Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal.

Welcome to the council meeting for Tuesday, September 2nd, 2025.

Before we begin, I'll start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Kongwin speaking people, known today as the Kosapsan Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continues to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public during the public participation and the question period portions of the agenda to provide comments virtually during the public participation or ask a question.

You'll need to provide your name and street name on the form if you're speaking in council chambers.

Uh just state your street name and your name.

Uh public participation comments are limited to five minutes for each speaker and must be related to items on the agenda.

Question period uh is open to any question and is limited to two minutes and should be in the form of a question.

Uh you will be timed.

Uh this meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

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

Can I get an approval of the item, including the late items on or late item on the blue sheet, please?

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Done opposed.

Motion carries.

And can I get an approval for the agenda?

And if it's okay, we can go with the same mover and seconder.

Uh Councilor Matson and Councilor Brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

And just to note that we do have a late item uh on the agenda from Councillor Clemont.

And I think that brings us down to public participation period.

So if anybody in the audience would like to address council on any matter associated with the agenda, we're happy to hear from.

But if you're here for something else, that's okay too.

Uh there'll be another opportunity to ask questions later on the agenda.

Carl, have we got any uh forms for um uh an address to council?

Uh mayor Tobias, nothing on the forums board this evening.

Great.

Um, so I think we can move on, and I just have a a brief report.

Uh we had a hiatus in August, and I hope everybody had an opportunity to relax.

And I think we're back to normal operating hours.

Are we in the town?

And the kids are back to school, and it's absolute mayhem out there.

Uh, and uh all my co-workers and that my day job are on strike.

So uh it makes for exciting times for back to schools, provincial strikes, and everything else that's going on.

Uh happy to um see the uh staff reports.

Thank you for your work, particularly uh Leanne, you bringing these forward uh for us, um, and happy to entertain the two notices of motion that uh council brought forward.

Without further ado, I'll hand it over to you, Leanne or Sterling and or Sterling for uh the housing report.

Great, thanks, Carl.

Um so tonight we're uh doing an update on the housing targets uh order, and this is a uh opportunity for council just to look at what we've done since our uh reporting period started in August 1st, 2024, uh up until July 31st of 2025.

So this is our reporting period 1.2.

Um, it is the second of six total reports that will be coming forward for council to review over the next uh five years.

Next slide, please.

Just a reminder: so this is um legislative required.

Um, on May 31st of 2023, the province of BC passed the Housing Supply Act and Housing Supply Regulation and set out housing targets for municipalities uh deemed to have the greatest needs for housing.

And since 2023, the province has uh announced three total cohorts, uh totaling 36 municipalities, and the town of U.

Royal is part of the third cohort and was announced on July 30th of 2024.

Um, the town's uh housing target order is uh for 200 or sorry, 585 new units over the next five years, concluding in 2029.

Next slide, please.

The reporting requirements outlined by the uh the province are as follows.

So in order to satisfy this reporting period, the town must uh adopt um uh or rather have a motion from council uh uh accepting the the the report, and I'll make a note that there was uh an error in the uh the slide that's online.

It said March 17th.

This was for the previous reporting period.

I've updated it for tonight, so September 14th.

So we have a couple weeks to uh submit this to the province.

The next item is to publish this report uh on the town's website, and finally to um submit this to the province um for review.

Next slide, please.

So for this reporting period, the town saw a total of 265 units completed.

Uh this would be building occupancy, and uh the housing target order uh for year one is 99 units.

Um I believe the report stated that there are 260 net new units.

Uh there were five demolitions, so we are uh well above the uh the target for year one, and there are making up that um that total, there was uh approximately um uh 200 units that were uh in the studio and one bedroom category, the remainder being two and three bedroom units.

Uh most of the development was uh multifamilies.

The looking ahead, so three development permits were completed during this reporting period.

So we'll see those pop up as completions in subsequent uh reporting periods.

And then there's also approximately 443 multifamily units that are under construction.

Uh a couple of those just for reference, uh 181 Island Highway, which is just down the hill, uh 7 Erskine Lane, uh 79 units, and 1449 Burnside Road West, which is uh 234 units.

Next slide, please.

So staff have uh three parts to their recommendation.

Uh the first is that council approved the housing target update report, uh, reporting period 1.2 August 1st, 2024, to July 31st, 2025, dated August 7th, 2025.

Uh, that council authorized uh staff to submit the report um and that it be uh done so in accordance with the provincial uh housing supply act and housing supply regulation, and further that council authorized staff to publish the report on the town's website um to fulfill the legislative requirements of the province.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sterling, and just to remind uh council that there is a a residential uh development uh update report that you'll goes into uh more broadly what's under construction right now if you want to if your questions pertain to that that might be more um a a better place uh before i go to you for questions or comments uh sterling this also just for clarification does not include the occupancy permits we put on to apartment of buildings prior just prior to the reporting period, correct?

May and July of last year, and they started in August.

So we're doing well when it comes to building stuff right now.

So the in the uh in the attachment uh staff made note that there are a couple uh developments or uh occupancies that were done and and uh uh Erskine Lane was captured in that.

So uh there was a note that it was before the reporting period by approximately two weeks.

And um I forget the rough I think it was about 150, 160 units roughly that was uh captured in that.

So uh that'll be outlined in one of the sections of the uh the template document that will be sent to the province.

Uh just as a kind of a uh complimentary note to uh what the town has done.

Great.

Thank you for all your work.

So uh questions first, uh, and we'll start with Councillor Metz and then Councillor Lemon.

Thank you, staff.

Just a quick question.

So we've already met our targets for the next five years, and so in theory, we don't actually the problems have we'll have met the requirements if we don't put any new construction for the next five years, other than what we've already have being constructed.

Through the mayor, based on the number of units that have been completed so far and the number of units that are in stream, it would uh appear that yes, that we would meet the number of units required by the housing target order.

Okay.

Not that I'm suggesting that we don't do anything for the next five years, but I just wanted clarification.

So if anyone out there wants to build a hotel.

Also a quick question.

Thank you, Councilor Matson.

Councillor Lemon, please.

Sterling, how does or where does 244 the sky sky view building on Island Highway figure in or does it?

Just finished.

I don't know if the occupancy permit was issued.

Yeah, it if if it was uh this sorry uh council lemon this is a bit of a a back end question um and uh my colleague would be better equipped to answer it but when we're looking at the data uh she did a fabulous job of creating a uh a a template sheet that's able to pull all the reporting uh requirements for uh uh new builds into um uh an excel sheet and um i believe that 244 was captured in that um i would have to double check though um because uh uh my colleague was the one that uh pulled together all these numbers but there's a colleague has her hand up red land yeah to confirm 244 island highway the sky view cross the street I believe was captured in this reporting period okay that did receive occupancy good thank you both yeah, good point just to remind uh council and the public that this is based on occupancy permit um and and one of the questions that I had, I know uh you had some comments in here that it's essentially for a larger apartment building, two years of construction, generally a year of blasting, uh, if they need underground parking.

And then um, do we have any indication of the average life cycle of starting with a development permit to occupancy permit?

What we're averaging, and is it on par with other municipalities just for processing?

Through the mayor, uh from development permit to occupancy, uh for to construct a multi-unit residential building takes approximately two years.

So, and then probably add on another year to for a DP and building permits.

So I would say approximately three years.

Thank you.

That's the best case scenario.

Excellent.

Yeah, something similar to uh the questions have been asked.

Um in in the grand total numbers of uh I think it was five five hundred and fifty-five, and um the the time that I was uh calculating, I had presumed that Broadwalk um was uh um a done deal and that uh they would uh start their construction.

This is it, I don't know how we construct a drive.

Um, now it seems like they've uh put the brakes on for a very long time, maybe gonna consider selling.

And considering uh the mayor's question, how long does it take to get things built?

Three years, um, pretty soon the five years are gonna be up.

Um, do the boardwalk uh projections of numbers uh do they sit anywhere or fit anywhere in in these uh projections that we had when we began and what we have now through the mayor?

Uh no, they wouldn't have been captured, they would have been outside the reporting period, but they were noted as a uh an item in a kind of the supplementary section of the uh the template as uh stating what number of uh units potentially could be uh seen should the application come forward for development permit and then subsequently for a building permit.

Operative word being potentially.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Uh second.

Moved by councillor Matson's second by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries unanimously.

And thank you, Sterling.

Thank you, Leanne.

And I think we have an application for extension of hours for liquor service at Six Mile Pub.

Um 494 Island Highway.

Good evening, Mayor Tobias and members of council.

This evening I'm going to be presenting on an application for the extension of hours of liquor service at Six Mile Pub, 494 Island Highway.

I do not have a PowerPoint presentation.

It's just me giving me giving you a verbal presentation.

We received a referral from the liquor licensing and control liquor control and licensing licensing branch for to extend the hours of of the liquor license to the liquor service at 6 Mile Pub.

And the proposal is to extend the hours on Saturday and Sunday morning only to 9 a.m.

currently the pub opens at 11 a.m.

on Saturdays and 10 a.m.

on Sundays.

According to the business owner, all other hours would remain the same.

The um the provincial process for a liquor primary license includes a referral to a local government.

The local government then has the option of running a public engagement process or declining to comment on the application, in which case the liquor control and licensing branch, LCLB, would proceed with the public input process.

If council wishes to provide comment, then we are required to address a number of items in accordance with the liquor licensing regulations, which include the potential for noise, the impact on the community, if nearby residents may be affected, and then we have to provide a council resolution recommending whether the application should be approved.

Council may wish to note that there is no bylaw or policy obliging the town to comment on every liquor license application that we receive to give you an idea of how many we we receive.

This is the first one that I've received in three years.

So they don't do not come in very often, and so we just don't have a process in place.

Opting out of providing comment on this type of application does not preclude the town to provide comment on future applications when referrals are sent to us.

But because of our sort of limited staff resources, the fact that we have we collect a very nominal fee to carry out any like public notification, it is recommended that the town opt out of providing input on the application.

However, council may wish to note that if council chooses not to complete the public input process, then council and staff cannot provide any comment as it is considered an opt-out.

And the liquor control and licensing branch can only consider province comments from the local government if we conduct the public in mind, the recommendation that's being brought forward is that the town decline on providing comment on this application.

There is an alternate option in the report.

Should council would like to proceed with undertaking the community input process and provide and provide comments to participate in this decision-making process.

But again, it is recommended that the town that the town opt out on leading this process and leave it to the liquor control and licensing branch to complete the community input and comment process that would otherwise have been completed by us.

If you have any comments or questions, I'm happy to take them.

So just to get this right for myself and maybe my colleagues as well, is that regardless of what we say as a council, either we undertake the um public input process or they do, or will they anyway, even if we do?

Um that's you the mayor, great question is either or.

So um if we opt out, then the liquor control and licensee branch will undertake the public consultation process.

They will they will do it all.

Um and uh and uh and it's also important to note too is that the applicant does pay a fee to the province, and we don't that's not um, you know, we don't get any portion of that to carry out anything.

It's on us.

Uh and uh my next question would be is um the these hours aren't um uniform, are they so it was eleven i'm just wondering to level the playing field is four miles license opened at nine or is it eleven okay uh that's all my questions but i'll go to a colleagues counselor has the province dictated what the public input process looks like or can we make it up if we thanks for the question, um, Councillor Mattson.

If uh we if we take it on, then uh we would have to come up with uh public notification um process, uh how like what that um public no notification distance is, we don't have one.

Um we we do collect a a fee.

Uh it's interesting.

We we do in our fees and charges bylaw, we do collect a uh public notification fee of $175 plus costs for advertising notices and postage.

However, we don't have a bylaw or policy for that.

So it's it's interesting that we have a fee, but then we have no bylaw or policy to to address that fee.

Okay.

So s since we don't have a policy that sets out what this looks like, and the province hasn't dictated it, why couldn't we just do a survey on SurveyMonkey?

Advertised on the town website that it's available, put posters up in four mile or six mile pub and collate the results after a couple of weeks and then council can review those results and then support or not support.

My question is, would that work since we get to make up what we want it to look like?

Um if that's council's um um if that's council's motion, if if council would like to opt in and look at take care of the the public notification process, um, yeah, it's gonna take, you know, staff, you know, significant staff time and resources, but we can we can take that on um if council wants to um establish sort of a uh sort of a policy or um how like what that public notification process looks looks like we can do that we do have a public notice notification bylaw that we could potentially um uh use to um provide how we may um you know follow through with that but it like it would be a council decision.

Just to follow to to pursue this a little bit.

We can do what we like.

So my recommendation which would be really simple, wouldn't be out of line and we'd be allowed to do that.

Um we'd probably get hundreds of people filling it out if the advertisement if it was advertised at the six mile and since we advertise everything else on our website.

I I mean I just don't see it being a s a big problem.

I think counselor brown and I would be happy to do the surf set up the survey on survey monkey.

So we'd be so we wouldn't be using up valuable staff time for doing this.

Counselor Brown, then Councillor Quilt.

Just first to clarify, they applied in June of twenty twenty-four the liquor board has already approved them to have a 10 a.m.

Well, so both days Saturday and Sunday are both 10 a.m., not 11.

So we're looking at one hour difference.

I have three couple friends.

I know it's hard to believe, but do have some friends that live in the neighborhood.

And I talked to all three of them.

Two of them said they could care less one way or the other.

And one one who goes there quite often, uh, actually a previous counselor at town of View Royal, he said he would really like it because he goes fishing early in the morning.

He'd like to take part in their uh their brunch on Saturday and Sunday.

I talked to staff.

Staff's very positive about it because it's two hours more a week for them, potentially.

And uh it's good business.

Um, it's not busy on that street.

It is on during the weekdays, but not Saturdays and Sundays.

So my suggestion, I don't know if this is kosher.

That can we not say that we we don't oppose them changing their time to 9 a.m.

Is that an option?

Uh, through the mayor, no, if we opt out, we're opting out of the whole process.

We cannot provide comment.

Even though you know the staff are pardon me if council is expressing their support for this application, we cannot send um a resolution to the province where we have it's we're opting out.

So we it's not we can't be half in, half out.

Okay, well that being that being said, I agree with counselor matts and that if we could do a short short survey, that would be helpful.

Um yeah, because I I don't know how they got approval.

It's on their business license.

They already got approval to go to 10.

So how did that happen?

I don't understand that.

But anyway, staff's happy about it, the owner would be happy about it, and the neighbors I talked to would be happy about it.

Counselor Quowitz and Councillor Lennon.

Okay.

Thanks.

And just so I'm clear your worship, I don't think a motion's been made quite yet, has there?

Okay.

Although we are waiting into comments.

So I I will jump on the train.

Uh I guess my one my one question to staff um would be, would there be an opportunity for us to piggyback on the liquor branch's communications?

I think you kind of mentioned earlier there was a public notice option that you were thinking of that could we could invoke.

If the town was going to take on the public um public engagement process, then we would send out notices um to uh to the residents um within a certain distance of the the public.

Um but if the if we opt out and we we and the branch looks after it all, then it would be up to the branch to notify the residents.

And I'm not quite sure what that that their public notice looks like or how far they notify, or I'm not quite sure what those are.

Well, I'm gonna stay in my lane because I have a feeling this might go on for a while.

And you can come back to me if the motion moves forward.

Thank you, Council Collins.

It's council Allen.

Leanne, which would be faster and most effective if we if if we do our survey or whatever public engagement and uh you know within the next couple months or months, um vis-a-vis the province doing it, would that be more of a long song and dance?

And they would hear, you know, you know, months from now, years from now.

Um through the mayor, I can't comment on the province's timeline that um that you know in terms of them conducting the public engagement um process.

Um for us, it would uh you know, what it we're crawl it would uh I think uh staff would um could potentially come, we would have to come back with um um with a uh with sort of a proposed engagement plan for for this um like um i and um and i and i'd have to go back to have a look at the liquor license regulations in terms of uh what the you know what what are some of the the parameters that we would have to to meet in order to fulfill the public engagement requirements so there would be a report back um to council um with some you know recommendations in terms of like what does that notification distance looks like what what's yeah counselor McKenzie and then counselor rogers so under both options the public get to input so I'm not clear on what the negatives are for us allowing LCLB to conduct this other than potentially to counselor lemon's question is maybe it would take longer but do uh does staff um have they identified any negatives of us um allowing else LCB uh LCLB to conduct it uh through the mayor the recommend staff's recommendation is to is to opt out and to have the um the liquid licensing branch to take care of it um so that they can do it within their scope and and through their their um their public engagement requirements and um and making sure that it's done and nothing's missed and uh and uh again like we I mean we can put something together on the fly, but uh it's it might be just easier for the branch to take care of it.

Um and it yeah, that's pretty much all I have to say about it.

Council Rogers?

Yeah, so it it seems like there's no policy.

And what I like best about Czech TV.

They ask one question, everyone zips in, gives a quick answer, and we know.

So um I'd uh, and you know, certainly we've done surveys, uh, you know, put up notices there through the website, and um just yes or no.

Let's keep it simple.

This is not a no-brainer, or sorry, this is a brain no-brainer.

Um, you know, as uh Councillor Brown said, Um, there's no neighbors, it's good for tourism, it's good for business, it's a popular brunch hour.

When I was sitting in the parking lot there uh at 11 o'clock, cars were coming by, or 10 o'clock, pardon me, cars were coming by.

When's it open?

When's it open?

It's a very popular place that uh folks go for brunch.

Spinnakers opens at 9 a.m.

So uh, and uh Don says, right, no traffic.

This is really quite a simple thing, and I think we should be uh doing the business a service just by putting up a notice on um on the uh the website.

Um we can easily post it on our Facebook and Instagram or whatever other social media we want and uh deal with it real quickly because we don't have any policy that says we must do this, this, and this.

This is really quite simple.

I want to keep it simple, and I want to support the business.

So at this point, I'm not opting out.

So I think there's two things before I go to you, Councilor Madison.

There's two things here.

There's one is what I'm hearing from council is there and from myself is there's support for this, right?

It's it's the issue is how do we go about it?

And could would we be even slowing things down?

Right?

These are questions.

Would we even be slowing things down by us doing the survey, packaging it all up, and then giving it to them?

I think we can be supportive of our businesses by having a motion that we support this, but let the liquor control board handle it.

Or we take it on ourselves, which I'm not sure if there's risk of them asking questions that you didn't ask the right questions and it needs to get redone.

Right?

So um I'm kind of looking for some guidance, Leanne, about is there a risk that if we take this on, do the survey, and LCBO gets a loud complaint that they didn't want it, could would we have to do the survey?

Would the community be surveyed again by LCBO, or would we they be to deferring that time?

Excuse me, those are great questions.

I would have to refer to the liquor licensing the regulation uh manual i i do have it on my desk over there on my over there um so it's something that i could uh i could look into um if there's if there's anything that um might be able to respond to your question thanks uh what i'd recommend is we have a motion just to see if council supports this before we go out into how because that's the how yeah go ahead so following up on the Jerry's timing issue.

So this came uh application was submitted in 2024.

Um that is correct.

Yeah.

So we're now we've gone almost a full year, a year and a half, and nothing's happened other than it's now we now have an opportunity to yeah.

Anyways, I I have no anyways, unless there's some sort of confidence that the province is not gonna wait another year and a half because there's shortage of staff uh cutbacks and everything else that's happening.

I uh I mean that's my issue.

I so can you is there any sort of guarantee that the province is not gonna wait another year for this?

Um as I mentioned earlier, I believe I responded to that question, Councillor Lemon's question on that, and um I can't I can't comment on the province's timing associated with this application.

And I mean, really, we're just talking about process here, like who's gonna look after the process to um to uh collect um public feedback.

Um it's not so much about you know it's how how we're gonna do that.

Yes, thanks.

So one um yeah the uh the report states that uh if council wishes to provide comment, the following items must be addressed bum bum bum bum.

So it's not like there's some kind of policy.

And item D is is the council resolution rather recommending whether the application should be approved.

So it sounds like we've got a lot of hoops to jump through.

And if there's no policy, I don't know where all these must be addressed, but I think we could still keep it simple and um and and and and Council Matson point is well taken.

Do we send in the dock application for the shoreline um uh ramp?

They lost it took three years.

So the province um uh you know I don't trust the province that they're they're gonna be responding in a timely fashion when it's already taken eighteen months to deal with this.

So um yeah um I'm happy uh if if we don't burn the house down I'm happy to consider a resolution now unless there is a question, can I recommend that we just have is there support for council for this to move ahead?

We haven't stated that yet.

Can we just break it down for if there's somebody that's willing to make a motion?

I support the uh six-mile opening at nine vice ten or eleven.

Yeah, I'll make that motion that uh the council supports the uh changing of the hours to 9 a.m.

Councilor Brown.

on Saturdays and Sundays.

Second.

Second about councilor Matson.

Um is there any comments, questions, or concerns?

Councilor uh McKenzie.

I personally have no issue with it, but I can't really say that I'm in support of it when I haven't heard from the people who live nearby.

So for that reason, I will probably uh not vote in favor.

Thank you.

Any other comments, Councilor Quatsch?

Sir, I certainly certainly don't have an issue with it.

I'd like to promote economic prosperity in View Royal for all businesses.

However, this is a provincial responsibility under the liquor control branch, and uh us taking on their decision preemptively seems like we're weaving way out of our lane.

Uh I do have some empathy for the potential delay.

I also would like to hear from residents who were around that area.

If you recall when the casino was considering a large neon sign, there was an apartment block up the road that that were very vocal.

And uh surprisingly, I don't think that sign ever got built.

Didn't end up being a neon sign, but nonetheless, uh, to councillor McKenzie's point, listening to our residents before making a decision certainly is the responsible thing to do as well.

Councilor Rogers.

Yes, uh, well, you know, staff was very much in support of uh the six-mile um changing their sign.

And there was not any opportunity really.

Um we didn't do any formal survey for the public.

It was on the agenda, and if the public wanted to respond to it, they would have just had to look at the agenda, think about it, and get back to us.

So there was a lot more hoops for them to uh to address.

And there was no, you know, I went to the residents, asked them what they thought.

There it is.

What do you think?

No problem.

And that was lights in their eyes 24-7 or in the in the nighttime.

So um, and this is Saturday and Sunday.

You know, minor times to uh and and uh they're not a rowdy business.

So I think this um and and Council Brown, I just hear you've already talked to residents uh out above and in the strata council up there, and they apparently they don't have any concerns.

We're not talking about you know some you know nightclub or something like that.

This is an excellent motion.

Thank you.

I totally support it.

So I just wanted to point out that we're not this was just like a raise of hands because if we didn't, if we were against it, we would then it would be moot and we wouldn't be doing anything other than just so but but and further just to the comments that I've heard, one that this is in our this is why we're it's it's our lane because we've been asked whether or not we want to do it do a survey so the province asked us if we want to do one so it's certainly within our lane and all we're doing is getting feedback from the public and we will then make a determination whether based on that deter feedback whether or not we want those hours or not.

So we're we're not ignoring the public and we're not making a decision other than to ask the public for their input.

Thanks, Council Robinson.

I I've got a question.

What what hour on Saturday and Sunday does the six mile liquor store open up?

That's I think right next to it.

What when does that open?

I I don't know off the top of my head.

Uh yeah.

John, John, you get your Google.

Okay.

Um so yeah, all this motion would be is uh uh for us to support and I completely understand if some counselors want to defer that to uh later on hearing, but it's hard to advance the um yeah, so Saturday and Sunday it's 9 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

the liquor store that's next to the thing we're talking about.

So um yeah, so I don't have a problem with this because somebody can purchase alcohol within feet of the restaurant and consume it.

Um so yeah.

So we got a motion on the floor.

Some discussion about the motion is just whether council supports this or not.

Counselor McKenzie and Councillors Qualit suggested that they weren't going to support it until they heard back from the residents.

But this just is support in principle that Councilor Brown moved, and I think uh you uh Councilor Rogers second.

So it's just in principle do we support the move from uh 11, which is really 10, to nine.

So if there's no more comments, then I'll call it.

Uh all those in favor of supporting in principle.

Any opposed?

Councilor Qualitic and Councillor McKenzie's are opposed for the reasons that they've uh cited.

We just support.

Just a point, uh the motion did not include the words in principle.

Correct, support.

Um so where do we want to go that from here?

So the motion passed, council is supportive of uh the next step um uh for the application councilor Brown.

I'd like staff to do a very short succinct survey on the website, but the simple thing saying six mile liquor store wants to extend their hours by one hour from to nine a.m.

from 10 a.m.

Do you support or not supported?

Period.

Although that I guess I goes up pretty broadly, and people in certain areas may or may not even be interested, which is probably what's gonna happen.

I mean I can second your motion, but I would suggest that staff include all the points in the survey that need to be addressed in list of the six of them.

Yeah, I uh I don't think like the how-to for the survey is business the council should be getting into.

Yeah, you could we could say short, we could say whatever.

Uh Leanne, go ahead.

Um, council may wish to note that um the the um the town would be required to notify nearby residents.

I don't recommend a survey.

We might not even get nearby residents commenting on it.

My recommendation would be if we're gonna opt in and doing nota and doing the public input process, then we do a uh public like we do notice mail out.

Thanks, Scott.

You had a comment.

Yes, thank you, Mayor and Council.

Um, in my experience, the option to conduct the public survey on behalf of the applicant is typically when you expect it to be contentious.

Um for example, new cannabis outlets, um, new clubs opening up, whatever it is.

I think this is a fairly non-contentious application, and therefore I support staff's recommendation um to not be involved in the public engagement process.

The the applicant has already paid a $330 fee.

Sorry, I was gonna say fine, a fee, and then we would have to pile on top of that and add a couple hundred dollars as well, potentially slowing down the process.

So typically comments are made for applications where we're worried we're really worried about the public's comments, um, that they may not align with council.

Yeah, and I think that this is worth hauling in is that generally um we're supportive of uh of the move, but uh I think there's good questions raised that staff's recommendation is not whether council is supportive or not supportive.

It's letting the province do the job.

And I get where people's passions come out wanting to support business, and I support that.

But um my my own thinking is is that please don't look at staff's recommendation as a negative toward supporting this.

It's let's LCBO handle the process because it's their process.

But sorry, I'm confused.

I understood from staff that either we did the public consultation or the liquor control board would.

And so what I've heard was we have no idea when the liquor control board will do it.

So if council does it, we could expedite that.

That's certainly my understanding.

I I don't think that's been validated unless we know uh a timeline for uh, but what they need to hear back from us, whether we're gonna opt out or not.

Councilor McKenzie and then Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, I don't think it's fair for us to assume that it the like our uh control board's process will be longer, and in fact that because we have to come up with our own kind of process and do the mail out and everything, it's possible that their process, because it's already established, may actually um take less time.

So uh yeah, I'm I also agree that we shouldn't take on uh this additional cost and and time for our staff who already have uh a lot on their plate, um, when I think the provincial process will probably work effectively.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

Uh Leanne, can you uh just let me know that one of the reasons for the delay was um the application got lost in the system or here or whatever so some of this is not just the liquor control board taking in an ordered amount of time there's been something that um happened that wasn't routine correct council rock well we've made a motion and um you know i i guess the the expectation is that the motion would be um uh sent to the liquor control licensing board, and i don't care if they do this, you know, it's up to them.

If they want to do the survey, we're telling them we're supporting.

And uh however they want to take that um you know i again, I'm i'm a little confused about uh the following items must be uh addressed when we have no policy.

You know, this is a non-policy issue.

We don't they don't exist, we can do whatever we want, right?

Uh through the mayor, just for clarification, these are the things that the liquor licensing um board requires us to comment on.

So that's what that's that's what that's saying.

So that that actually comes directly from the regulations.

So these are the things that we have to get comments on or have to comment on.

What so we don't have to do is we don't have to do a no notice in in sending it out.

If they did they say that we must send a notice out to every single resident within what radius through through the mayor, um that's my point, is that we do not we don't have a policy, we don't have a bylaw.

Um staff's recommendation is just to defer it to the liquor licensee branch because they have a process in place that meets their referral requirements.

Yeah, in this is a process when we had the whole issue of out uh liquor control, uh liquor use and ours at the the uh Scottish Center that um they ignored Squamwalt, they know they ignored the First Two Nations, they ignored Sanage when it was right there on their border.

So they had no policy to for due consideration of those that more directly impacted than V Royal.

So you know, I don't hold much credence with uh with their position on this.

As far as if they haven't identified the radius, then we set the radius, you know, two blocks, you print the letters, we'll deliver them.

I'm more than happy to deliver the notices to the public, get it done, quick lickety split.

This is not a rocket science issue.

This is not OCP, this is not a development permit.

So making this really super complicated is quite annoying.

And so if we can please dumb it down, make it simple, print them out, I'll deliver.

Joe, I don't think we've got to that point of how we're going to do it.

Hang on.

Where of how we're going to do it.

We haven't got to that point.

Right?

We haven't voted on whether we're gonna opt in or opt out.

And we need to do more.

The only vote that we had was that was if there was general support for this to move ahead.

Don made a Don made a motion.

And I seconded.

Yeah.

And that was voted.

That was just that was just to support.

That was not to opt in or opt out.

He made another motion to do this.

Public engagement.

To opt in.

Let's use the same language, folks.

Council Brown.

I'll make a motion that we accept the staff recommendation.

However, when they tell them that we're opting out, this is quite a long motion, then we're opting out, however, council supports the the um the change of times.

So simple, right?

Let's let the liquor control board do it, what they want to do.

Obviously they've done it already because they already changed their hours before.

So let's accept the staff recommendation, but also let them know that council approves or is not opposed to the change.

That's my motion.

I won't second that.

Well I'll I'll second it, Councilor Brown.

Um any other comments or questions on the motion on the floor.

Council McKenzie.

Kind of a question, I guess did and the staff might not know this, but does the applicant uh have a specific timeline in mind?

Like is it an event that they're hoping to be able to open early and serve alcohol for, like a sporting event?

Or uh given that they've, you know, they've operated with these hours for 23 years.

That's nice.

Um, I don't think a couple more months would uh harm anything unless there's an event that they're looking for.

Um through the mayor, um, thank you, Councilor Mackenzie, for that question.

The reason why they are asking for that is um they want they're hoping I guess some of the feedback um that um the owner has received from the patrons is that when they when people come in um early for brunch.

Sometimes they like to have orange juice and champagne, I don't know, but uh having a drink to go with their brunch.

And so um that is why um they have requested um uh to uh have to be able to serve um liquor at 10 a.m.

So along with their brunch service.

Or pardon me, nine at 9 a.m.

along with their brunch service.

I was gonna say the reason I'm gonna vote against the motion to accept staff's recommendation is irrespective of them losing it or whatever, it's still taking a year and a half.

And as Counselor Rogers said, we could easily do this within a few weeks following his suggestion and and dropping the letters off.

I just think this is gonna be delay it forever, so that's why I can't support the motion.

I will make a comment, uh Councillor Mattson, that us doing the survey and even if we had the results back does not guarantee it would move any faster with the provincial government.

So they're mutually exclusive things.

I know everybody's trying to help here, right?

But if we're if we're voting against something, we council already said we'll support it.

What we're doing is a required ask to either opt in or opt out.

We're deciding to opt out so that um so that we can we can further on uh L CBO can uh uh further on the the work there.

You've already got a motion on the floor, Councilor Brown.

Uh, you well, if you want to motivate a little bit more, then go ahead.

Just the answer.

Councillor McKenzie's question about what events.

Well, they have a brunch there every morning, and they like to do it a little earlier.

Uh, some people like to go to church on Sunday morning, so they might go a little bit earlier.

Uh, some people like the NFL and uh the Eastern uh time zone, the games start very, very early.

And uh, like I said, staff is very happy to have two extra hours a week, potentially.

And uh, of course, the owner is.

And uh, yeah, it's neighborhood business.

I don't frequent it very often.

Um, actually, the mayor and I have been there once before, long before uh, but anyway, um, I go astray.

But, anyways, that's what that's the reason why.

It's busy, and it's not a busy time a day for traffic in that area.

And the neighbors I talked, again, it's only six people total, two three couples.

Um, two could care less one way or the other, and and one couple, they go there often, and they'd be quite happy to have the one hour your starting time.

Thank you.

Can you just see clarification on the motion?

So the motion is um to opt out and send the the council's vote um resolution.

Okay.

Seeing no other questions, we got a mover.

I seconded all those in favor of opting council support, but we're opting out.

Any opposed?

Council.

Uh councilor Matson opposed.

Motion carries.

Thanks, Leanne.

And uh are you going to be up here for the next one, or is it passing the baton back to Sterling?

You're here for the residential development update report.

Thanks, Leanne.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um, the purpose of this report is to provide council with an update on the total number of dwelling units and large projects, including mixed use and multi-unit residential developments that are currently under construction or approved by council, but not yet under construction.

So there's no no building in place yet.

Um at the last uh residential development update report was presented at the committee of the whole meeting on November 12th, 2024.

Um this report is quite timely, as Mayor Tobias said, since uh council received the um housing target order report um earlier in this evening.

So my short presentation will just summarize what the total number of units that are under construction or near completion in the town.

So we currently have 40, 445 new dwelling units that are under construction or reaching completion, including 313 rental units and 132 strata units.

And these units will be captured in our next housing target order reporting period.

Also uh in that we have received um a couple um since this report was um was completed we've received I just wanted to let council know that we've received a uh two uh building permit applications for the six um six Camden 1414 and Helpkin um uh uh Avenue Road um on the corner of Helmkin and and Camden, and as well as our first SMA application for four units.

Uh council may recall that uh uh DP was approved um earlier this year.

That is the conclusion of my presentation.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Question Councillor Matson and Councillor Royce.

Just a quick question.

Do we know what's happened the status of 244 Island Highway or other than it's up for sale?

Through the mayor, that's all I know is that it's up for sale.

Okay, thank you.

You know, it's it's it's similar to question to Councilor Matson.

He read my mind.

You know, number one, we can call the construction status completed, but you know, it's it's a uh we should have another date, you know, whether it's ever going to be open.

You know, because it who knows how long um, you know, 244 is actually going to be occupied.

It almost seems like we're we're giving a presumption completed and occupied.

Usually that's what it means.

In this particular instance, an anomaly, and and uh I think it's worthy of a footnote.

It certainly is a disappointing surprise.

Thanks, Councilor Rogers.

Just uh inform counsel, I have reached out to CMHC to see if they would purchase it for a co-op.

Uh they um they it falls outside.

Um they said great idea, there's no risk initiative construction, it's already built, we already know the price of it, but it falls outside of the minimum amount of units that we need to support a co-op because we're lumped in with the core.

We would have to build more units for them to be supportive.

I've also talked with the MLA to see if maybe there's an opportunity to for veterans of affairs to purchase it to give it veterans' housing.

Um, but they're working on that.

It's just that a no-brainer come in and purchase a place that hasn't been lived in right now is very difficult to sell to either the province or the federal government right now.

I'm not sure why.

But it is uh kind of a lesson to behold as well that um we've already seen, I think, a slowing of intake in for developing large things, and they're not without their risk, as obviously this property attests to.

This is a court-ordered sale at 19.1 million, I think, for 37 units.

Um, so it's uh it's a significant investment to start off with.

And I know the the pre-sales were a little bumpy and people very nervous about the pre-sales uh going on.

Um, but uh yeah so condos in general if you want to be scared, look at the all of the articles about Toronto right now and and condominiums.

So uh I think we're just late on the catch up here.

It's um the market is not doing well for them.

Uh is any other specific reports or uh questions about this report?

Staff recommendation.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Uh Leanne, I did had a question.

Um sorry didn't uh address it um relevant to this.

Looking, there's criteria in the housing reports, and the only one that we're a little bit deficient on in our planning is there's supportive housing piece there, correct?

That is correct.

And staff made a note of that in the um the staff report the staff report um that uh we there are some guidelines in terms of meeting certain number of below market um units or below market with supports, and as indicated in the staff report, that um it's really contingent upon like provincial and federal funding.

Uh we um we don't have a land bank, um we're very limited in terms of delivering on that type of housing without other senior levels of government support.

At uh the next opportunity we get together, I'll uh put something on the agenda to have that discussion because a lot of the work that's been done is through CRD as well.

So CRD on behalf of View Royal and we pay into the housing fund.

Uh right, uh that that's part of what View Royal residents do.

But it would be uh something just to bring everybody up to the same level of knowledge of how it could potentially work.

Usually you hear BC builds with the province or whatever.

Normally that's not without CRD in the region.

CRD takes care of most of that kind of for us.

So I'll I'll uh if council wishes at that time it's not dreadfully urgent but uh we can get CRD housing in to even have a discussion about the models that they operate in.

Uh Councillor Rogers and Councillor Matt.

Yeah, the only super big drawback I I see with the CRD housing is that uh the individuals living there do not pay taxes.

Uh neither does provincial housing, counselor.

Yeah, supportive housing does not play taxes.

Sorry, it's um, you know, it's a it's I think it's a um, I understand the approach, but it's a significant draw on the existing taxpayers to pay all those services, all those services.

So that's the only uh huge consideration in roadblock I see.

One of the things I've been trying to get counselor Rogers is them to redevelop their water building on Old Island Highway to put residential above it at a lot, but that would augment some of our challenges, and they probably need new offices.

So that wouldn't be two properties that we wouldn't because they're not paying taxes, of course.

Yeah, we we see that with the CRD housing at Fiatish Lake, zero taxes.

Yeah, just the same comment.

And Councillor Matson, please.

I think that that's one of the big issues for all municipalities.

Places like Oak Bay aren't going out of their way to put in supportive housing or or social housing that they don't get taxes for.

There's nothing being built there.

Um I personally am not supportive of you all adding additional non-taxable buildings.

I think what we need to look at more closely in the CRD is actually paying the taxes to the municipality and everybody contributing to those taxes for all the municipalities.

So then people who like Oak Bay who aren't contributing at all, that's the way they would be able to pay.

So and municipalities that do have the buildings, they would still get the taxes.

But the way it stands now, there's it's a huge disincentive to a municipality to do this.

Thank you, Councillor Mattson.

Seeing no other comments, thanks, Lan.

And I think that brings us down to um correspondence and then a consent agenda.

We have one uh comment.

It is on your uh correspondence sheet, and it's from Mayor Goodmanson uh about operating support for Foundry West Shore for council's consideration.

Move your seat.

So it's on the floor.

Next second.

We got a mover that's Councilor Matson, the second or counselor Lemon.

Um comments, questions?

Yes, please.

Um the um you know it it I understand the ask, um, but um you know the expectation or request that municipalities uh uh consider a similar contribution of 100,000 per year uh is is difficult um for us to consider, particularly with the much, much less um uh commercial revenue um than um than the city of Langford.

I also note that there are two um foundry um uh organizations, one downtown and the other in the west shore so there are two options and and if we were to fund one we'd probably should be obligated to fund the other because in natural fact it's probably closer um the other aspect is that at this point um the youth residents along admirals cannot even get to the west shore let alone get to this address here on 77 station avenue so it would be uh out of reach for those youth in that area my only other comment this is a budget issue for budget time not for at this point in the year.

Okay, we've got a motion to uh receive and uh I can always reach out for them as well and let them know our grants and aid um schedule as well if they want to apply for that.

Counselor Brown.

Yeah I'm the View Royal representative uh for the foundry I go to their meetings.

Um no argument about the service they provide to youth and their families for counseling services.

Um however well Langford's way bigger than us and of course it it's not easy access for people from View Royal I agree with counselor mattson to uh to get to that uh location but um they get a lot of funding from Ministry of uh children and families as well.

Um, and I agree with Councilor Rogers.

It it might be something to consider in our budget or in our grants and aid, but I mean, obviously, we I don't think we could afford $100,000.

That doesn't make any sense at all for the size of our community compared to Langford.

But uh they again they do excellent work.

We have a meeting coming up next week, and uh it does provide a uh fills a lot of gaps, a lot of gaps in the community.

I go to their meetings regularly.

Thank you.

Uh any other comment comments or questions?

Okay, we got a motion on the floor right now to receive all those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries.

That brings us down to a consent agenda.

Just a reminder that we'll make uh a vote to accept the consent agenda.

If any council members wants to pull an item out, that will become uh like a a new um uh 10 H 10H would be the one that you pull out that we would discuss.

Councilor Lemon.

I'd like to pull out 10 F, please.

10 F.

F.

Okay, thank you.

Uh is there any other ones?

Councilor Ruddish C.

C and F.

Anybody?

Okay, so let's go with Councilor Lemons first, and F will become H.

Councillor Lemon.

Uh sorry, we need to do the vote on the consent agenda and then we've moved to the consent agenda without those items.

With that I'll move the consent agenda without those items.

Seconded by Councillor Crawlich.

All those in favor?

Any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries and now item F that is now H.

Councilor Lemon go ahead.

Yes this letter for those that can't see a dog can't see it um refers to the browning and drying and um lack of care of some of the plantings along island highway near near Town Hall and uh Helmkin Road.

And I I really the word deplorable is used, which I found particularly um upsetting and alarming for Bureau because we prived we we we pride ourselves on the upkeep of our town and and um the care that is given to it.

I note this letter was written on July 25th and since then uh the the swales along uh island highway have been weeded and trimmed and are in better in are in and are in good shape but we do have a new contracted um service and I just want to ask staff if uh this was part of their um tending to the the rain gardens in Swales was that a part of their um uh not a part of their contract or was it something that needed to be brought to their attention and has been added on.

Thank you Mayor Tobias um the short answer is yes it was always part of the plan and the long answer to this is um this is uh changes in level of service in action so uh we've reduced the budget down to a hundred thousand dollars for the rest of the year and so some pivots need to be made um we've made mention the council before that there are going to be some tangible changes to the quality of the boulevards and that we'll do our best to mitigate them and that this uh pilot project would help inform on the next contract.

Um the third thing I want to make mention with this is just because I I have to do it out of the respect of Victoria contracting, and it's that um the indication that Victoria Contractor had apparently walked away from the contract, and um the the uh letter writer is saying you know that um the town should be taking civil action against them for breach of contract.

That's actually incorrect.

We actually went to a fair bid process and um Victoria Contract, it didn't get the the contract uh or else he got under low bid.

So I also wanted to clarify that for council.

Um Victoria Contract is still very respectable.

They do other business in the in in uh in the Greater Victoria.

So I just want to put that out there as well.

But for to Councilor Lemon's point, it was always part of the plan.

It just had to be adjusted to meet level service and and the cost associated with it.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I'm gonna make one first, Council Rogers, and that is um I I wasn't happy with this leather writers um uh talking to a worker and then coming up and accusing contract uh challenges and whatnot with the town.

So if you're gonna mail in, then please get your facts straight.

And if you don't have your facts straight, feel comfortable with us getting the facts so that we can straighten it out.

Um uh since the letter uh was written, that was probably m halfway between the handover as well of these contracts.

Am I saying that right, Ivan?

Uh it's boats a month and a bit after, yeah, June 30th or May 30th was end.

And I really don't see a change.

To be honest with you, I it was a rough spot there, and I think part of that was water or whatever, but uh I certainly uh look looks looks great to me, not a noticeable difference.

Um just my comment.

Counselor Rogers the McKenzie.

Yeah, uh here.

Uh you know, I I can appreciate the uh the writers's um uh thoughts uh back then, and uh yes, I had some concerns about the island highway uh medium, but on the other hand, I was also really impressed with um the contractor and staff getting on top of that and and addressing it very effectively.

So uh thank you to staff.

Yeah, this um I mean it doesn't come as a surprise.

I think we all anticipated that in reducing the cost of the contract, we were going to receive some complaints.

Uh but we are saving a lot of money.

And I wonder if uh maybe the staff if we've actually done communication around just around the change and as well as how much uh the difference in the we are saving uh with doing this.

Uh yeah, the mayor Tobias looking back hindsight twenty twenty, you know, if we had the time to provide those communications, we would have.

And as part of going into um next year and the next contract we'll seek ways to uh inform the public of the benefits of doing what council has asked us to do second moved and seconded for receipt any other comments questions all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries so uh that was item f that was is now H and uh C events in View Royal and uh that will become I.

Councilor Roger.

Yes, thanks um I I would hope that um and the question really is um whether um staff or or the mayor can respond to the comments here.

I think we need to put this in a little bit of a context here.

all the activities that are going on at the West Shore uh Parks and Recreation.

I think it's also worth noting that um uh since we have the casino so we have certainly can afford it I think it's uh bears in mind that um over the years the the casino funds have um they're at a stable two million and much of that uh those that funding is now going to the West Shore and to the Greater Victor Library so there's actually very little left at the end of the day and I think that um that context uh needs to be uh explained to the letter writer as well as the fact that we have an enormous um uh expenditure in the police building that's coming up and um the fire hall um uh we don't have back in the old days uh these good old days when we had fun, we had a volunteer fire department.

We don't anymore so I I think there are significant costs that the town has, but one of the things we do do is ensure that the essential services are addressed.

Yeah, and I I I I'm happy uh if council would like me to respond with staff input as well for this.

I will note, and I of course talk to the mayors on a regular basis um uh regarding Ribfest that's coming up and other things going on.

100% volunteer, got nothing to do with the town at all.

Town just promotes it, right?

So uh Jenny, I empathize with you wanting a more fun town.

Everybody wants to go to a party and nobody wants to host one.

So there's like-minded people out there.

I know there are.

Us to help you get some of those folks together and plan uh one, but the the town usually does not really run events.

If you look at any of the big events, they're not town staff that are running them, they're volunteers with sponsors.

Sometimes the sponsor is the town.

Grants and aid.

Like grants and aid.

Uh there, so there's money uh to support, but uh we've really found recently a drop off in the amount of folks that are volunteering because it's a big commitment for these things, right?

It's not only the the uh staffing for this from our own Canada Day experience, we can barely staff Canada Day.

Barely.

And and there may be a point coming in the in the future that if we don't have more volunteers, we won't be able to, right?

So that that's the reality.

Council Lemon, you had a comment.

Yeah, perhaps Jenny might want to talk to the good people at the community association who are working very hard at establishing events largely within the the community hall.

But you know, last November, and I hope again this November, there was a talent show, and it was great.

And it was a real community event.

And uh perhaps she could get involved with them and expand outside the walls of the community hall.

Correspondence reply.

Thanks.

Uh for both your comments.

Councillor Brown, you had a comment?

Yeah, she mentions uh music in the park, and there's there is lots of them.

Sydney, Sanich, Callwood.

I mean, we could promote that more on our website, and I think scribe.

I've been to many of them.

I don't like the country music ones, but anyway, they're all good and they're f free and and well attended.

And I think if we set something like that up, we would maybe conflicting with some of these other events because they're in the summer.

And the last one, the last COVID one is coming up this Saturday, actually.

So uh that'll be the last one I go to.

But uh the great events.

I agree with what she's saying, but yeah, it's expensive.

You need a band shell, you need the uh electric for the amplifiers.

It's great for the bands.

There's lots of bands out there that want to get their name out there.

And I don't even know if they get paid.

I think they just promote themselves so people hire them for weddings and um things like that.

And I I think the the money can be found through sponsorship, and I think uh Summer Council and um Scott learn that there's money available through uh the BC uh lottery community building kind of fund for all of these activities.

The problem is organizers and volunteers to get them.

That's the that's the challenge.

Uh and it should make us appreciate the volunteers all that much more.

So we got um there's no other comments.

Move receipts.

Uh the move receipts and seconded by councilor Lemon.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Saying none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you.

Um and I think uh we go to uh question period before we go down to motions and notice of motion.

Uh, anybody with a question for council?

Please uh just turn the mic on.

Make your question a comment.

And if it is a comment, make it a question.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias, and Council.

First time addressing council, so I will attempt to keep it concise.

I will give it a little context as Councillor Rogers just uh helped uh another one.

My name's Robert McIntyre.

I live on Stewart Avenue.

Uh four long years ago, on August 11, 2021, building permit number 2607 was issued for a single family dwelling on 315 Stewart Avenue.

The building permit has now expired, and there can be no further extensions.

Sporadic construction continues without a permit and with no end in sight, and no visible progress for almost two years.

Conditional occupancy of the dwelling is contingent on all permits remaining active and in good standing.

The permits are no longer in place and the occupancy permit is now no longer valid.

Town records show that no building inspections were conducted on permit 2607 for over two years.

I have made a number of inquiries regarding this matter.

Town staff are aware that the building permit and occupancy, the conditional occupancy permit, have both expired.

All responses from the town have been inadequate, and there seems to be no hope that town staff will uphold bylaws or policies.

The decision by staff to accept the significant liability to the town without even consulting counsel is surprising to me.

The neighbors of this unpermitted construction site now face additional life and property risk that the bylaws were designed to prevent.

My question to council is when will the town act in accordance with the bylaws and policies in place and bring this matter to a close?

When will you bring this endless construction project to a conclusion?

Thank you.

Thank you for the question.

Appreciate it.

I wonder.

Yeah, do you mind sending it to mayor and council at VROL.ca?

Appreciate that.

Uh thank you.

Is there any other questions in the room?

Go ahead, sir.

Mayor, Council, staff, my name is Peter Hislop.

I live at 325 Stewart Avenue.

My question is regarding the bottom end of Stewart Avenue.

There exists a garage on a property, and Gary Mathies has brought this to the attention of staff.

And I'd like to know if there's any movement on what is the outcome of this building that should have been removed, and I believe was part of the condition of the building permit.

And I'd also add support to what Robert just said about the untidiness of 315 Stuart Avenue, we've been looking at it forever and just don't understand why it continues to be an eyesore.

And in addition, I'd like to say that if we are going to be given this density required by the province with more building, if these issues that require the building inspector and the bylaws to be enforced, if these uh other issues that I'm talking about can't be resolved, how will that all look as we move forward with a great deal more construction?

Thank you.

Thank you for your question.

Again, can you forward your question to us again with by uh to mayor and council?

Appreciate it here and it's in the minutes, but if you could forward that as well, we can uh use that to um have discussions with staff.

Keep and and as well keep you updated if you so desire.

We should I just wanted to know this being the second uh comment with respect to the uh the garage, the non-conforming garage, uh, is it reasonable that uh we ask that it go on the council agenda as a as a topic uh from a staff report.

Like in camera meeting?

Well, fine, even if it is.

I think we need to uh discuss this and and get to the bottom of it.

Yeah.

We'll go to you, Carl, on the line.

Is there anybody that uh sent any questions in for council?

It's just taking a moment to refresh to double check.

Um no, we have no uh comments.

Thanks, Carl.

Thank you very much.

Uh Councilor Brown, we'll move down to uh notices of motion uh and hand it over to you.

Yeah, I'd like to for us to see uh a crosswalk, a veterans memorial crosswalk in View Royal.

Uh there's a really nice one on Station Avenue in Langford.

Uh Klona just put one in.

Um I know we passed the uh the rainbow one over by the View Royal Elementary the other day, which is great.

Um we don't have a cenotaph in View Royal, and it'd be nice to have something uh to honor our veterans.

And obviously, I don't know, I got some locations in mind, but I won't talk about them now.

But it has to be an area that's high traffic, maybe uh somewhere where it's a uh where it's a crossing where the galloping goose goes through.

So uh not only with with what uh vehicle traffic say, but also pedestrians and and bicycles.

So my motion would be to uh add this item to our budget discussions for the next next fiscal year thank you that and uh i think you're just reading it in this time yeah and then we're gonna yeah yeah more information on next because i know the legion has the designs and they would know what the cost is and everything so and uh ideally you don't want to have one with a poppy on because people shouldn't be driving over a poppy so um their design is really good and the one in clona they just put in is really good as well thank you, Councillor Brown.

And uh again uh for uh a notice of motion.

Council lemmer, please.

Um yes, this is a notice of motion.

However, there was an earlier offline discussion of it being an actual motion.

Shall I read it as a notice of motion?

I'll read I'll read it in, I'll read it into the record then.

Read it in for the record as a as a notice of motion, leave the motivation out of it, just your your last page.

Okay.

Whereas the rules of war as set out in the Geneva Convention require that humanitarian rights be protected in armed conflict, that civilians not be targets of attack, and that medical and humanitarian aid agencies be able to safely deliver and administer aid.

And whereas of the more than 63,000 people reported killed in the Gaza War, the majority are civilians, including hundreds of aid workers, healthcare workers, and journalists.

And whereas a UN special committee found starvation is being used as a weapon of war, and the people of Gaza are now in famine.

Therefore, the town of Uroyo calls on the Canadian government to take a strong stand on the international stage and call for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, embargo arms to impromp Israel and demand an assured and secure humanitarian corridor to enable the delivery of food and essential aid to the Palestinian people.

Thank you, Councillor Lemon.

Councillor Rogers.

Yes, I would move that this be a uh same day consideration.

Second.

Okay, for that to happen, and it's not in our procedure by law, but we would have to vote unanimously that um we would um uh have this for same day consideration and have it actioned that's the way the CRD rules we're in the midst of changing our procedure now but I think that would be acceptable am I violating any general principles of Robert's rules of order uh Elna or Scott okay so we've got a mover and a seconder for same day consideration uh any comments or questions around that if not, we can move to a vote.

All those in favor of same day consideration.

Not voting on the actual thing yet, so that passed.

Um, uh, so we've got same day consideration.

The next thing we're going to do is vote on this.

And the only thing that I'm unclear about here is uh council lemon, you're requesting that I write a letter specifically to the prime minister or ministers responsible.

Certainly, on behalf of the town of Uroisle, please, your worship.

And I would like to make a slight um edit um in the final statement where it says, therefore, embargo arms to and from Israel.

I think that is that's more specific than I would like.

Um, so um I'd be more comfortable with um in state a bilateral arms embargo well i think the difference is that that could go both ways so that we don't send arms to any part of the conflict by saying this and evoking an embargo you're suggesting that the canadian military should actually stop any um trade of weapons going into Israel going into the conflict yeah that may be a little bit difficult to enforce.

Well, the the Canadian government um says that none are going in, but my research shows that there is some evidence that some arms have been received.

You're concerned about Canadian arms going to Israel, correct?

Because the way this is written means that we're going to embargo any nation from no no no no no no.

Am I the only one seeing that?

Well, because it says embargo arms to and from Israel means that that's all it needs to say because it sounds like we're gonna set up a ring of a blockade around Israel.

Okay, so a bilateral.

So what's the amendment now?

Uh so it's just the uh where it's uh after Hamas where it's uh uh comma uh would be a bilateral embargo.

Yeah, and state a bilateral embargo of Canadian arms.

And uh just again for clarification, bilateral means uh new arms uh to you know Israel or Hamas or anybody in the conflict zone.

Or or for them sending us arms, you know.

Um it's it's two parties, but I I think in this case, for these purposes, it would be I'm gonna recommend that we probably just take that out for complexity.

Uh just no, no, embargo arms to and from Israel.

I'm just gonna recommend that.

I think everything else makes perfect sense, but I think it's just around the wording and confusion.

Is it our arms that somebody else's arms?

I'm okay with that.

Is it okay for that?

Um, uh I I I would just recommend removing that to make it crystal clear.

Okay, so that it reads, therefore, the town of Uroyal calls on the Canadian government to take a strong stand on the international stage and call for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and demand an assured and secure humanitarian corridor corridor to enable the delivery of food and essential aid to the Palestinian people.

I am comfortable with that.

Any other questions or comments?

Council Rogers.

Yeah, speaking to the amendment, um, you know, I'm I'm also the impression, factual or not, um, that um the Canadian government is involved in in arms uh to Israel.

And so um I don't mind saying it.

I don't mind putting it in.

If they're not, they're not.

If they are, we're saying it.

Don't uh yeah, it was just around more of the Argo uh embargo issue than less about the arms, Council Rogers.

Yeah, I know.

And um and if the Canadian government uh I I guess that's that's yeah, it it's here for a reason because there is indeed uh suspicions from um you know that uh our Canadian government is supplying arms um to Israel even if we're you know to and from I don't know but um you know I I think it's worthy uh putting still keeping it in the motion because if they are stop it if you if they're not well then that's fine.

Can I just for clarification because we're talking about the Canadian government if we just put an instead of embargo just put not provide arms to Israel.

How about supply no arms to the conflict?

Okay.

Sure.

Right?

Yeah.

Even easier.

I would be surprised if we were sending arms to Israel because we can't even provide them for our own troops.

Okay, so uh we've moved for a same day of consideration.

We've done the amendment.

Now we vote on the amendment.

Uh it's been moved by Councillor Lemon, seconded by Councilor Rogers.

All those in favor, just for the amendment.

And then for the whole thing together, including me sending a letter.

Well, we'll vote on that now if we get a mover and a second or to move as amended.

Councillor Mattson, Councillor Brown, all those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And I think that brings us down to uh adjournment.

Could somebody make that motion?

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor McKenzie.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing non-opposed, motion carries.

Thank you.