with your proposal there's 150 square meters or uh for the uh cafe and and what's the remaining square footage somewhere in my report yeah um i believe that the the um the applicant might might recall the number five thousand square five thousand square feet yeah yeah so five hundred square thousand square feet remaining after the cafe uh five thousand square feet thank you very much for that clarification appreciate it uh square meters crack okay thank you uh any other questions council rod I I just wonder if we have a um my question is are we moving uh quickly to first and second reading without getting firm definitions of um uh for what um this new entity um personal services establishment really entails because if if we're not really clear about what that is and and I've just rambled off a a list of possibility possible items, if we're clear of what um is uh acceptable to staff, acceptable to the public, acceptable to the um uh building owner, and acceptable to the tenants.

So it it is um um uh a challenge, but we certainly need to make sure that um uh we don't accidentally get a a business that slipped in uh on unsuspecting of a personal service under that title.

So I just wanted to make sure that we're um very thorough in that assessment.

Uh Jeff, is it possible to say that we would put we could put in an uh an amendment to this proposal and say uh a certain square footage be allocated for a cafe and a certain square footage ish roundabout be uh a medical clinic use only?

Would it be possible to make that amendment?

Uh through the mayor, um we can certainly look into that, but um I think it would be important to go back to the applicant to see if that is something that they can also support um instead of doing something like that on the fly.

And the reason why I'm asking that is I've got asked, do you have this square footage for a clinic recently?

So there may be some convergence there that with a coffee shop we could get something that the uh the residents could definitely use with uh over 30% of us not having a doctor in View Royal.

Um so that might be uh something that might be beneficial for uh for us to to consider.

And I think was medical clinic one of the potential uses that you had dealt?

Yeah.

But I I I could only kind of support this modification if it was really restricted to something that the community uh needs uh in that.

Leanne.

Uh through the mayor.

So I just checked in with the applicant, and the applicant confirmed with me that they would be willing to um secure a minimum floor area for a medical clinic um in the zone.

Okay, thank you.

Then uh is it appropriate?

Can we modify or um change the uh to just uh coffee shop and uh medical clinic?

Is that is it possible?

I'm not putting that motion on the floor, but is that possible to um through the mayor?

Um medical use is one of the proposed uses in the zone.

Uh one option is to amend the bylaw or or the opportunity, other option is to um uh register a covenant, but uh both have covenant yeah go ahead learn on that uh y yeah yes there's there's a couple of ways of doing it there's one writing uh directly as a condition of use in the zone um or a uh a covenant um that um would secure secure that use perhaps for a a certain um term like so there again there's there's a couple of ways of doing uh uh doing it um again it just really depends on how restrictive we want to be in in the zone uh yeah my own my only concern in asking this colleagues was that I think there was an expectation of the public that we put in a grocery store because that's what everybody expected and I think most people could be sold on a cafe but I I think a a you know a 7 Eleven or a dollar store would fall short of community expectations uh to be honest with you uh would a medical clinic uh create the same sort of uh community support that would be in there I think it would but it would restrict things like a 7 Eleven or a a potential um and I'm I'm not suggesting at all if there wasn't a market for it or uh interest in in View royal for a medical clinic that it shouldn't be opened up a little bit.

But I think that's uh uh my personal perspective is that it's it's it's a bit of a compromise for a total free market to something that you know the community was looking forward to and the community needed in that area because uh it is a bit of a service desert when you know as soon as you finish uh the rounds by Admiral's walk, it's a service desert until you get really to thrifties uh in uh in Calwood.

Um so having things there that the community needs is I guess our responsibility.

Um so I I would I'll throw a motion on the floor that we move to modify this to allow a cafe for sure.

Uh but if it can't be a grocery store, but we could still keep the grocery store designation in there and add medical clinic solely, it opens up another tier of options for the applicant to help uh ease the um challenge of finding somebody to go into the the uh place and that would also limit perhaps counselor rogers some of your concerns about what goes in there, right?

It's so it's a coffee shop and a clinic uh or a grocery shop.

Is that a possibility, Jeff?

Can we do that?

Um for the mayor, yes.

Council Lemon.

I'm I'm just wondering, Mayor, and perhaps the applicant, um, is that too much space for a medical clinic.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Thank you.

Yeah, the um the party that was interested is looking for six to ten thousand square feet of clinic space.

So I'm sure they could do with something in there.

Yeah, I um this is difficult.

So I was wondering what the size was.

Council Rogers.

You know, we're trying to sort this out um uh on the fly and and uh it's it's some good suggestions, there's some um uh here, but uh I'm I'm a little concerned about narrowing it down and limit limiting it uh too much.

Um and all with the idea that um staff will be coming back soon with um first and second reading on this.

So it's um uh you want to be able to gauge the public uh uh opinion, but then if the public opinion has questions or whatever, and we can't ask any further questions after the public hearing, then we gotta go back and reopen it back to second.

So I really do wonder if we're moving too quickly and and uh limiting ourselves so we've got uh some options here in front of us we can uh uh council Mackenzie go ahead uh thank you um so I just wanted to pick up on something that um Lee Ann mentioned there with the being able to put on like a time frame for this and so first I just want to confirm that like we could put uh it would be through a covenant, I believe, the um time within which this would be required to be either medical space or cafe, etc.

But then after that time, um it could be used for other things.

Um I guess first I'll confirm that, and then if that is possible, maybe that would could be something in as part of that motion, because I think I really agree with um I agree with the motion, but again, I think we need to be reasonable in terms of if they spend time doing this for two or three years and still empty.

Like I don't want an empty space on that corner.

Um, so yeah, essentially I'll leave it there and see if Steph can respond.

Yeah, through through the mayor, um one option that we could we could possibly do this evening um in in response to Councillor McKenzie's uh comments is, and it's something that the applicant is also willing to entertain, is registering a Section 219 covenant on title, which would secure a medical clinic on the ground floor.

It could be for a certain term, I'm like five, 10, 15, 20 years, whatever the term agreeable term is, and um and also a minimum square footage.

And what we can do is prior to public hearing, staff would bring um forward a report um that would uh sort of specify you know what type of conditions um that's uh the applicant would be willing to agree to.

And obviously subject to council's desires.

And then that covenant would be registered on title prior to final adoption.

So council could potentially, if council wishes to go with the covenant route, which is slightly less restrictive than in a zone, then to a certain extent, council could give the bylaw first and second reading, and then staff would work out the terms of a covenant and then bring that back to council for for consideration, and then staff would work with the applicant to get that covenant registered on title prior to the adoption of the bylaw.

And that would that process would happen between public hearing and final adoption.

So the suggestion Leanne that you have is we go ahead and give this first and second reading and you'll do work with the uh applicant uh behind the scenes and then bring that back to counsel for third correct um uh that is one way of approaching this um and it sounds like the applicant is also in agreement with that as as well and so it sounds like it meets council's intent um uh for for a medical office which we can do through a uh section two nineteen covenant, as well as um ensuring that the zone um is, you know, isn't is not as prescriptive um so to speak.

And yeah.

Great uh so uh is there somebody willing to move staff's recommendation that we go first and uh we read first and second in this evening?

Uh councillor Lemon moves.

So we got a seconder.

Seconded by Councilor Brown.

Any motivation, uh Councilor Lemon?

Well, I look forward to seeing what staff brings back, but I I think it's time to make some headway on this.

And I think this is a is this is a good positive promising step.

And uh I look forward to seeing a medical clinic in there.

Thank you, Councilor Lemon.

Uh Councilor Brown, anything to add for as a secondary?

Yeah, I look forward to that too, especially a medical clinic.

We've been talking about that for a long time.

Uh just a history context.

Thanks, Councilor Brown.

Councillor Rogers, you had a point?

Um, years ago when um the Helmicot Square uh was uh was um envisioned and put into place and businesses came in.

Um once we had the businesses, then they wanted a big sign to advertise.

So uh at the same time, while staff are working on what um I I would appreciate a staff would also explore sooner than later, the uh sign issues um that would uh likely come about uh for these businesses.

Thanks, Councillor Rogers.

So we've got a motion on the floor, uh the moving uh first and second with the caveat explained by staff that they would work on a um uh covenant with the uh owner uh for a medical clinic.

Any other comments, questions?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries thanks, folks.

Thanks, Leanne.

Thanks, Jeff.

And uh I think that moves us down to Mayor's report.

I'll be brief seeing how we don't have to Mary Tobias.

Sorry, we're gonna need to schedule a public hearing for that bylaw as well for November 18th, please.

Right, sure.

So we should make a motion to receive the report as well, right?

Oh, this can I get a mover just to receive the report too so we can clean that up.

So moved to seconded uh moved by council lemon, seconded by councilor Rogers.

All those in favor?

Any opposing no uh non opposed.

So we did move first and second on that one, and I think the third one was to schedule a public meeting for November 18th.

Alanna, you've got updated information.

We will schedule a public hearing at a different date.

Okay, so you don't need a date from us or that final motion right now.

At a different meeting, we'll come back and ask for a motion to schedule a public hearing.

Okay, thank you.

Uh and I think that covers everything with that agenda item for the rezoning.

I think we're down to uh mayor's report, and uh I do have one this evening.

Um many of you might have not known this, but there is we've got a lot of legislation that we're being responsive to.

Uh all of the OCP amendments that were in front of us initially were legislatively required for us to go through and uh for staff to plan and for us to consider.

Um barring legislation that comes from the NDP party, there's also a private members' bill, and it's bill M216 that's before legislature now.

It follows a bit different of process than uh than normal bills do, and that they do uh have to come and have public hearings similar to this in committee.

So 216 seems technical or procedural tweak uh at first, but the concept behind it is the ability for professional or certified professionals to go in and potentially overrule a council's decision and approve that with provincial authority.

So as it comes up, I just wanted to make the public aware of that.

So it doesn't matter if it's in the OCP, does not matter if council has agreed to it or shot it down.

Now they can use a registered professional according if this bill passes to simply approve it without any uh other work to be done.

So the the thought was that this would streamline decision making for and would help municipalities out in their mission just to create more housing.

So it's surprising that this was not introduced at UBCM to get feedback from it of all of the resolutions in UBCM that were calling for different things.

I didn't hear once I don't think any concerns that we needed extra streamlining being done, but obviously somebody's looking out for us and doing that.

Just want to inform the public that that is available if they want to go onto their legislative website and uh talk to their MLAs about how they really deeply feel about that.

Staff reports I think we got a development variance permit uh 202502 for 157 View Royal Avenue.

Thank you, Mary Twice.

Uh this is an application to oops slides, please.

This is an application to uh construct an accessory building at 157 View Royal Avenue.

This parcel.

Next slide, please.

So where we are in the development permit developments process is we're at a decision point to approve the permit.

Next slide, please.

The subject property 157 is actually comprised of two lots.

There's one lot that's 1.19 hectares, and there's a second parcel as well.

They all functions as one property with a shared driveway.

The parcel that we're looking at is the uh the larger parcel, which is 1.19 hectares.

It has a house on it and a couple of accessory buildings as well as a swimming pool and a tennis court and a boathouse.

It's the waterfront property.

Next slide, please.

In terms of the context, uh the street is fairly rural, it's around the corner from town hall.

Most of us have been by the property, but this uh slide shows a couple of views of the property from each direction.

Basically, you can't see very much because it's very well treed, and across the street is mostly treed and uh and residential.

Next slide.

Uh so the proposal is to construct a uh 30 square meter accessory building beside the tennis court, uh highlighted in yellow there on the on the slide.

Um it would be uh constructed on an existing kind of cleared area where there's a concrete pad.

And the purpose of it is to be a potting shed as well as kind of a washroom for people using the sport facilities, including an outdoor shower.

Next slide, please.

Next slide, please.

And where it doesn't comply is uh is with floor space requirements on the lot.

So the variance is to increase the maximum coverage of accessory buildings and structures from 60 square meters to 109 over 190 square meters, and to increase the maximum building floor area from 727 square meters to 917 square meters.

Those sound like large numbers, but this is a large lot.

Um and next slide, please.

And the reason for the variance is uh because a number of pre existing accessory buildings um were not uh were not accounted for in the uh uh in when the when the house was built.

So the which when the house was built, uh there's a 1930s house in the building on on the property, addition was built, was put on, and a variance was granted to increase the uh the gross floor area to um to the 700 square meters.

Um the way the zoning bylaw works today is that includes accessory buildings.

So there are uh two other sheds and one boat house shown in the yellow on on the on the photo there that are that count as floor space as well.

So um so when you add the existing building and accessory buildings, um a variance is needed.

The other variance that's required is for the lot coverage of accessory buildings.

So the uh requirement on all residential properties in View Royal is uh it's usually uh maximum of 60 square meters or a percentage of the of the lot area, whichever is smaller.

So in this case, the um they're requesting to increase the maximum lot coverage.

One rationale is because it's really large when you look at it, the zoning requirement is the other zoning requirement is no more than 10% of the lot be covered with have a lot lot covered 10% for accessory buildings.

But on this on this one parcel that works out to 1.6%.

And same with the total floor area which includes the house.

The maximum density permitted is is 0.42 to 1, which is 42% of the lot.

Um with the accessory buildings existing house, that's 0.08 percent.

Uh so uh next slide please.

Uh in terms of context and neighborhood impact, you've seen that the building would not be visible from the street, likely wouldn't be visible from the water.

Uh the photo on the left shows the concrete pad on which the building would be built.

So it's there already.

Uh no further excavation would be needed except for maybe some piping.

Uh it's a cleared area and uh so there's no immediate trees next to it.

It's over four meters away from the sequoias.

The float on the right shows the uh view from the concrete pad against the tennis court.

Looking at the neighbor's property, it shows um basically um a wall of trees and the neighboring property there's there's no buildings directly opposite to it it's that neighbor that uh that area is is is forested as well so in summary the lot is large uh there's no visual impacts to the neighborhood there's no tree impacts for those reasons um those are reasons that could support its approval so recommendation is to approve the development variance permit next slide please and that concludes the presentation.

Thanks, Jeff.

And uh the we'll go to questions first for Jeff before we go to comments from the applicant.

Jeff, can you remind us, inform us, several years ago, was there a covenant put on this property stating that it would never be broke broken up, split up, subdivided?

Uh Counselor Lemon.

Uh mayor, yes, there is uh there is a covenant for a minimum lot size.

So uh in the report we actually do the analysis that this uh this proposal does not contravene that.

So there is a minimum lot size.

Um that is um definitely more than 1,000 square meters.

Yeah, okay.

Any other questions for that go ahead the the um the sp very specific wording um of the zoning bylaw is that the proposed accessory buildings lot coverage um or no pardon me that uh it's let me give me uh total lot coverage of all accessory buildings and structures must not exceed sixty square meters or ten percent of the lot area whichever is smaller and you know it I I guess um we better change our zoning bylaw because it does make this applicable.

It doesn't say large lots, small lots, it says on a lot, whichever is smaller.

So I'm really struggling with um and I know that we can have instances where we can make exceptions, but exceptions become precedents.

And they and it is also a message to the public that yeah, you know, have a go at it.

It's um come and make your applications uh if you're you know 65 square meters or to 100 square meters.

So um, and in this particular size of land, I get it.

But don't I'm just wondering if staff would agree that it's time for us to update this and remove the um ambiguities of that's involved in very small lots like Chiogo, large lots like in the harbor, and then extra large lots in in North r oil so shouldn't we be making some clarifications uh for the public's uh information um through through the mayor um that is something that could be initiated in zoning review uh the current bylaw before us is in effect and the decision for this one actually would be in this instance um i should also note that whenever the development variance permit uh each application is different they do not set precedents because each one is judged on its merits.

Every situation is different.

The idea of a variance is because uh because uh to look at extenuating circumstances so yeah uh thanks Jeff are there any other questions at all for Jeff Counselor Brown no question but I move the staff recommendation second okay we've still got to go uh for comments for the applicant so the process noted that uh councillor brown moved and uh counselor lemon uh seconded there are any comments from the applicant at all Jeff actually, I'll note that the um not to steal his thunder, but uh the application did support uh provide a petition.

That was um kind of a late addition to the correspondence with E.

Candrist, the neighborhood.

So thank you.

Good evening.

Um my name's Fraser McCall.

I get very um anal about things.

I went to every neighbor, each side.

I had no opposition of any kind.

I got 25 signatures on my letter.

I didn't go just anywhere in View Royal, I could have got double that very easily, but I went to every neighbor who could possibly be involved in any decision on this.

And the first one I got was the gentleman directly to the west of this, who was the only person who would have any possible impact of any kind.

And between his property and my property is a line of sequoia trees that are over 20 feet tall.

Most of them are 30 feet tall that I planted in my time there.

But I've been there for 30 years.

And I've got a good relationship with him.

He's got a wonderful wild garden full of trees that are going to fall down every winter.

And mine is not manicured, but it's a little different.

But I made sure every neighbor supported this application, and I took the time to visit every one of them.

Okay, so I went, it took a long time to do that, but I did make sure everyone understood it and everyone was in agreement.

I've lived in the house for 30 years, and I care for it and love it very deeply.

And I think I'm leaving something that someone else hopefully will take over one day.

I'm not going to be there much longer.

And if I listen to someone like Buffett, it would be the stupidest thing I could do is to live in a house and pay high taxes, high insurance, and high maintenance fees.

I should get out of it.

I should get out of it now.

But I love it very dearly, and I do want to do this.

This is going to not detract from the house or anyone else's house.

It's going to be built in the same style as the house.

It's going to have shake siding, it's going to have the same windows and doors as the house.

And two years from now, I'm a developer and I consider it positive when someone says, I don't know what the fuss was about, or I don't even know it's there.

And that's what's going to happen, I promise you that.

I do want to make a comment on the project before us.

I did View Royal Square directly across the street, and one or two of the counselors who are sitting there now know me from that time.

That was what, 20 over 25 years ago.

And that was controversial when we built it.

And I'm not, I have no interest in that project across the street, but I know the hell they're going through right now.

And I actively supported a petition demanding they put in a grocery store on that location.

But I'll tell you right now, it's not going to happen.

If you can get a medical clinic like what we did across the street in a coffee shop, that's a huge plus.

You know, don't settle for a 7-Eleven or a some kind of a thrift store of some kind.

But you're you're on the right track.

But give them a little bit of a break and let's see if they can put it together.

Okay.

Anyway, I hope that doesn't detract from my application.

Thank you so much.

I haven't made any enemies tonight.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Uh comments from the public.

It's that time specifically on this uh uh variance permit.

Um, if anybody from the public would like to speak.

I can check.

Carl, do we have anybody specifically on this variance permit uh write in?

Mayor Tobias, we have no messages on the board.

Thanks, Carl.

And so correspondence, we do have a letter dated with the um uh from Mr.

Wilson.

Um that can I get a move to eight a second.

Seconded by Councilor Qualitic.

All those in favor.

Uh any opposed for their seat.

Um so that's what we've got before us.

We've got a motion on the table right now is to move staff's recommendation.

Councilor Roger.

That was Councillor Brown and Lemon, I think.

Any other comments or questions?

Yes, I I certainly support the motion.

And uh with Mr.

McCall, I really appreciate you going around and getting newsletters of support, particularly of your neighbor.

That uh is always important uh and consideration.

So thanks for doing that.

If there's no other comments, uh we can move to a vote.

All those in favor of uh staff's recommendation?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thanks, folks.

I think that brings us down to developments variance permit for uh signage that we've dealt with before.

Leanne, were you gonna speak to this or is it Leia?

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

So this presentation is for development variance permit 202503 for 1449 Burnside Road West.

The applicant is requesting for variances to the town signed bylaw.

Next slide, please.

So this application was introduced at the October 14th committee of the whole meeting.

Following the meeting, public notification was completed in accordance with the town's development procedures by law, and the public has been given an opportunity or will be given an opportunity to speak right after this presentation.

So 1449 Burnside Road West is located at the town's boundary with Saanich at the corner, obviously, of Helmkin and Burnside, and is located within the attached residential signed district.

The signed bylaw identifies uh the attached, or I should say defines the attached residential signed district as any zone permitting residential use in a townhouse, roanhouse, or apartment residential form, but not permitting commercial mixed use.

Next slide, please.

So the town received a sign permit application with eight proposed signs for 1449 Burnside Road West.

Two of these signs do not require variants as they fall outside of the scope of the sign by law, and one other was sign one, that is, was removed as a request of counsel that they do not support the requested maximum sign increase variants.

So as you can see on the screen, there are four signs highlighted, two of which are freestanding signs, that is sign two and sign three, and sign four C and four D are wall signs.

Next slide, please.

So the attached residential sign district does not permit any freestanding signs in association with an apartment residential use, and they're only permitted in association with the home occupation license, which has given us the basis for the requested variants.

The applicant has requested two freestanding signs in association with the apartment use.

As you can see, one is requested for the parking and identification of the site off of Birdside Road West.

And then the other is to identify the direction to the experience center, which is their rental office slash showroom.

Next slide, please.

So that way their pedestrians have an idea of where to go.

Hence the requested variances.

So sign 4C and 4D both have a portion that does not require variances.

They are circled in green as they fall outside of the scope of the sign bylaw.

The portion that does require variance is circled in red.

So for sign 4C is located on the canopy over the entrance of building two facing Helmkin Road.

The sign is not illuminated and consists of the name of the development.

Sign 4D is located on the canopy over the entrance of building three facing the inner courtyard and identifies the location of the experience center, which as mentioned is this basically rental office and show suite.

Next slide, please.

So Savra, in support of the requested variances, to increase the number of freestanding signs from zero to three, because it's not unusual for larger developments to require multiple signs, especially only when they have multiple road frontages, to direct visitors, postal services, emergency services, etc.

Um, so sign three acts as both the address sign and uh location identifying where parking can be found for visitors, um, and sign two is the directional sign for pedestrians.

Staff are also in support of their the increased maximum sign areas for the freestanding signs, which is sign three, um, because of the additional information that is on there, which is important for wayfinding, etc.

Um, and finally, staff are in support of the requested variances for the two proposed wall signs as they are required for addressing and building identification.

So the recommendation before you today um is following any um comments made by the public, uh council authorized the issuance of the development variance permit for the requested variances.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And could you explain?

Was there modifications to this since the uh council of the whole?

That is correct.

So sign one was removed.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I think we could entertain any questions that you might have for Leah right now.

Go ahead, Councilor Rogers.

Just one question.

Uh I see five recommendations there, but my the report had four.

Um my apologies.

That would be an error on my part.

Um number two is no longer viable.

So number two isn't on the list.

It's it's not in my report.

It's not there.

That is correct.

This is just an error that I made, unfortunately, while making my presentation.

Okay.

So really what we're talking about is the wall signage that that is there plus the uh parking entrance wavewinding sign.

Is that correct?

You are um to look at variances number one, three, four, and five.

So basically everything but number two.

So it's the experience sign, experience center, parking, and the two wall signs.

Excellent.

Thanks for that.

For the clarification.

Um was there any comments from the applicant at all?

You don't have to.

It's not mandatory.

I think we've what we've already had around at this.

Any other questions for the applicant or for our staff?

Nothing.

Comments from the public.

Anybody?

Seeing nothing there.

No correspondence was received on this.

No staff recommendation.

Do we have a seconder?

Secondary or moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Brown.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thanks, Leah.

Uh and I think uh this is the night of development variance permits.

Um and I think we've got one for nine irkskin lane.

Uh and we've had this as well at the last council of the whole, I guess, Leia.

Um, but over to you.

All right, thank you once again, Mayor and Council.

So this presentation, once it's up on the screen.

Many thanks.

So this application includes changes to on-site landscaping and requested fire variances to the zoning by law for various retaining walls and two structures on site.

Next slide, please.

So this application was introduced at the last council meeting, October 21st.

Following the meeting, public notification was given, and council, well, there'll be an opportunity for the public to comment if they have any following this presentation.

Next slide, please.

So on the screen is an aerial photo of the subject property mid-construction.

There are presently four buildings on site, all of which are occupied by residents, and there's no changes to the form and character of all full four buildings, which is 17, 15, 21, and 23 ERSCIN.

This application has been submitted retroactively as the works have already been completed on site.

Next slide, please.

In 2021, a development variance, or sorry, a development permit, that is DP 202106, was approved by council with the following variances to the zoning by law.

A variance to the height of the retaining walls from 1.2 meters to 2 meters, a variance to the required number of vehicle parking, and there was also a condition to the development permit, which states the following all retaining walls on site are mortared walls as per drawing PR 13, proposed materials from Tugula architecture and design labeled retaining wall large concrete rock as attached to this report.

So in May of 2024, um staff conducted a site visit and determined that there were discrepancies from that 2021 DP to the site plan that was essentially there, or what was on site, I should say.

And as a result, variances were determined to be required.

The application was submitted in July of this year.

Next slide, please.

So the applicant is seeking a new development permit with variances for subject property in response to the several changes to the landscaping plan, including some of the following uh significant changes to the landscape, which include the addition of a required fire lane to building B.

And then there's the two garbage enclosures which are circled in green, and then there's the two retaining walls which are circled in yellow.

I don't know where yellow came from.

Sorry, red.

Next slide, please.

As mentioned, there has been changes and to the landscape plan, and that was primarily the result of grading changes.

So the DP was done before the grading changes were plans were done.

So as a result, once the grading plans were done, they realized some of their original design was no longer feasible.

Other elements such as site servicing also resulted in reconfiguration of some of the landscape and site plan.

Next slide, please.

Examples of changes to the landscape surrounding buildings A and B include the orientation and location of the garbage and recycling enclosures, emergency egress paths, the fire lane access to building B, and changes, slight changes to the size and placement of retaining walls.

Next slide, please.

Changes to the landscape and site plan surrounding buildings C and D include the location and orientation of the garbage and recycling enclosures, emergency egress pathways to building D, changes in the size and placements of retaining wall, removal of the pathway to the C or D, which is in behind of building C originally, and the redesign of the healing herb gardens, which were adjacent to building C, which have been transformed to fit the topography.

Next slide.

So the garbage and recycling enclosures were considered structures under the zoning bylaw and therefore are subject to maximum side regulations.

The approved landscape plan in the original development permit did not include measurements for these structures.

And that was likely because they had maybe no idea of how many bins or that they would require.

So as a result, the applicant is requesting a variance to increase the maximum length of a structure for buildings A and B from 7.5 meters to 8.8 meters.

And they're requesting a variance to the garbage enclosures for buildings C and D from 7.5 meters to 7.55 meters.

Next slide, please.

Staff are in support of these variances because the applicant has partially screened these enclosures using landscape to minimize the visual impact on the public realm and the neighboring properties along our skin lane.

The enclosures for building A and B have slightly more screening, or there's more vegetation surrounding those enclosures than that of building C and D.

But at this time it's difficult to determine how hidden these structures will be from the road based off of how young the shrubs are.

That being said, the image on the bottom of the screen is basically from Earthskin Lane, and it's not really overly clear from that angle where the garbage enclosure is.

It's there, but it's small.

Next slide, please.

And as mentioned, Council may wish to note that none of the retaining walls are mortared as was required as a condition in the original DP.

However, the retaining walls are constructed using a textured lock block, which is similar and forming character.

Next slide, please.

The previously approved development permit varied the maximum height from a retaining wall from 1.2 meters to two meters.

The two retaining walls on site exceed this two-meter height from finished grade.

The largest retaining wall is located behind building C and pretty much runs along the entire length of the back of the building.

And is at a measure that's a height of four meters.

And then the height of the retaining wall adjacent to building D is approximately 2.1 meters.

Please note that there are guardrails on top of that height, but they're required by the Bill C BC building code and were not considered as part of the height variants.

So the applicant has requested three variances in relation to the retaining walls for the height of the retaining wall behind building C to a maximum of four meters, the retaining wall in front of building D to a maximum of 2.1 meters.

And then there's the retaining wall behind building C, which was constructed in two parts, as you can see on the screen.

And they require a variance for the separation between the retaining walls from basically two meters to 0.7 meters.

And the applicant had designed the second wall this way in order not to get any closer to the CRD's high pressure water line, which was, you know, it's right adjacent to the CRD property link.

Or the right of way.

Next slide please.

And the um requested variances as on the screen.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Leah.

Any questions for Leah at all?

We've already seen this the council whole.

Do you want to make any comments?

You don't have to, it's not mandatory.

Any comments from the public at all?

Any no comments in the room.

Carl, we got any comments online.

Mayor Thomas, we've had no uh messages this evening.

Carl, you got to do a better job of promoting us.

Uh thanks, Carl.

Um somebody want to staff recommendation.

Um councilor Lemon moved, Councilor Brown seconded.

Uh any further comments?

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you.

Thanks, Leah.

Um Glen Air Pump Station Upgrades Tender Award.

I think that goes to Ivan.

Uh, I'm assuming.

Ivan, I've expressed this to uh Leanne and Scott already that normally mayors get something named after them.

And in the future, should a good pump station come available that requires naming, I would be uh more than honored to have a good uh good pump station named after me.

Well, Mayor Tobias, we do have a naming policy that I believe.

I know I gotta die first or something, but uh But it'll be uh you know it put my uh put my mind at ease to know that a View Royal Pump Station would be named after me.

Uh there's other opportunities for parks related naming too.

So hold on to your hold on to your pants there for now.

Yeah.

But uh thank you, uh Mayor and Council.

Um, this pr report before you is the Glenary Pump Station Upgrades Tender Award, or at least a recommendation of award.

This is within our sanitary master plan as a recommended um renewal of the pump station.

It's one of the oldest unrefurbished pump stations.

We do receive uh calls on this often, and um the idea here is to do a replacement, make sure maintenance costs are kept low, and using uh DCCs and other um other avenues to basically fund this replacement.

Uh the tender was brought forth um let's see, they close on October 8th, 2025.

We received quite a few bids.

Um, and what we have before you are four of the compliant bids.

The first two being fairly close together, actually, three that are fairly close.

And then our consultants are actually quite impressed and surprised by how close all of the bids were.

It's again, it's a mark of a good uh bid process.

We have IDBC X-Baying Limited as the low bid, followed by a GE contracting.

G and E did do our last few compensation projects, they did very well on it.

Uh, but under our purchasing policy, we have an obligation to award to the low bid as part of uh competitive bid tender process.

Our consultant has done their homework and have reviewed their submission, and we agree that they have uh the ability to do the work uh given the uh bid provided at $520,564.40.

There were some uh complexities of this project, so the the the bid uh for this project is more than what our typical other last two pump system projects were.

And the reason why is because there is some complexities of space on Glen Airley Drive.

And as a result, we've had to reload, we will be required to relocate a water main and to put some assets on the other side of the street to make sure that we don't provide any hardships to the residents in the area.

Due to the complexities of the site and to also deal with the pivot of um relocating a portion of the water main.

So the recommendation before you is that council approve the award of the Glen Aidley Pump Station upgrades by awarding to IWC Excavating Limited at a price of $520,564.40 plus GST, and that the financial plan be amended by increase of the budget by $120,000 to cover the small construction overage contingencies and engineering inspections and contract administrations.

Thank you.

Yeah, I've got one before I go to Councilor Rogers.

This is the first, you know, tender I've seen come in over a half a million dollars that has 40 cents on the end of it.

Just saying, as an observation, that is probably the most accurate uh um thing that I've seen.

But uh, all that uh being said, um uh have we identified Ivan the 120k for contingency, will that be capital or what uh my question is we do this asset management thing, and we've got a big plan on the go, but have we is this part of asset management or is it something different?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, that's a very good question.

Um I I had a really good discussion with the finance officer on this.

The initial reaction I had was that we would you we would dive into our uh capital renewals to pay for the overage.

Um, however, we're in the midst of trying to keep a better float of that uh um fund to help fund the other projects that's gonna happen within the next five to ten years.

And if if we look at the financial plan, the 2025 and 2029 financial plan, the reserves do go down quite a bit over the next five years.

So to answer your question, how we're going to fund the overage, which I should have included in my in my presentation, we plan on utilizing the Community Works Fund and maximizing the DCC program allocation for this project.

So the DCCs, we um there is an allocation for the Glen Early Pump Station.

We've only used a portion of it because in the big scheme of things of the Aren't Sanitary Master Plan, big upgrades, we're only doing a portion of the upgrades in Glen Early.

Council recall that we'll have a DCC update next year.

And so we're going to probably revise the fees required to provide um our more contributions to our TCC fund.

So we the staff recommend actually using the DCCs in its entirety for Glen Early, knowing that we have a project in the future to help bring that money back.

So with respect to uh usage of community works fund and uh DCCs, does not impact taxation per se, and it does keep our uh sanitary reserve fund intact.

Thanks for answering my question, Ivan.

Uh Councilor Rogers, you had a question?

Yes, thank you.

Um are we uh uh increasing the size uh of the uh the bank station?

Uh Merrick Tobias, we are in the sense that we're providing more redundancy.

So um the current pump station uh in in our previous design has one pump.

And so what that means is that when that pump fails, then staff have a scatter and to either get that pump working as soon as possible or get a replacement pump as soon as possible.

Otherwise, we risk having um sewers uh overflowing and causing environmental issues.

So what we're doing is increasing the uh pump station to have two pumps.

They're not operating at the same time, although they can.

Uh the idea being if one fails, the other one can go on, and we save a lot of uh operational costs and providing more redundancies.

Yes, thank you.

Um historical, I remember playing on that area when it was uh swampland part of uh Craigflower Creek that seeped through the railway.

Um so I I can appreciate that.

I I'm curious in terms of capacity, we're uh we're soon to be um changing um every neighborhood with like the um with Bill 44, and suddenly Clintana could be a wash of um every lot having four units uh on it.

Uh is does this um uh help uh accommodate that uh explosive growth in Clint Early on those unsuspecting people?

Uh Mayor Tobias, yes, to a certain extent.

The total extent of that will be informed by the 2026 Sanitarian Master Plan project that it will be brought forth uh for council as part of budgeting.

That will take all of that into consideration.

Okay, my last question.

CRD water mean relocation.

Uh is that our cost?

Is that because of us or can the CRD pay for it?

Uh Mayor Tobias, that's 100% the cost of the town.

Council Lemon.

What's that beautiful looking?

I know I don't know until it has your name on it.

Um what's the life expectancy of this grand new pump station?

Uh Mayor Tobias, good question.

I don't have the number per se in my mind.

Different pieces have different uh lifespans, like the pumps and the mechacle themselves will be a shorter lifetime.

Um but generally speaking, it could last between 20 to 50 years.

Okay, so uh any other questions, comments?

Um moved by councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Uh thanks for that, Ivan.

And I think for E, we have tabled.

Um which brings us down to 9A, which is correspondence.

And I think staff has prepared prepared some comments for us as well.

And of course, we this should be as no surprise to us.

This is something that we've advocated with Esquimalt from day one.

And that's the ward system.

And thanks, Councillor Brown, for uh taking over for leading this for all your leadership around this.

I think that um, you know, the uh the way it worked before is much more proportional, and that proportionality for a ward system isn't based on population at all.

And uh so I think it it it allows not only us a voice, but the two First Nations a voice on the uh school board as well.

And uh I think this is a tremendous victory for some of the things we've uh long since advocated for.

So uh staff's recommending that uh I send a uh formal letter of support uh for the proposed amendments to the trustee electoral areas with school districts uh moved by councillor brown seconded by councillor lemon uh any comments questions counselor brown just a quick one interesting enough I actually had two different people approach me about interested in running for these first so whether they do or not is the matter but it but I think it will create more interest overall.

Yeah.

And uh and both from Vie Royal.

And there's only two people that live in the highlands anyway, and one of them might run right.

So there's there's opportunities.

They're all in council.

Yeah, yeah.

That's a good point uh and we know them all uh so yeah, I think it's a good good deal for, and I was really less concerned with us and more concerned with kind of Oak Bay and Victoria and Sanich, whether they would relinquish some of their kind of uh position on this, but it's all worked out for the best, I think.

So uh uh we got a mover and a seconder all those in favor any opposed seeing none oppose motion carries uh we got some correspondence on concerns from parents uh for shoreline middle school uh traffic the recommendation is uh for to get uh a report from staff uh on that um any questions or comments from folks on this okay uh we got a seconder okay seconded by councillor brown any comments just the just a comment uh it'll it'll be interesting because um uh and with the CRD uh sorry with school district sixty one because they're always thinking of uh moving the elementary school the old historic elementary school to shoreline oh right so that's one of those things that uh would be a very interesting uh compounding of of traffic woes and and so on um secondly uh it'd be also interesting of course with um um the Christie point and that development, uh, whatever happens in the future there.

So those are future considerations.

But you know, I it's also curious that um school district sixty one hasn't uh a process with respect to crossing guards for that.

Yeah, and that's why I'd like a staff report to get a better understanding where the crossing from.

Um uh because I think there's a sidewalk on one side, maybe not the other, but I think a staff report will reveal all of that for us and things to take into consideration.

Um, but I wouldn't expect them to have a crossing guard across Old Island Highway there.

Um that's there's no crosswalk, right?

So it used to be there, yeah.

Yeah, I think it's uh how many lanes of traffic you get across, like five or six lanes of traffic to get to the other side.

That's a bit much.

Um, so we got a move in a second or two refer to staff report.

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And for the consent agenda.

Uh.

Uh move A and B.

Uh we got a seconder.

Seconded by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And uh Councilor Brown, did you pull C out?

Okay.

Yeah, I know.

The only reason I do this, and I I would have preferred to have notice of motion tonight.

But this is a notice of notice of motion.

So next meeting there'll be a a notice of motion uh that will to be presented on 18th of November.

And my idea is to follow the lead of Vancouver, City of Vancouver and other municipalities in Greater Victoria to have a short amnesty period for short-term rentals during the World Cup because there's 48 teams from different countries around the world.

And there's seven games in Seattle, six games in Vancouver, and you can bet people that come to watch the games are going to be wanting to come to Vancouver Island.

And I think it's a big boost for tourism.

So uh I prepared a big document anyway.

I won't take a lot of time tonight, but uh so notice the motion will come up on November 12th, and then November 18th, I'll be willing to discuss further.

I think I sent a thing out to every council just to give you a bit of a bundle.

Okay.

So that's sorry, nothing to do with this fellow specific letter.

Okay, but it's a way to get it on the agenda.

How clever you are.

Um so uh, but but specifically for this, we're uh I think I guess we could move receipt for C uh as well if we can get a motion for that.

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councilor Lemon.

Oh uh please.

Is the accurate or inaccurate in saying that um limits short-term stays in in?

I'll start over.

Steph.

Is the is the author of this letter accurate with the number of 30 days?

Um say that there is a short-term rental ban for guest staying shorter than 30 days.

So um through through the mayor, um, there is actually no reference to short-term rental in our zoning bylaw.

The town zoning bylaw prohibits non-residential commercial overnight accommodations.

So this includes vacation rentals, Airbnbs.

short-term rentals during a specific time period.

Like we our bylaw doesn't even speak to short term rentals.

It's not even a use in our zone.

And if council wants to entertain this type of use for a period, that's gonna have to be done through bylaw.

It's not something that we don't have the let like it can't, it can't like Vancouver has a separate charter.

I have no idea what happened in Vancouver.

But we are subject to the Local Government Act.

And there's actually a like a a statutory process for for things like that through bylaw.

And we'd have to um look into this a little bit further.

So um I just wanted to put that out there.

Thanks further further then um so that the number of 30 is inaccurate.

Um and it's not in the zoning bylaw, I get that.

So if and the only the only way for these people to entertain having guests for a time period is to um have the have a b air uh uh bed and breakfast business, correct?

And a business life.

That is correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So I I'm I'm wondering if we should not have staff just write a letter and and explain this to to these people.

Uh so you I think if staff write it, I can write it back.

Or we'll work together.

How about a motion for that?

Staff and mayor work together to reply to the letter because I think there might be some misconceptions on it.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's the motion.

Okay.

And we got a seconder for that.

Seconded by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

I I think there's there's a larger question there about short-term rentals.

And so I got curious and went on Verbo and Airbnb and kind of Googled View Royal and what comes up.

There are things that come up for sure.

Um and and that's the spite of provincial legislation and everything else.

So um and you know, if it's not there, then it's on Facebook marketplace or something like that, right?

So uh I think understanding kind of the scope of that and keeping an eye on it is gonna be important to our future.

So uh so for that the motion was to uh uh have uh the mayor and staff uh reply to the um to the email uh from uh G Smith, and then yeah, that'll be on a forward correspondence.

Uh Elna, if you can remind me of that one too, that'd be great.

Uh do we uh vote on that?

I don't think so.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed motion carries.

Um and with so that was 11a that we were dealing with.

That was old 10C for Elna's clarification, and we've got opportunities for a question period.

If anybody's got a question of counsel first in the chamber.

And if there's nobody here, Carol, we got anybody on the line with a question?

Mayor Tobias, I must apologize.

My marketing skills haven't managed to wrangle up any questions from the public.

Noted, Carl, noted.

Um motions and notice of motion and counselor Rogers, you'd read one in, and now it's time to discuss.

And that was uh that what you read it in on the October 21st meeting.

Uh, and I'll turn it over to you for item 14A.

Thank you.

Motion is that uh all recommendations for creations of shared paths, cycling, pedestrian, et cetera, and bi-directional bike cycling lanes be removed and revised from the received active transportation network plan and any and all capital projects from 2025 onwards.

Thank you.

Do you have a second or thank you, Councillor Brown?

Motivation, Councillor Rogers.

I'll tell you all about it when we come to the next meeting.

Okay, I thought you had already brought this up from the 21st.

You read the first time.

This is the first time.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

So the the notice of motion you had before was medical service proposal.

You're reading this one in as well, correct.

And you're just reading it in, correct?

Just reading it in.

Yes.

I know as soon as it comes up.

Sorry.

If I had my mouse working I'd be fine.

I've got it.

So thank you.

Okay.

And the motion is that uh 346 on how we be added to the uh council um agenda or or a committee of the whole November the 12th uh following uh further that staff prepare a high level report assessing the three proposed uh own lease options for a medical clinic and services uh presented in the October 14th petition by uh Mr.

Ford, as well as variations, and further that staff uh verify a left-in, left-out traffic access would be permitted for the proposed commercial professional developments separate from a traffic light at Prince Robert Drive.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

We will receive your notice of motion.

Um I don't think we need a motion to receive it, it's just read in, isn't it?

Uh I think that brings us down to adjournment on the only thing between probably a hockey game and uh and you.

So what's that, sir?

Oh, the election release for the uh for the states, that's right.

Um so can I get a motion to adjourn, please?

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councilor Lemon.

Councilor McKenzie, have a uh a wonderful time in Japan.

All those in favor?

Thank you.