Council Meeting

So now we will start our council meeting, which I think some folks are in the room for.

Uh so for the council meeting, I've already gone through and uh read the uh territorial acknowledgement.

Um and I just wanted to highlight some changes when we have a public hearing before council meeting that this evening we'll hear from the public during the public participation and question periods portions agenda.

If you wish to provide your comments to council regarding the development variance permits for 1701 Island Highway or 2818 Shoreline Drive, there will be specific time to speak to these applications uh when they're considered during the meeting, meaning that under that line item there'll be a a spot for the the for you to speak.

Uh please note that the comments regarding the OCP amendment bylaw 1156 are not permitted as the public hearing uh for the bylaw has concluded.

A reminder uh and to provide comments virtually, you can um during the public participation period, uh then you can scan the QR code or go under the live webcast portion of the town's website uh and just add your name and your street name.

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

Uh question period is limited or is open to any question and is limited to two minutes each for each speaker, and you will be timed.

The meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

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

Can I get an approval of the council agenda, including the late items?

But before we do that, can I turn your attention to the consent agenda portion?

And if anybody wanted to pull a consent agenda item out.

Okay, but if you have uh if you have to uh if you want to pull one of those out to discuss, uh council lemon, go ahead.

Um, what I wanted to do, um Mayor Tobias was see if we could combine.

We have two or three items on the same topic that are distributed throughout the meeting.

Um so I'm wondering if we can combine 7 F and have 14 um three moved up to um joined it in the discussion.

Got it.

And uh in the consent agenda are all the there's a well, I guess also addressing that is number 10 eight.

And you know, whether whether you know it's there, yeah, and it addresses the same same topic.

So uh yeah, you just prom uh want to move those combine them, yeah.

Combine them and point to so succinctly then you want to move seven seven F um or or keep seven F where it is and move 14 uh da da da da three.

So this all has to do with the um spending for the proposed RCMP building.

I think you lost me a little bit here, or I'm more looking on a different agenda.

You're working on the one online.

So the one online, yeah.

Um seven F is West Shore RCMP detachment expansion principle consent and fourteen three is uh a motion from me um regarding public engagement on the matter.

Yeah, you're gonna have to kind of leave your uh motion kind of where it is in order of the agenda, but we can move the West Shore F down to your item if you wish.

Okay, sure.

That is possible, but they're actually different.

They're different.

The the consent bylaw is different than your motion for engagement.

Understood.

But but they all address they do a a greater issue.

Yeah, there's no real way to move your notice of motion, even though it is related to the item uh above that, counselor lemon that I can see, but I'll look to um Scott, do you have any advice?

Um my advice would be to follow the procedure by law, which probably doesn't allow for combinations of different topics to be moved around the agenda that way.

Yeah, because uh I I think the uh the uh expansion discussion and the engagement for the discussion are not the same topic for two different ones.

Um any other changes?

Consent agenda Councillor Rogers?

Yes, thank you.

Um is there any changes that you wanted made?

Uh well maybe just get some feedback and um because I see there was a um uh letter from Mr.

Harris with respect to um uh 258 Helmcken.

And again, similar to Councillor Um uh Lemon's uh point about com you know providing these this correspondence to the matter at hand uh so we um you know are able to address that.

I guess my question uh to the mayor is that um I'm 258 is coming to a public hearing, isn't it?

The um at a future time.

Leanne?

Uh yes, that's correct.

Okay, then then the correspondence um uh from Mr.

Harrison could probably be for that that public hearing.

I suppose that's one way of doing it.

The other thing is that um Mr.

Brown um at the at the very bottom I had written some comments uh with respect to cycling on the Watkiss Way um uh Helmican interchange and the um the report there.

Um how do we kind of match up his uh his thoughts and suggestions uh to that document?

That's actually I think that that's part of the normal correspondence that we get.

If you wish to bring it up then, uh Counselor Rogers, then there's certainly space for you to do that uh during uh when we talk about the Watkins Way and Helmcken Road intersect.

Great.

Then I'll do that.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Uh so we've I think a gutch to um the agenda, except we haven't approved yet, and this would be approval for the agenda.

All uh we got a motion to approve.

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councilor Matson.

All those in favor of the agenda.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed to the agenda, that brings us to the public participation period.

And again, just a reminder that it's anything on the agenda with the exception uh of the official community plan amendment.

Anybody wish to uh address council on anything else?

Linda.

I think I got it.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Linda Gironde.

I live on Ardenley Place.

I'll begin by reading a letter from Ian Brown.

He's a resident of V Royal as well and a member of the same climate action group that I belong to, View Royal Climate Coalition.

Dear Mayor and Council, I understand you are considering a re-a reworking of the Watkiss Way and Helmcken Road intersection item 7C, and would like to offer my input.

As a cyclist in this town, I urge you to consider the downstream effects of the intersection redesign on the area to the west.

Cyclists traveling south on Helmcken Road from Burnside benefit from a dedicated bike lane up to Watkiss Way.

However, beyond this point, the route is across the Helmkin Bridge.

The route across Helmkin Bridge presents a critical safety failure as they must merge with the high-speed filter lane designated for traffic ending entering the Trans-Canada Highway Westbound lanes.

To provide cyclists with a safe route across the bridge, a complete reconstruction of that lane is required.

Um crossing uh on Helmcken Road, to stop vehicles on Helmcken Road on the Viewroll portion that we own.

It is necessary for bikes and pedestrians to be safe.

Ian says, I will never cycle that section of Helmkin as it is, and I would recommend that no other cyclists do so either.

If staff advise an on ramp crossing is a provincial highway's responsibility, they must be instructed to engage the province without delay to make it to make safety improvements.

It is inexplicable to lead pedestrians and cyclists safely to a highway on ramp only to abandon them.

Given the recent provincially mandated addition of density without parking to promote active transportation in the area that's already busy, hospital area, this is a critical safety issue that cannot be ignored.

I urge you to take action before someone dies there.

Council of my husband crosses the on-ramp as a cyclist and a pedestrian.

So I'll just add my own words.

He's not lucky and he won't stay away.

The crosswalk is positioned on the on-ramp where vehicles are accelerating to join a highway.

I don't know if this is common practice on provincial highways, but it seems inconsiderate of human life, particularly in a rapidly mandated densifying area by the very province that controls the highway.

To believe the province, I believe the province needs to focus on safety, not just housing.

Ivan says, cars screech to a halt at times when he is on the crosswalk.

So far, please try to find a way to make this area safer for all users.

Thanks very much.

Thank you, Linda.

Appreciate it.

Anyone else from anybody else would like to address counsel on any topic on the agenda except the OCP?

Or you're probably waiting for those agenda items there.

Once, twice, three times.

Carl, we got anybody online that has uh sent anything in.

Mayor Tobias, we have no messages on the form system.

Thank you.

Uh I think that brings us down to bylaws.

And uh I think over to you, Leanne, for item four A.

Or sorry, Jeff.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

While we're loading up the presentation, the purpose of this presentation is to deal with the report for bylaw 1160, which relates to rezoning the CD626 zone at 258 Helmcken Road.

At the November 4th council meeting, the um the bylaw received first and second reading.

The purpose of the bylaw is to uh amend the zone by permitting additional uses.

Next slide, please.

And actually, one other slide.

The C D 26 zone applies to 258 Helken Road, the Royale, which was recently constructed.

The proposal is to permit additional commercial uses on the ground floor, including cafe medical clinic, personal service establishment, and retail store use.

The requirements are that those low uses only be on the ground floor and be restricted by hours of operation between 6 a.m.

and 10 p.m.

In addition, a minimum of 150 square meters of the ground, the commercial space shall be allocated to a cafe use.

At that meeting, council's asked staff to work with the applicant as to look at the potential for prioritizing medical clinic use as the um for for the ground floor.

So next slide, please.

And so the and the purpose of the commercial uses is to variety of uses is because no tenant has been found for the site to have a variety of uses on the property.

But uh council's interest was to uh see if there was a way to prioritize medical clinic use.

And since then, uh I think the applicant has been in discussions with a potential client for that area, for a potential medical clinic use, um, which is which is encouraging, but these are very early stages.

Uh the purpose of this uh report is to um add to the process the requirement for a covenant that um that uh medical clinic use be uh required on the ground floor for a uh minimum of 10 years.

So most commercial leases run in the range of three to five years, up to 10 years at the longest for the initial lease.

So the covenant would be uh for the long end of what a what a typical commercial use would be.

Um so what that would mean is if the rezoning is passed, that um that for 10 years the um there would be some guaranteed space for a medical clinic use.

The covenant does not specify the size of that uh space um to allow for um some flexibility in terms of who the tenant might be whether they're a sole practitioner only requires a small amount of space versus occupying the whole floor space um so that is uh that the proposal is that that be enshrined in a covenant that would be uh registered on property concurrent with the rezoning process um uh in addition to that uh there was a uh in terms of the the cafe parking space.

So medical clinic use occupies the same parking ratio for um basically uh we'd meet parking with the same parking requirements for the grocery store type use.

There's enough parking to accommodate both type that type of use, just switching it from neighbor grocery to medical clinic.

Cafes actually require a higher level of parking because they have more turnover.

So we did some additional calculations.

So if the space was converted to medical clinic use, there's no change in the parking requirement.

That would be a variance.

For this site, 29 spaces are provided, 32 would be required.

So that would mean a variance of three parking spaces.

So that is something that would be addressed further down the line as for a proposed cafe type use.

Next slide, please.

The other item for discussion is that the report uh calls uh requests that a public hearing be scheduled for January the 20th.

Um that request has been has I'm advising now that we're rolling that back.

And the reason for that is because um uh the applicant has been in touch with a potential tenant and they are sorting out some space requirements.

So 150 square meters is on the large size of what a neighborhood cafe use would be and ranges basically they range from 100 to 1,000 square feet to 1500 square feet.

This potential client that the applicant is working with right now, they're still working out the space requirement, so there might be an adjustment and that would be and if there is such an adjustment requested the uh second the bible would have to be amended to accommodate a potential change to the size of the uh the cafe use.

So at this point um they've requested that a public hearing not be rescheduled to be scheduled and um we'll come back uh in the new year with uh more kind of um a better idea of what space might work uh on this site.

So the good news is there actually is a potential for a medical clinic that might take occupy that space and uh they're sorting out some details.

Next slide, please.

Uh and one other slide, please.

So the um the recommendation is to uh that to require that a covenant be registered to require medical use on the ground floor uh as part of the rezoning process, and we will come back again in January with with more uh more on the proposal.

So that concludes the presentation.

You ready for some questions?

Yes.

Um I I I've just got some concern over 10 years.

Like my thinking is okay, maybe it's a clinic and runs its course in five years and now the space is empty, but we're looking for another um clinic to move in there, another client uh that would provide clinic services.

But in the meantime, a grocery store says, uh, hey, this is a great idea to come in and you know, things have changed a bit and uh got a new model for a grocery store.

So i is like are we locking ourselves in for too long is my question for ten years.

And if another use that has been identified wants to come in after five years, is that possible?

Yeah.

Um through the mayor, that is the um the conundrum when we when we try to lock down uses too much in in part of the processes.

So in most of these types of situations you have a variety of uses that are permitted and and they kind of change around as the market changes as as business is kind of turn over.

I think this we are uh this proposal is a bit more on the on the restrictive side again for number one for allocating space specifically for cafe use and second part is for medical use as well for a for a term of for that length of term um what that type of means is if there's a situational change then you have to come back to amend the covenant and uh so the covenant you would you would still do a notification because it's part of a rezoning uh and then at that point you have an opportunity for the public to comment council can make the decision to reconsider the covenant if there is a if there's a change that's requested so could we make the amendment this evening to your recommendation of uh from ten to five years uh through the mayor uh that would be council's prerogative okay that's uh that's all council lemon so Jeff just just to be clear a grocery store which was to be the main tenant is no longer a no longer a primary possibility correct under under under this.

Um yeah so the mayor uh the potential still exists so we know that 150 square meters is allocated cafe use there's medical use in the uh regulated through the covenant so the covenant uh does not specify how large the space is so if there's a for example a small medical office goes in there still may be room for an order for a smaller scale neighborhood grocery but not not to take up the entire commercial space uh within within the 10 the term of the covenant you if if i may you had it one of your slides and I I don't seem to have it um showed the space allocation can you can you roll back to that um okay back one slide please yes oh forward one forward one more please i one more yeah yeah and that's i i we added that in that's in the report and that has to do with um that was the parking analysis so what that shows us is the space that's available on the um on the commercial on the ground floor is 150 square meters for commercial for cafe use 400 and up to 432 square meters for medical use if the medical office requires less space then that's space can be opened up for something else so the if if I mean the the commitment to medical space which I am fully fully on board with um but that amount of space what if and like I I understand there might be somebody in the wings but what if they backed out and there was no follow up are we still with the company we're it it again it could be empty space right if we're that restricted on a large piece of of the uh the floor area um with the chair um some space would have to be reserved for for medical office use medical clinic use but other uses if if this falls through then um other uses we considered but some space has to be reserved for the uh medical clinic final question so may maybe you said this and i missed it jeff but why does this negate a public hearing um actually for the mayor it's not negating a public hearing the the the request is to postpone it to not schedule one at this time just postpone it yes so we we we will come back more with more information okay thank you counselor brand you know it's pretty broad.

So I know some grocery stores have drug stores within the grocery store, and and vice versa.

Some drug stores sell a lot of groceries.

So I think it's pretty broad.

So I think if it's a London Drugs is a good example, they sell groceries, and this has a drugs uh pharmacy in there as well.

So I assume something like that would fit into this uh mold.

Um, and vice versa.

Uh save on foods.

Other grocery stores have a fall small pharmacy section.

So perhaps that would be um a way around it.

Is that is that even a possibility?

Uh through the mayor, in in part of the space, the covenant is is actually uh medical clinic use.

There's a money there's a number of uses, subuses within that, includes physiotherapists, dentists, what optometrists.

Uh the covenant is actually ties it down to medical specialists that include um a general practitioner or or a nurse practitioner.

So it's it is actually uh truly medical related and and not not you know not not other forms of health that are that are considered in a medical clinic.

But pharmacists, they they give vaccinations.

They even prescribe drugs.

So to me, uh under by my definition, a drugstore would would fall into this.

I could be wrong, but um certainly pharmacies, pharmacists have a lot more uh things they can do.

They're allowed to do now, they're allowed to prescribe for certain ailments.

They also provide vaccinations uh clinics as well.

So to me, um I don't see why that wouldn't work.

Thanks, Councillor Brown.

I think Leanne has a point.

Yeah, um through the mayor, that type of um like a pharmacy would fall under the uh retail use in our zoning bylaws, so um, which is another um uh proposed use to be added to this zone.

So if someone wanted to open up a drugstore where there's a pharmacist and gives vaccination, I mean that would all fall under their retail because it's a retail store essentially.

Yeah, so that would be permitted.

Yeah, go ahead.

So I mean I I sort of missed second reading on this, and I I just absolutely hate the changes in the proposed bylaw I mean that the retail store and personal establishment totally opposed in in opposition to uh the grocery store so it in terms of a bad bylaw my perspective having a 10 year requirement for a physician nurse practitioner uh a specialist is is a vast improvement over a real horrible change to the bylaws.

So I will be supporting the amendment for that reason for for the 10 years but and the reality is the last thing I would want in five years somebody create puts in a retail store.

Because again, not what the community was promised, not what the community really needs.

And so I prefer the 10 years and the reality is if a grocery store wanted to come in it would take council a couple couple meetings and a few letters out to the public to get the uh to get this changed to to allow it.

So I will support with teeth gritted biting my tongue in cheek uh the uh the proposed change here, but uh from my perspective, we should have left it it is of just my two minutes here or a minute.

We are we were we gave two stories a building up so we would get a grocery store.

Uh our community is gonna change over the years, and we're gonna need a grocery store in the area because we're gonna get more and more population.

I think it's one of those things we should give the community what they were promised and what the developer was given in in terms of additional uh stories to provide what we were promised.

But notwithstanding that, this is a lot better than what you guys put to second reading.

I'd like to move the staff recommendation.

Uh question.

A question.

Uh yeah, let's uh it we'll go to your question.

We're just uh taking the the motion right now, so uh I'm not gonna let it hang.

Is there a second or for the motion?

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh Councilor Brown moved.

Counselor Mattson seconded.

Go ahead with your question, Council Brown.

Yes, thank you.

Um I I draw counselors and staff's attention to uh Dr.

Harris's report, item E in the consent agenda.

Uh he has a lot of uh good points.

He's he's obviously analyzed this um uh in a in a significant amount of way.

Um it it would be interesting, of course, to see what happens with the uh increase of 29 to 33 uh parking stalls, um, be that space or money.

Uh the the uh the problem is that um and I think what we have to be aware of is this covenant would totally end any idea of of um what was originally proposed.

And I think also one of the uh driving limitations of this um location, this commercial location, is the challenging uh parking that's underneath.

And uh for those um um you know doctor medical related uh individuals that are mobility challenged um that there's no way they're going to be able to um park down below and and come out again and I think uh we are continuing to ignore that the parking is doubly challenged by a right in right-in-write-out access, which means obviously if they're going in to have to go go to this place, they'll have to take it a long way around through uh Stormont, et cetera.

So the the um Dr.

Harris raised some very good points in and number four, you know, have we uh as counsel obtained and reviewed and is thoroughly convinced that the correspondence, the evidence, um is uh is completely outruling or negating any um uh grocery store.

Um so you know the the covenant is is uh I think uh I'm not sure how we're gonna go with this.

I appreciate that we're gonna make a covenant to make sure that we do get medical services, but as medical services maybe in a location where uh those individuals that need a medical care would not want to travel through because it's difficult to do so.

Thank you.

Um Councillor Rogers, yeah, thanks for your comment.

I just want to clarify uh there are some uh parking spaces for the commercial part in back of the building and not underground.

Am I saying that correct, Jeff?

That's what the mayor.

There are uh parking spaces that are surface parking spaces that are for commercial uses.

There is an underground component as well.

Okay, just to be clear for everybody.

And uh my question, Jeff, is could it be possible to put a covenant on the floor that has medical clinic and or grocery store?

Is that possible?

Uh I'm sorry, what's your possible in the covenant that you've got here for a minimum of 10 years to put a mixed use building for a minimum of 10 years for a medical clinic and or a grocery store?

I'm just trying to put two and two together, council, here, and saying that maybe we get a clinic in there that runs four years and it's done.

And we can't get another person in there for a clinic.

But maybe at that time in four years, a grocery store of the right size says, Hey, um, this is a great place for us to operate.

So right now, what we've done is we've limited our options to potentially within the next decade, um adjust this back to what was originally envisioned.

Counselor Brown.

If that's an amendment, I'll second the amendment.

Yeah, the grocery store and did I just say uh an amendment?

I guess I did say an amendment.

Okay.

So I will move an amendment that says um uh and or grocery store uh uh for a minimum of 10 years.

Speaking to the amendment, uh yes, Councilor Roger.

Yes, thank you.

Um thank you, um Mayor.

That's uh I think that's an excellent suggestion.

So I wonder if we don't have a covenant that says um grocery store and medical clinic.

So it's it certainly um uh the the we've been hearing clearly from the uh applicant, the developer, and and that um the space is too large for a grocery store.

And um so why not have um it both as covenants not and or um and I just also want to draw the attention that we do have a pharmacy across the street already that would uh tie in nicely to um to a nurse practitioner or a medical clinic.

So I would say um suggest uh those as we debate this have a and not or uh no I think that further restricts us, and that's not the intention uh that you're doing an amendment to an amendment now, Councilor Rogers.

So I I think this just gives us more flexibility.

It could be uh uh a small grocery store, a clinic, and a coffee shop.

Um uh and and it could be a clinic or it could be a grocery store and a coffee shop.

Uh Councilor Mats.

Sure.

Uh the comment I did want to make is the moratorium to my mind becomes moot if the bylaw doesn't get passed and we leave the current bylaw in place.

So that would deal with Councilor Rogers' concern that we're you know, I mean the only reason that the grocery store is at risk in terms of the zoning is because of the bylaw change that's being made, which allows retail store, personal services, medical clinic, and and cafe.

So uh something to talk about after.

But in terms of the motion to put and or uh a grocery store again it improves something that's really bad to my that's already I don't like but it's an improvement so I will support that motion okay any other discussion on the amendment so the amendment is just using and or um uh grocery store uh uh for a minimum of 10 years any other comments questions debate uh yeah the only the only thing I'm I'm just gonna motivate a little bit here but this I I don't want to be that counsel that restricts opportunities for folks doing business too much.

Right.

I I think we need to create a window to say here's the things we're gonna tolerate in here and let the market decide.

Because I don't think it's tolerable for somebody who builds something that we already included, has tried to get what we wanted but can't fill it.

So how how do we manage that?

And uh and I think this is a good balance between everybody wants a grocery store, no kidding.

Um, but I think they could live with the clinic for obvious reasons.

Um and just to add to this, right now, the last meeting I had, over 68% of people that live in View Royal aren't attached to primary care.

So that's 68%.

If we can like lessen that or have an opportunity to lessen it in any way we can, I think um, yeah, there's there's opportunities to do that.

Counselor Matson.

Point out to Counselor Rogers.

The reason we're having this discussion on the moratorium is because uh council went to second reading on adding those additional uses, and so this improves that where we where we currently are, and discussions on whether or not I want to see that in the future will come uh at the next next stage.

Okay, uh vote on the amendment, and that is the and or with the grocery store.

All those in favor.

Any opposed seeing none opposed, that motion carries.

And on the original motion, as so amended.

Uh Councillor Brown and Councillor Mattson have already moved it.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, that carries.

Thanks, Jeff, very much.

Now on the uh we're on item 4B for those of you paying attention.

And it is third reading and adoption, and that's a bylaw to amend uh the official community plan 811 2011 to introduce new land use designation for the small scale multi unit housing, hospital transit oriented area, and new housing policies to align with the official community plan and the five and twenty-year housing need in accordance with the province.

I'll move the recommendation given we don't have a choice.

I'll second.

And again, compliments to staff for getting us this far.

Moved uh by councillor uh Matson and seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Any discussion?

Uh Councilor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

And I I also want to appreciate the those members of the public that came forward and expressed their concerns, particularly um um Chancellor and um noting the this the challenges that the municipality will have trying to uh address all the infrastructure um issues that will result.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Anybody else?

Um, I'm not gonna support it.

Might be surprised, but um we just got a letter from the housing minister that said without this zoning change, we've exceeded housing targets by 250 percent.

We don't need it.

This is provincially imposed, it inflates land value, and just fide uh uh aside from commercial interest, I don't believe it's in the best interest of the town.

We're not here to do the province's bidding, that's not why we're elected.

Otherwise, we become provincial staff and not municipal counselors.

Uh so I'm not gonna support the amendment, and I encourage everybody to freely vote the way that they want to.

But based on the principle and our performance for developing what we want, what's needed with deep engagement with our citizens, I think we've done a damn good job.

And I think by rolling over and saying, province, you're right.

Uh boy, this is legislation we really required, uh, hasn't made it easy for staff.

So where does that put staff if we turn around and vote this down?

Uh, I don't think it puts us any place.

We're still continuing on with an OCP.

An OCP that will ratify by the end of the term.

Will we meet the provincial deadline?

Probably not.

We won't, we certainly wouldn't have incorporated if we turned it down.

Um so yeah, I'd encourage you to to dig down deep and and vote the way you want to, but I see uh all the hard work that our committee did um to try to lessen the damage for this single or small-scale multi-unit housing to uh provide more affordable opportunities.

I I I think we've got to stop being run by a lobby for the real estate and commercial industry here in View Royal.

And we need to say this is a good place to live when lots of people want to live here because it's a damn good place to live.

Counselor Matson.

Well, I fully agree with the sentiments that you've made.

Uh the province is doing this, you know, basically we're supposed to be a third order, third level of government, and they're taking away all our authority and just making us uh responsible for the taxes to pay for the infrastructure that we didn't particularly think our community needed based on the legislation the province has shoved down our throat.

But notwithstanding that, what I worry about is our province is becoming uh not gonna use that word, but so undemocratic as that they could actually get somebody to come in here and change what we've done to date to make it even worse to allow the things that we've tried to mitigate against.

And so for my it's I mean I have so little faith in the province now.

That's why I want to support this motion, because I think if we don't pass it, they could come in and and f force something down our throats that's again even worse than what we currently have.

So on that basis I'm going to support the motion.

And I don't know what I don't know what the province would do.

And I don't want to find out because I can't believe what they've done so far.

It's so undemocratic that they could do something even worse to my mind.

So I'm thank you.

Councillor Brown and then Councillor Lemon.

I had the honor of being a school trustee for twelve years in two different districts.

And I saw the province gradually strip away the powers of the school board.

Local taxation, long gone.

Local bargaining, long gone.

Personally, and it's no offense to anyone who's a school trustee now, but to me it's there, it's a waste of time.

And they're doing the same thing now to municipality local councils, too.

They're stripping away, stripping away, stripping away.

And eventually, what's there to do?

It's but cut some ribbons and on some some major projects.

Thanks, Councillor Brown.

Councillor Lemon.

I don't think there's any member of council that disagrees with you, Mayor Tobias.

Um, I am going to hold my nose and support it for many of the reasons that Councillor Councillor Matson has pointed out is that we've we've we've already got a target on our backs.

We have, you know, to use a phrase that was used a year ago, we have already tickled the elephant and they're watching us and they and they don't like us.

And I I think that there's every possibility.

I wouldn't doubt that the um this undemocratic government, this undemocratic party government, um could be punitive and in ways that we're, you know, just that we might we might regret.

So I'm gonna support it it's been a lot of work gone into this um we didn't like it then we don't like it now but uh there it is no appreciate everybody's perspective thanks Council Lemon Councilor Rogers I'm not sure if you're online did you want to weigh in I think you might be on mute yes thank you um yes like uh councillor Lemon and Matson I will hold my most nose and vote in favor one of the uh big problems that I think that uh where the province has shot itself in the foot is uh that aspect uh you you mentioned uh your worship is parking requiring and stipulating that no parking must be mandated on site.

Well there are very few developers that um are looking at uh the streets of U Royal that uh will see that uh their investment of uh demolishing homes and and uh the tipping fees at the land hill um heartland landfill dump the um uh the cost of infrastructure and and the hopefully the DCCs and ACCs that we we will be imposing on on these developments um will um be such that they'll do like um like we saw on on Eltham, that they had three lots, and yet they still felt it would be better to consolidate and build constructive um uh housing uh like townhouses.

So uh I think um uh and and the developers I speak to as well, there are feeling um equally as um uh concerned about uh Bill 44.

It'll be interesting to see what 47 does um to to the hospital area.

Um I think one other thing is that uh in the future we'll we'll have a different government.

In the future, hopefully Bill 44 will be dust, and in the future, I hope the future council would be more than happy to reverse course and and bring back um a plan that we own, not the province has done for us or in imposed upon us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Uh just before I go to a vote, um, and I'll pick up on something you said, Councillor Lemon, and certainly had made the comment before and I've reflected on it, and that's uh you don't want to tickle the elephant.

And I think you said that when the first housing legislation came out.

And then every year since we were hit with other things.

I don't think they're singling View Royal out, to be honest with you.

I don't I don't think they are.

I think that there is just a premedicated lobby checklist that they're generating legislation on.

Uh you know, the the next moves that I'm hearing the lobby industry industry wanting to do for the province is to appoint a housing czar that will make decisions like this for us.

And the new bill that's before uh committee now uh uh addresses that.

The other thing that they're lobbying for is not only would they send in a housing evaluator to evaluate our our progress on housing, but they would limit public transit to those people not meeting housing targets.

That was the next thing the lobby is asking for.

So I I don't firmly believe that that the province is singling View Royal out.

I think they're gonna single anybody out that doesn't comply through uh through legislation.

But we've got uh a motion on the floor.

Uh counselor uh uh Matson and Councillor Lemon seconded uh the OCP amendment bylaw 1156 2025 for third reading and for adoption.

All those in favor of third reading and adoption.

And councilor Rogers, uh, all those opposed to third reading and adoption.

Uh noting myself and councillor Brown voted against the motion does pass.

Um, thank you for that one.

And that was item four B.

That brings us to item C, which is a streets bylaw to reduce speed limits.

We've already gone through it and had the presentation.

Ivan, you didn't have another separate presentation or update to make?

Uh, Mayor Tobias, nope.

It's um basically the changes were made in accordance with the uh second and third readings, which was uh Atkins Road, east of six mile road to be 40, and then Burnside Road West to be 40.

I will mention that uh there was a um a typo in the street uh in the previous map.

So um Burnside Road West and Watkiss Way were were uh were swapped.

And so what we did is we took the resolution resolution literally.

And so you'll notice that um Waukas Way and Burnside Road West in the map are rated at 40.

Um, but it was in the spirit of the discussions as well.

Um so it aligns well with the resolution.

I'll move adoption.

Thank you.

Second question.

Uh moved by Councillor uh Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

You had a question.

Go ahead, Counselor Rogers.

Thank you.

Um the map that I have for 1159 uh shows that um Atkins is still 50.

Uh Mayor Tobias, the map that's part of this um agenda shows Atkins being 40 kilometers an hour.

It is in magenta, and in the legend it says it's been 40.

Okay.

So it'll be 40 north north.

Oh sorry.

I my my concern, your worship, is that um I don't know how we decided that it would be 40, but um because I thought it would be um green cons consistent to 30k because of the hazardous road conditions that is it uh I'm sorry that this is uh an obvious error motivation well motivation is that um he's for me I get to motivate now right for oh okay yeah were you done your comment Council Rogers?

Well um I I look forward to uh um is if this is passed uh soon getting an amendment to um address uh Atkins uh that should be 30K that that segment of road it's it's but I will speak to that later so thank you counselor Rogers.

Councilor Matson.

Yeah, just in terms of motivation.

I'd just like to see this approved.

And if we find out that there's things that we've missed or little changes, we can always we can always make an amendment to the bylaw, but let's not let the perfect stand in the way of the good.

So I think we should just approve this tonight.

Thank you.

Uh Council Lemon.

Motivation.

No, I'm I'm pleased to see the change made by um Eagle View School.

And uh that was my concern last week, so I'm good with it.

Thank you, Council Lemon.

As was mine.

Any other comments, Councilor Brown?

I'm I'm still uh confused.

I live on Atkins, and it's it's 30 now.

Um Savory Schools are so it's a school zone, so obviously it goes to 30 regardless.

But um it it's I don't know, it's it's people might not be happy if it goes up to 40.

If it's right right now it's 30 council lemon um am i s uh to staff are we seeing this correctly that if you're going from say this six mile pub area um up six mile road to atkins if you turn right it's 40 but if you turn left and go towards Lankford and Councillor Brown's place it's 30 right mayor Tobias, Councillor Lemmon is 100% correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Okay, that's good.

Thanks for the clarification.

Um, however, if you turn right by this the overflow parking lot for Theatus Lake, um it would make more sense the other way around.

40k 40k on that section is kind of ridiculous.

But anyway, whatever.

Um there's not a not a lot of people go up that road.

It's a dead end anyway, at least it is now.

Um, but it's again just my own confusion because it's always been you're right, the section when you turn right.

After you go around the roundabout and then go left, which is a lot of fun.

But anyway, um, I rest my case.

Um whatever, it's not a big deal.

Thanks, Councillor Brown.

Uh Councilor Rogers.

Thank you.

Yes, I I will support the motion, and as uh Councilor Matton says, let's get this thing done.

And um then I invite all of council to go and see what it's like to travel down Atkins.

Um, you know, at that road is extremely narrow, it's on on the edge of a cliff, and and we have handicapped individuals that are uh using that road.

So let's be compassionate, let's fix it after this bylaw is passed.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Uh any other comments?

Uh we've got a motion on the floor to uh move adoption.

Um moved by councillor Matson and Lemon.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries and amendment a plan to amend the zoning bylaw for deleting zoning regulations pertaining to landscape security that we had a briefing on.

Um staff, is there any other comments?

I'll move adoption.

Councillor Mattson moves adoption.

Counselor Brown uh seconds any comments or questions?

My only comment motivation is we've actually made it easier for developers.

Um and so I will support it on on that basis because the changes staff have introduced make makes sense to me.

Councilor Brown, anything to add?

Nope, no comments.

Okay.

Any other comments?

All those in uh do we make any comment, Councilor Rogers?

Uh yes, thank you.

Um the only comment would be that um once we've got this done, we have a closer look at um the boulevard trees and and not only see there's not only the when uh developers are required to um plant trees, it's not only the boulevard, but the lawns that uh are further in from the boulevard that the property owners are supposed to maintain or the the strata, whatever it is.

So um I think we need due caution and and ensure that those trees do survive and our tree canopy does survive.

Thanks, Councilor Rogers.

All those in favor of the motion for adoption?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries, and I think related was uh 1162, which is a bylaw to amend development procedures by law to establish new procedures respecting landscape security, cancellation of applications and reapplication.

Can I get with the same mover and seconder?

Uh do you have any other further motivation?

No further motivation.

Councilor Brown.

Comments or questions?

Uh the motion is for adoption.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries unanimously.

Uh I think that brings us down to the mayor's report.

I've got a few things to say, but I will save that for later on in the agenda.

Uh the appointments to committees have remain unchanged.

And commissions and boards miscellaneous uh appointments and approval of those tag days.

So if move A to D seconder, seconded by Councillor Brown.

Is anybody wanting to make any changes to those appointments?

They can always be amended later.

If there are no changes, all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, that carries unanimously.

I think this brings us down to uh petitions and delegations of which there are none.

Staff reports, development variants period uh permit for 2025 for 1701 Island Highway.

Are we just waiting for Carl to load your presentation?

Thank you, Carl.

Thank you, Mayor and Councils.

This presentation is for development variance permit uh two thousand twenty-five zero four for 1701 Island Highway.

So the applicant is requesting one variance, the town's sign bylaw to increase the maximum sign area uh for an existing re-standing sign.

Next slide, please.

So this application was introduced at the November 12th, 2025 Committee the Hole meeting.

Following the meeting, a public notification was completed in accordance with the town's development procedures by law.

And following this presentation, the public will be given an opportunity to provide comment before council makes their decision.

I believe in the agenda there's already been uh one email received to from a member of the public.

Next photo, please, or next slide, please.

Uh so on the screen is an aerial photograph of the subject property.

Um, 1701 Island Highway is located on the corner of Island Highway, and Wolfort Road in a zone C7 Business Park.

So there's presently three commercial buildings on site that are occupied by Sirius Coffee, Excalibur Glass, and there are several offices and a daycare in the third building.

Next slide please on the screen you can see where the red star is.

That is where the existing freestanding sign is located.

The applicant is looking to add to this existing sign poll uh with an additional um two signs.

Next slide, please.

So uh in 2009, council approved a development variance permit uh to permit uh the sign freestanding sign at its current height of eight meters, um which exists the current bylaw, um, and as such is seen as legally non-conforming.

Uh previously the freestanding sign also had um weight rights proposed like peak uh and excaliber glasses sign, uh a sign for big O tires, which was approved back in 2015 before our current sign by law came into effect.

At the time, uh the sign was approximately the same size as what is currently being proposed today.

So uh zero 3.7 meters squared.

Next slide, please.

So staff are in support of the requested variants to increase the maximum sign area because the proposed sign meets all other requirements of the freestanding sign bylaw.

Furthermore, it is not unusual for a commercial property to have a freestanding sign where they have several businesses have with their signs to advertise that they are located on this property.

And by saying that it's would be compliant with all of the regulations in the sign bylaw, that would also it would also be required to comply with like section 3.7, for example, which speaks to brightness um and and how what what kind of light it would be able to emit uh at daytime or nighttime um so next slide please so the recommendation before you today um is that council authorize the issuance of the development variance permit um following any comments that may be received by the public thank you thank you very much for your presentation and do we have any comments from the applicant at all is the applicant here no uh it's not here uh comments from the public.

If there are any comments from the public specifically on this development experience nobody in the room uh carl, do we have any online?

My mic was out of position.

Sorry, uh nobody on the uh message system.

Mayor Tobias.

Thank you, Carl.

Appreciate it.

Um and just before we go to have a discussion about this, um, and noting the correspondence, I've got a couple of questions.

Uh one is: is there any change to the amount of light that the sign will emit now?

Did they change any of the electrical uh bulbs?

Uh they would be adding a new sign, right?

So the new sign would have new light bulbs by comparison to the existing sign.

Um, but no, they're not changing the the wiring.

Um they're using that same light pole structure and the existing wiring in place.

Okay, the current height of the sign will not change.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

So we're just adding another um sign onto it.

Do we have so is the the there's a serious copy sign there now?

They're adding a sign below that, so the height won't increase, the electrical output or the illumination will increase.

Um are both of those signs or is the current sign left on all night, no dimming.

Um through the chair.

Um I'm unaware if it dims per se, um, but I do believe the sign is left on all night.

Okay, thank you.

Those are all of my questions.

Colleagues, do you have any class questions?

Those were them.

Counselor Brown.

Move the staff recommendation.

No, I have a question.

Uh we got a motion on the floor, so that's gonna overwrite it.

We got a mover.

Do we have a seconder for staff's recommendations?

Second by Council Master.

Or are you seconded, Councilor Rogers?

Okay.

That's what you were doing with your head?

Or did you want to make a comment?

Hi, I call it, please.

Okay, go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

Uh question to staff.

I just wanted to confirm in the correspondence we received.

Um this is not anything to do with the uh casino, uh doubling the signs, there's signage, it's uh actually to do with serious coffee through the chair that is correct.

It is not regarding uh any signage for the casino, it is for signage regarding um peak vitality health care, which is I believe physiotherapist, um, and for Excalibur Glass.

Yes, thank you.

I just wanted to make sure that we uh the writer is uh um corrected on this.

Thank you.

And one last question.

So the only indication for those businesses being in the same building now are the signs on the building itself.

There's nothing out in the front current.

Um to my knowledge, Excalibur Glass has a sign as a we we've already seen their sign come in.

Um and I don't believe Peak Vitality has like a physical sign on the third building, uh simply because they're inside and I believe on the second level.

Um so they have no exterior signage on the building currently.

Okay, thank you.

Uh any other comments?

Got a mover and a seconder.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, that motion carries.

Thank you, folks.

Just wanted to point out we've come a long way since the days we wouldn't approve anything that didn't look like the science and whistler.

Uh I think that brings us down to item B, which is development permit with variance application number 202506 for 20818 Shoreline Drive.

Hey Doctor.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh next slide, please.

So where we are in the process, similar to the other application, this is a development permit with variances, and we are at the stage in the process where uh council is to make a decision on the uh the permit and associated variances.

Next slide, please.

The subject property is uh over 1,000 square meters.

It is located at the end of Shoreline Drive.

It's the second house from the end on the left.

It is a waterfront property adjacent, I think in the area, we have Christie Point Apartments off Craig Allen, and it's kind of just past uh Shoreline School.

Next slide, please.

The surrounding actually, this is the site itself in November.

The existing dwelling was removed.

It's shown in the upper right-hand corner at the end of October, I believe.

Next slide, please.

And uh the surrounding dwellings are single family residential as uh as shown here.

They're all uh two, two and a half stories.

Uh next slide, please.

The development permit area covers the rear yard, just the 15 meters from the from the natural boundary.

Uh these are two photos of the rear yard.

Uh there are three trees in the center of it that would be preserved, including a uh Gary Oak that's leaning quite over, as you can see in the right hand on the right hand side that she leans over the water.

Uh the yard itself has been highly modified, lawn ornamental species.

The proposal is to um to uh to revise completely redo the the rear yard, preserving those trees and uh and restore it with natural vegetation next slide please uh so some of the trees uh there's some replacement trees from other parts of the site that would be uh replanted with replacement trees along the north edge with uh with the neighbor there to create kind of a uh small kind of uh grove there would be a wooden walkway from the proposed dwelling down to the uh natural boundary um and that would be kind of elevated like a like a boardwalk um there is a um there is a two-foot retaining wall made of um basically boulders and other um other kind of scrap materials that are kind of deteriorating.

The proposal is to uh do kind of hand restoration with rocks and create kind of planting pockets to uh to kind of maintain that that small uh retaining wall.

Uh there would be a gravel path that goes partway through and through the through the yard, but uh predominantly that yard would be would have four different planting zones of different native plants and some additional replacement trees along the south south edge.

Um the plants that are being proposed, most of them along the water, uh, are water, our plants that are uh include some salt water tolerant plants, salt, uh, because this um because the the uh the area in front of the north the shore is kind of a mud flat.

Uh as part of the development permit area guidelines, they uh look at require the property owners to look at the potential for flooding.

And so this uh this landscape that we see here is one that will be kind of resilient as as uh sea level kind of rise happens over time.

A consequence of that is the site is is fairly um low lying, and uh to build the dwelling, which is outside the Devolving permit area, would have been below where the um sea level rise may uh one level one meter sea level rise that may happen within the hundred years uh kind of would would hit kind of the the middle of the property.

So the proposal here is to raise land outside the develop the development permit area um by about two feet or so it uh to sort of put it above what the uh the geotechnical engineer has considered to be the flood construction level.

So this um this yard here uh so the rear yard itself within 15 meters would be naturalized.

Eventually over time it'll it'll be uh it may be flooded.

Um but there would be um kind of another retaining wall kind of at the uh at the flood setback uh outside the development from area that will um that will kind of preserve the uh the the two-thirds of the property that are um from from flooding within the life of the building.

Um next slide please.

Consequently, uh because the building would would be when we measure the height of a building, it's measured from from the existing grade or the natural grade, whichever is lower.

They're proposing to raise the grade by a little bit, and that means uh so the house will be raised up, but the height is still measured from the natural, the existing existing level.

So as a result, um a height variance is requested to increase the height permitted height from 7.5 meters to eight meters.

And the other the other uh variance is is because the because one third of this the site will eventually be, you know, could become flooded.

Um they propose to move building a bit closer to the uh to the front, and that requires a uh requesting a front lot line setback from 7.5 meters to 6.4.

The final variances, there's two of them, is is to comment that wooden walkway in the back because it's because it's elevated, uh parts of it is over two feet above the grade, it's considered a structure and uh has to comply with the rear yard setback and and also the setback to the natural boundary of the sea.

So those two variances are for one wooden structure that's functionally a ramp that goes from the from the rear of the house to access the the rear lot.

Next slide, please.

Uh this is uh a view of the uh dwelling viewed from the road.

Uh the solid line is the existing grade.

The uh the dashed line is the proposed finished grade.

So that's a difference of um 68 centimeters.

And consequently the house is lifted above that because the floor space still has to be above the flood construction level.

So and that is why the height variance is requested because it's measured to the existing grade.

And it's only for one part of the building on the left-hand side.

Next slide, please.

That shows shows the relationship to the adjacent neighbors.

So the property to the right at 280 Shoreline Drive is higher.

This property will still be lower than that than that lot.

It will be a little bit higher than the property to the left.

However, there would be a little retaining wall and they would have a hedge that would provide privacy between the two lots.

The other consideration is that in the future, if that property to the left were to rebuild or redevelop, they would be subject to the same flood construction level.

And we can expect in the future they will also have to raise the grade to accommodate a building.

Next slide, please.

Kind of similar uh similar to other dwellings on the street um the difference of for for to approve the garage is is not considered to be significant there's still room enough to park a large vehicle in the uh in the driveway in front of the garage next slide please and this shows the location of the uh the wooden walkway uh it's basically it's just it's just a ramp so um it's not wouldn't have uh off-site impacts.

Uh next slide, please um and uh actually one more slide, please.

Okay, one more slide.

Additional information requested at the when those wasn't choose at committee of the whole last month was what are the impacts on shoreline drive.

This is a section that show a site section that shows the shoreline all the way up to the actual road itself.

And the lines that are shown show the existing grade and the the additional grade that be raised for the house.

The shoreline drive as it is based on the geotechnical flight construction level would still be above the flight construction level.

So shoreline drive even if the large storm is is still considered to be um to be accessible to the neighborhood.

Next slide please.

And then this is a uh an aerial photo where uh where we took the the flood construction level shown in the geotechnical report.

Uh the solid line is um is the approximate is the designated flood level.

Um basically if nothing was done uh in if there was a one level one low one meter sea level rise at a high tide and a storm uh we would see uh those areas kind of um inundated with water um and the dashed line is the flood construction level so if you were to build um a building that was kind of slab on grade uh would have to be located where the uh where the dashed line is um again if you were to build closer to it you would have to have like a special foundation and the flood level the uh the underside of the floor system would be above the flood construction level so that's additional information uh next slide please uh so the applicants provided letters from the two adjacent uh neighbors in support of the application.

Uh the recommendation is to um is to approve the development permits, including the uh including the requested variances.

Thanks, Jeff.

Are you ready for some questions?

Russ?

Great.

Go ahead, Counselor Mutz.

Thank thanks for the presentation, Jeff.

Um in the recommendations number four, reduce the minimum setback of an accessory structure from the national boundary to the sea from 15 meters to zero meters.

I know it what it's for, but would that allow somebody in the future to put a building right at the at the end of that structure?

I mean, because we've already can they just ignore the uh elevated wooden walkway part of the variants we're giving them and just build something at the end of it?

Uh through the mayor, no.

The the variance is as per the plans so specific specifically for the walkway.

So what's the environmental risk in either the construction or the completed project or does this add to the environment, Jeffrey Mayor, uh the purpose of this is actually to improve the uh the the ecosystem there.

Uh the because it's a lawn you're you're providing plants that are actually uh suited to the location and suited to the new conditions.

Those would and uh furthermore, you were going from a a lawn with ornamental species to completely native uh native species.

So this is actually um the project we've done the last 10 years.

This is this is one that is exceeds the DevOne permit guideline recommendations, which calls for 50% kind of restoration kind of area.

So this is this the complete rear yard except for the the two walkways.

So they're doing the good work of the town and paying for it themselves on their own property, which is awesome.

This application came in earlier this year, it's I think before summer.

And what's it worth?

The whole the whole thing.

Um I would not be able to answer that question.

A lot of money, right?

I I don't know the figure, but it's yeah, it's a bit more than your usual.

I can ask that uh to the applicant.

Uh my next question is Is uh the landscape security deposit forty-three thousand dollars for this work?

Is that taken into consideration our new bylaw amendment?

Uh for the mayor, the new bylaw would apply to it.

And so basically, once the construction, once the landscape thing work has been done, then um there would be this a kind of a holdback for warranty purposes for part of it for two years, but the bulk of it would be returned once the work is is complete.

How much out of the forty-three thousand dollars would be returned to the applicant on completion of the work, but I guess at that point we're just waiting to see if the trees taken what yeah I believe it's 10%.

Um I can just do a quick calculation be 10% of um 120% of the uh landscape cost estimate so I can provide you with an approximate figure if you like.

Yeah just round is it I would have to I would just have to do a quick calculation okay yeah okay uh I'll go to uh counselor brown you had a question the staff recommendation okay we're we're not quite quite there yet, but we'll we'll come there in time.

Is there any other questions for Jeff at this point before we go to is the applicant here?

Jeff.

I think the the property owner was intending to participate uh online.

I can't see if it's telling you things.

Okay.

So they're they're not here.

That that that's uh okay.

Um Councilor Rogers, you had a question.

Yes, please.

Um Jeff, the um I understand the the whole ask rationale for the increase uh height variance uh from 7.5 to 8, but I'm wondering at what point of the the building uh it uh when I see a cross section of the the building it it looks part flat roof and then there's a peak section, a high section.

Is that eight meters from that high section?

That's what the mayor.

Uh this is the the slope of the roof yeah it would be is is fairly flat it would measure to the highest point of the building highest point okay thank you your worship Leanne you've got an answer for me I have a number for you yes um so the landscape cost estimate is forty three thousand dollars we take a hundred and twenty percent as a lot a landscape security deposit uh once the landscaping is completed we will hold back ten percent of that which is five thousand one hundred and sixty dollars for a two-year period.

Okay, that's a little bit more reasonable for me.

So before they do the work, they give you a deposit of forty three thousand dollars just to ensure that they continue the work to the standard that they said they would.

After everything's done, you give the majority of that back, except the number that Leanne quoted, just to ensure that the plantings and the trees take place.

Okay, I'm I'm clear on that now.

Um I think if the applicant is not here, we can go to comments from the public.

Is there anybody in the public that would want to uh discuss any concerns with counsel about this development variance permit for 2818 Shoreline Drive?

And it could be for or against repeat my name and address jody's wicker park ridge place is there any archaeological in this area that was determined that's a good question um there's no known sites on this property uh but it has been f quite modified quite a bit um but if something is um is encountered there's a chance find protocol that the property owner the builder would have to engage with the province on thank you and thank you for your question.

Any other comments from the public?

Questions?

Seeing none.

I guess we go down to correspondence and is there a late item?

No, there is no late item there, so there's no correspondence.

Um I think this could go to our deliberations now.

I think.

Councilor Brown, you wanted to move?

Yeah, I move staff recommendation.

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Mattson.

Any comments, questions?

Councilor Brown, go to you first.

Councilor Rogers, anything.

Nothing heard.

Um so uh yeah, uh Council Luman.

Quick comment, and I I think this is a thoughtful um development proposal.

And uh I observed that the the tides are consistently higher, and so I you know I appreciate they've considered sea level rise um rigorously in their planning here.

Thank you.

Uh so we've got uh mover and a seconder.

Uh no other comments or questions.

All those in favor?

Any opposed seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you very much, Jeff.

Um I think that brings us down to you, Ivan, for your recommendation for Hamkin Road and Watkins Way.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

I'm the young director of Engineering.

I'll just wait for the presentation to be booted up.

Thank you, Carl.

So yes, this report before you is a request for decision on the Helmcken Road at Watkis Way intersection.

Um we've had a few meetings on this in um 2024.

We brought forward a few options and had an option in uh approved in principle for this intersection.

Uh and then in 2025, uh there was a request for an inquiry on a Calgary curve for the intersection, and then uh what resulted was essentially a a relook at the intersection.

As part of the budget deliberations, council gave direction to staff to look at a more simplified design for the intersection to do two things predominantly.

One is to fully protect pedestrians crossing Helmcken Road.

And the other design change is to protect or to have a dedicated left turn lane from Chancellor Avenue, making a left turn down towards the Highway One interchange.

There's also comments about having limited to no changes to the lane configurations.

So as a result, we we retained a transportation uh planning engineer to take a look at what available options they are, uh went through design modeling to see what impacts uh there may be and what opportunities there there are.

So there were two signalization options.

Next slide.

So I'll just run these, I'll I'll go through the basics on the on this.

There were two options given the existing lane configurations.

Uh the first option is what's called a split phase.

And so what that is is basically if we're to look at the uh the movements of Waukis Way and Chancellor Road, um there's a dedicated phase for the chancellor movement, and there's no movement on the walk is side.

And then when that change signal changes, it it switches.

So walk is goes and chancellor stops.

And the benefit of that is that it basically protects the pedestrians crossing Helmcken Road as there will be no left-turning vehicles.

There are still potential conflicts with the right-turn vehicles on Chancellor.

However, that can be mitigated.

I can explain that in the future.

It also allows for a dedicated left turn away from Chancellor.

The second option is what's called a legging left turn lane.

A lot of our a few municipalities are starting to adopt this.

And what this basically is, is that the intersection will go through the motions of its signalization phasing, but it will leave a dedicated phase for left-turn vehicles.

Uh in this case, Waukus Way left-turning northbound to Helmkin.

And so by doing that and by having it lagging, and what lagging means is that uh it happens after pedestrians cross.

So pedestrians get the right of way first, they cross when they finish crossing, then the left turn lane goes.

So that's the definition of a lagging left turn phase.

Um based on the uh the analysis done, it was found that uh these these two intersection configurations will result in about a two times delay, so twice as long based on the existing phasing.

Next slide.

I just wanted clarification: what a two times delay means.

Uh two times delay means twice as long.

Twice as far.

For queuing and time.

So if the existing queue was 100 meters, then your new queue as part of this phasing would be 200 meters.

So 100 times two is 200.

200 meters, yeah.

That's an example.

200 meters of queuing cars.

Yeah.

Yeah, the lineups, the lineups would be for twice as long.

Your intersection timing, like if you were to arrive at a light stop, and then by the time your green time goes again, it would be twice as long as existing, generally speaking.

Go ahead.

Just before you move on, And sorry.

Um so with both of these, pedestrians would be more protected.

Right.

I'll get to that.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Uh Mayor Tobias.

So this next slide is hard to see here.

Um, but what is basically is an example of what the existing conditions are of uh midday midweek, which is typically the the busiest.

And there's a lot of red on Helmcken Road, especially when you when we reach towards Burnside Road at Helmcken Road.

There's also a little bit of yellow on Watkiss Way by Walk is Way by the roundabout near the hospital.

And so it doesn't really, you don't we don't really need an engineer to say what a two times delay would do to the existing conditions.

It it will it will elicit some safety issues.

There's already a lot of resonant complaints, uh staff observations and um consultation with Sanich about the impacts of the waukus intersection that has that that it has on the burnside intersection.

It basically backs up so much that it impacts the burnside intersection.

In addition to that just to speak to what uh counselor Lemmon was was asking because the delays are so long it actually reduces the amount the the crossing opportunities basically the ability for us for a person to push the push button to cross Helmkin road um it'd be a lot less than what it is right now.

So there's a lot less crossing opportunities for pedestrians to cross Helmkin.

Even though it's protected uh the delays are quite onerous for pedestrians to just wait twice as long for the signal.

Next slide.

Opportunities.

So engineering and the and our consultants kind of looked at what can be done to alleviate this delay.

Essentially, the delay is what's causing the issue with safety and uh crossing opportunities protection measures.

So logically, if we could reduce the amount of queuing on the Helmkin, then we could improve the level of service for the entire intersection, allowing us to add in an additional phase, whether it be a left a legging left turn or a split phase.

So the primary design adjustment that uh staff of are recommending is to add an additional self-bound lane onto Helmcken Road and shift the left turn lane.

Seems like a tall order.

It's probably not a lot of work physically.

Uh it would involve removing the um pinch point on Helmcken Road on the downhill of the intersection.

And then there'll probably be some pavement marking updates so that the hash, the hashed yellow markings would become a full travel lane.

And then a portion of the median would be uh removed to shift the left turn lane.

So the two additional lanes are in yellow in the in the report ahead of you, and then the red arrow is the dedicated left turn lane on Helin going up to Chancellor.

So doing this substantially increases the level of service and intersection, provides a little bit more float to add in additional measures to protect pedestrians.

Next slide.

So what would that do to our uh you know two times and one point nine times if you made these changes?

Mayor Tobias, I'll get to that.

So this next slide ahead of you shows the improvements to level service of the intersection by having two lanes uh going southbound on Helmcken Road.

What we see for southbound traffic is a 55 to 60 percent improvement in our queues.

Um in doing that, we do get an overall performance of intersection of around plus or minus eight percent.

It's nominal.

Um, what I do uh and just to kind of um help council understand why it's only a 8% improvement when we have a 55 to 60 percent improvement on the southbound.

The reason why is because any the any option, option one or option two adds an additional phase to the intersection.

So it already adds several seconds of another of a of uh of timing that's not realized right now.

So what I can say is that you know, with that 55-60% improvement, it does improve the level of service of the existing intersection, but by improving pedestrian accessibility accessibility and protection, you're providing more delays.

So in this case, we're getting a around plus or minus 8%, depending on time of day improvement.

For us to look at the smiley faces on the right of the screen, um, southbound, obviously, a green happy face, that's nice.

Uh, we do see um some limited uh nominal um delays on Wakis Way and Chancellor, but they're very, very nominal, they're very, very minimal.

Uh, northbound, there's a little bit of a Q increase by about two vehicles, but it doesn't, and based on our discussions with the ministry, is it's uh it's okay in their books.

It's not impacting their uh their uh their level of service.

In addition to that, if you look in the screen here for northbound and Helmkin, uh we're proposing to make no changes on the uh northbound lane on Helmkin.

So before we had sidewalks reducing the lane up there.

So by keeping it as is right now, we're improving capacity for northbound lane compared to the previous option.

It's also a lot cheaper of an option.

Next slide.

So this is the lagging left turn lane.

It offers the similar results, uh, a little bit less so um because the legging left turn lane is a fairly efficient inefficient signal timing.

So what we're getting is around a 18 to 25% delay overall in the overall intersection.

In addition to that, the the works do require a change in the laning designations on Walkers Way.

So it's basically swapped.

The left turn is his own dedicated left turn and then the right turn lane would be a through right turn.

Next slide.

So staff's recommendation should council wish to look to protect pedestrians crossing Helmcken Road and to provide a dedicated left-turn lane off of Chancellor is to provide a revised split phase signal timing, which is akin to option one.

Uh, essentially, if you look here on the screen here, uh split phasing, again, like I mentioned before, phase one, Chancellor would have its own through, then it'll stop, then walkers will go.

It will require the removal of the pinch point.

Uh, that's shaded in blue, uh, to allow two-lane through traffic, and then shifting a left-turn lane on Helmkin uh into the median.

Next slide.

So, for the the recommendation we have before you is that for the purposes of 2026 budget deliberations, council directs staff to proceed with the design of the Helmcken Road Walkersway intersection that includes a split phase signalization design.

Option one of the report title requests for Division, Helmcken Road Walk-Space Intersection that incorporates protected left turning movements from Chancellor Avenue.

Uh, and it also includes the addition of a self-fund lane on Helmcken Road.

And that council directs staff to seek and apply for grant funding opportunities for this project, including the future BC Active Transportation Grant Fund Opportunities.

Um I just got an email today that that uh fund I think is going to be um postponed at this time, so we'll have to seek other grant opportunities.

Uh that said the recommendations be here before you, and I'm happy to take questions.

Thank you.

Questions for Admin?

Councilman Matthew.

I know this one's far-fetched, but uh like we have on uh Admirals, any chance for sort of like a pedestrian overpass?

So you don't have to walk across the street at all?

Uh Mayor Tobias, I do like uh Counselor Madison's thinking, very big picture.

Uh we do have an active transitation network plan of a series of locations for overpasses.

Um one hasn't one in this location hasn't been identified in our ATMP.

Uh that said, we do have a transitation master plan that we're uh going through right now, and certainly something that can be asked as part of that.

Um so barring funding, when would you see the earliest to be able to start on uh phase one, Ivan?

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias, uh, I don't know just yet.

Um, I was hoping to get some direction from council first before I go about uh retaining a designer to provide a concept in the cost estimate.

I do know that uh by not doing any work on the self side, uh it does improve the cost estimate that was previously done for council.

Um but at this time I don't know also because um the traffic signal changes and the timing and the infrastructure is probably uh the majority of the costs, but certainly something that I can provide as part of budget deliberation.

Okay, um my next question is just for confirmation.

So really you're talking about uh doubling southbound Hal Kelmkin north of Watkis.

Uh how far back?

All the way uh back to make it contiguous with West Burnside?

Uh Mayor Tobias, um, yeah, good question.

Uh no, it's uh basically it was similar to the previous design of Ashona Council.

Uh that's 110 meters, uh, which basically takes you almost to like in in Eagle Creek, there's that one exit uh that exits onto Helmcken Road.

It's around that location that where it except uh ripping out a boulevard that we paid good money to create and a bunch of trees to create a left-hand lane that would be an addition to the two.

I would certainly be okay, but I'm not a traffic engineer to do it to two-lane, but just have it straight ahead and left turn for your left-hand lane.

That might slow traffic down a bit.

I'm also very concerned about with one of our uh correspondents that they wrote in how difficult that southbound bike lane is, because uh folks will just take off like a rocket to the highway where there's a major crosswalk that goes from the bus station across the off-ramp.

Uh and so that's a real nasty uh an accident waiting to happen, and I'm sure that one already has.

And certainly there were has been several involving pedestrians uh in this one.

I'm just wondering what your thought is about um uh cheapening up that phase one and just having a straight line optional left turn southbound um helping.

Yeah, Mayor Tobias actually had that in my back pocket.

Um yeah, like about a year ago, um there is when we're working with the consultant, they made mention that we could probably work with a through left.

So a bench uh it'll be one of those where it's a green light with a left turn signal, so people are gonna make a left turn goes.

Uh and then when it's uh when when it goes red, then it's just through traffic, or you know, someone may may hover in the intersection and make that left term.

So I'll revisit that.

Um, but it was an option that was that was considered uh a year ago, and certainly something that we can bring forward.

Councilor Matson.

Yeah, just following up on that, the how many left turns are there from uh that particular area.

I mean I just can't see huge numbers of people unless they're coming out of the uh shopping center to get in, which might be the case.

Currently there's not a lot that I've witnessed.

There's a lot of right hands.

The only other way you can get out of that neighborhood is on uh Cam Camden, I'm gonna say that right.

Camden to take a right.

There's no left turn there.

There's no advanced left turn here, but to get into the neighborhood, uh it is possible on Camden to take a left southbound off Helmkin and it is possible now to do it here there's a a lane um uh but there doesn't seem to be a lot of traffic there Ivan I think I think Camden you're um only allowed to make a right turnout uh that said um there isn't a lot that makes that left turn into uh chancellor now in the future should development happen on the corner that may change and uh counsel does raise a good point in terms of what council can do on our behalf the only other observation I'd like to make, counsel, is uh the uh and I guess more or less a question for you, Ivan, as well.

Uh where Helmkin or old Helmkin Market is, is that property line uh pretty close to being exact around the building that it seems to go in quite a bit, and is that property the town's property that looked like a driveway into Helmkin Market?

Uh and that is on, I don't know, I think the fourth slide in there.

Oh yeah, I'm near Tobias, that's correct.

Uh Carl, maybe just go to the first slide, please.

So yeah, we're speaking at 38 in the corner there.

I'll be very brief um on this.

Uh in short, your property line is is fairly accurate.

It's not exact exact, but um that little driveway is meant for that 38 Helmkin um property.

Uh and so it's their driveway, but it's on town property, and as part of the whole holistic development of intersection, um, likely that driveway will be eliminated.

And and my next question is is the where does the Moti land start for View Royal and and not become is that right on when the on-ramp and off-ramp start?

Uh the ministry land is on uh if I could take a look just referring to the figure here, uh where it says Helmcken Road on the lower side on the left side, and you see some stop bars right there.

That's basically where the uh lives jurisdiction starts for ministry.

Thank you, Ivan.

Uh any questions?

Yes, please.

Yeah, go ahead, uh Council Rudd.

Yes, uh thank you for the uh the report.

It's um and the presentation with the uh um uh illustrations is very, very useful and very handy.

Um I I I'm certainly supportive of the uh uh staff's recommendation, the uh the split phase and and um uh whether or not we incorporate the left turn movement uh to Chancellor um from a Helmican uh I be f I I guess we're gonna see that um um bill 47 if it does uh result in a heck of a lot more density and and services and so forth then that will be an obvious thing that we'll have to um uh build it later if not sooner so that's um uh that's gonna be I think inevitable because of Bill 47.

So the um and I think we've taken care of um you know the major issues of uh pedestrian I'm I personally would have liked to see the two uh two lane Helmican uh southbound uh further up even halfway up to um to to Camden um and uh enabling the relief of the uh congestion that's happening in in that area.

Um so Ivan, what does um Modi have to say about the the recommendation that you're presenting to to council?

Uh Mayor Tobias, I haven't brought this concept to uh ministry just yet because I do want to have counsel's direction first.

Um that will be brought forward to the ministry, though.

Uh I would anticipate that it would be less of an issue, this option versus the previous options brought forward because uh we're not presenting um buffer bike lanes in in their jurisdiction.

Right.

Okay, that's great.

Um and speaking of uh Modi and their uh designs with respect to the um um bus shoulder project, aren't they incorporating some safety aspects that uh might benefit cyclists actually on the overpass?

Uh do is that correct?

Uh Mayor Tobias, this might be in relation to the um the correspondence that was added to the agenda about um from Mr.

Brown that corner, yes.

Uh yes, so um the ministry has brought forward uh updated designs to council over the last couple of years.

Uh staff have been engaged and consulted on uh what they'd like to see or what the concerns are.

Uh and so the I think the concept in 2024 brought forward to council showed what the conceptual changes are to that to that intersection.

Um I can certainly uh forward that to the writer.