Special Council

Good evening, and I'll call the uh Town of U Royal Special Council meeting for Tuesday, April 23rd, 2024 to order.

Um before I begin, let's start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Lakongwin speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

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

And when prompted, enter conference ID 114-260-650-pound.

You'll immediately be muted.

Once admitted to the meeting, please do not mute unmute yourself until you're asked.

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

Ask you to mute the why the live webcast to avoid feedback.

Ask you to not use your speaker phone.

And then when it's time for you to speak, I'll ask you to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

To begin, please indicate your name and street name.

Speakers will have five minutes each to speak during the public participation and two minutes to ask a question or questions during question period, and you will be timed.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

Your consented to being recorded, and recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

Uh so can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please?

Uh moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by councillor Rogers.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, and I'll look to you.

Don, I'll have to remember to look up.

How's our sound check?

Can you give me a?

I think you're muted right now.

Don confirmed in the chat that the sound was good.

Yeah, there we go.

I'm good now.

All right.

Perfect.

Great.

Thanks, Councillor Brown.

And regrets for uh Counselor Kualowicz.

We don't have any um uh minutes or receipt uh for to receive or adopt.

Uh Mayor's report, just a quick one, and then I wanted to thank Scott, Sarah, the rest of the staff for helping out with the Earth Day celebrations we had this weekend, particularly for uh John Rogers uh as well for all of the work that he's uh done over the years, and particularly for this event.

But it was a good opportunity to get together with some uh local families and celebrate Earth Day and learn more about what a wonderful orchard that we have that Rex has left us.

Um lastly, just some comments about the special agenda and why now.

Um with the housing legislation coming, you're going to see staff reports starting to come in now uh on those designations from uh the bills, this one in specific, and bill 47 and bill 44, um, and the uh SM uh UH housing legislation and infrastructure.

Uh so part of them are going to be uh staff reports that come in uh and some work from um the uh committees that I'd also like to thank for the housing standing committee that uh reviewed all these documents and staff for scurrying and getting some of those reports in that uh the committee had an opportunity to review earlier.

Uh so with that, I think we can move to there's no petitions and delegations.

We can move directly to per public participation period.

Anyone in the audience like to ask counsel on anything?

Carl, is there anybody on the phone?

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers so far this evening.

Okay, thank you.

Um I think that brings us down to reports.

And Leanne, I think you're up with the transit oriented uh area designated designation bylaw number 1134.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um, Mr.

Scorey, our senior planner, we'll give a brief presentation.

Well, while staff are heading up, I'm just wondering, do we know how many people are in the audience?

Do we have an audience?

Aiming online.

I know we have those two magnificent people in the audience over there.

Good evening, Council.

Uh sterling scorey, senior planner presenting the uh draft transit-oriented area uh designation bylaw.

So purpose of the file uh PowerPoint tonight is uh to introduce the transit uh oriented uh designation bylaw.

Uh it's time critical as the uh the deadline's fast approaching uh June 30th for the adoption.

Um staff have repaired the uh designation by law.

I'll show it on the second slide here, and it has been prepared in accordance with the province's requirements um outlined in the local government act uh following a meeting on Friday, we heard from the Standing Committee on Housing just to remove three properties off of Vickery Road.

So staff have made that change in the draft bylaw.

So you'll see that on the next slide.

And apologies, I'm having technical difficulties.

There we go.

Um, so the uh draft transit oriented map um is prescribed through the legislation uh from the province.

Uh it identifies uh two areas um within 400 meters.

So a 200 meter buffer area and a 400 meter buffer area.

The area shown with the uh hash marks uh are all process uh all uh properties within 200 meter uh meters, and those parcels with uh the dots show properties that are within 201 and 400 meters.

Uh the way that the province has uh passed legislation is that uh everything is drawn uh straight line from the identified uh transit oriented area, which happens to be a uh bus stop on hospital way next to uh Victoria General Hospital.

Um Sterling, could you just explain those two zones to make it clear for everybody in the audience?

So within the smaller circle, and and I think it will in the smaller circle, what does that mean?

In the bigger circle, what does that mean for the yeah to to uh to the mayor?

Um the the larger or sorry, uh the the smaller uh circle, uh the 200 meter area shows uh what would be permitted is uh up to uh 3.5 FSR and up to 10 stories uh of development.

Uh that's the minimum that a developer or applicant could come in and uh request.

Uh the secondary uh circle would permit up to two and a half uh FSR uh or uh six stories.

And again, that's a minimum.

So an applicant coming in could um request that and and council could not reject the application based on on those merits alone.

Just a quick clear now.

What's the parking requirement for those areas?

So within the trans uh transit-oriented area, parking is not required for residential.

Um it is required for commercial institutional uses.

So if there was a uh a mixed development that came in, um there would be no requirement for the residential portion, uh, but there would be for commercial and institutional.

And in addition to that, uh the uh the legislation does not exempt uh accessible parking.

So accessible parking still has to be provided and would be in accordance with the uh the zoning bylaw.

So staff mentioned, I think did this is the last time too.

You said the minimum that they could come in with.

You mean the maximum?

The minimum which is per prescribed through the uh legislation.

So there the applicant is allowed to build up to that minimum without uh rejection from council.

Council Lember.

Thank you.

Um Sterling, I I think FSRs confound many people.

3.5 FSR for minimum of 10 stories.

What what does that look like?

Would that would that be micro suites?

Would that be, you know, that can you put it into lay terms, what that might look like?

The mayor, uh a difficult question to answer, but the easiest way to answer it, I guess, would be to say it is dependent on the site.

Um 1.0 FSR would be uh a total total site coverage.

Um that's not likely uh to happen because we have other uh provisions in the zoning bylaw that speak to uh setbacks, lot density uh that covers uh impermeable surface coverage and surface coverage of the the lot, so actual building area.

So if a lot was allowed to have a 3.5 FSR and it was a thousand square meters they could potentially do six plus stories um the math there is that they're doing maybe 50% lot coverage so a thousand square meters divided by two and they would that would be two stories times three six stories plus the the half um and uh the lot coverage that would be permitted uh is dependent on the zone so you'd have to take into consideration setbacks and the um the maximum lock coverage so just because the the toa prescribes a uh a height and um uh density doesn't mean that it's exempt from the the zoning bylaws setbacks and lock coverage the other thing i'll clarify too is that the way that the proposed uh designation uh has been uh drafted would be that applicants would still have to go through a rezoning process um for uh development within this area good thank you thank you um sorry about the interruption sterling but uh we're getting old and we need to get our questions out of our head otherwise we forget them until the end.

So thank you for carrying on please that that's actually the the conclusion of this uh presentation um the the recommendation from staff is to uh prepare the necessary bylaw that would be uh designated and designate the transit oriented uh area outlined in the staff report uh in the agenda and um uh staff would anticipate coming back to uh council uh likely in May with uh uh a bylaw for consideration of uh readings uh to meet the uh June 30th deadline thank you Sterling and just to uh um uh you'll see it uh lower on on your agenda when Leanne and Sterling had prepared the initial briefing for uh the committee they had included two properties um uh that were adjacent to but not directly affected by this TOA.

Um uh the committee recommended they remove them can you point them out Sterling might make it easier for everybody's got a laser printer and I'm looking at that screen so does it help?

I don't know.

Sorry uh Mayor DeBias it it appears I'm having uh oh there you go mouse okay uh there they're out there yeah yeah so they didn't fall directly in the area, and our task was to um um comply with the legislation.

There's other opportunities to um look at what we want to do in the upcoming OCP.

So that was what the change uh was made in full transparency.

So any questions for staff before we dig into anything uh else.

Council Rogers.

Yes, thanks.

Uh certainly um if if the properties don't um touch the circle, I don't think they should be uh in involved.

Uh you know, they they don't, you know, the strict regulations of the province.

If they don't touch the circle, they don't uh qualify for the uh provincial designation, correct?

Through the mayor, the province does not uh you you can't not include uh properties that are within the 400 meters, but there's nothing in the legislation that says you can't add additional properties.

Staff's original recommendation to include the three properties was based on uh I'll call it best uh best practices from land use planning to avoid uh uh dwarf dwarf uh parcels um and uh parcels that would be potentially not included should a uh a rezoning application come in for those those lands so if if we worship but may follow up on that it's not to say that those individuals um could not apply as as a variance but at this point um and I would prefer more be have it be more comfortable if those individuals do wish then let them apply and and uh we would consider the merits of of their application or of council would um but to just include it shotgun with assumptions um is not really living to the true letter of the uh legislation as far as I'm concerned.

But I do a lot of without a question or a comment.

That's a that's a uh well question can can they not apply um uh to have that designation as an exemption at variance uh my understanding is if they're not included in the the toa um then they would just have to go through a regular rezoning application yeah um they wouldn't uh they wouldn't meet the uh the minimums pervo uh prescribed through the uh the province um regardless whether a property is within the the toa or not they still have to go through a a rezoning um if if the lands do not meet the uh the zone prescribed currently or uh if there's uh something that they're wanting to do um beyond the you know current uses yeah indeed if kind of on the on the same line um in when you do the center the center of the circle was that a specific latitude longitude uh provided by the province through the mayor the province provided us the uh the data I I I can't say whether it was a specific latitude long longitude.

Since that, you know, how else would you know where the center of the circle was?

Oh I think Leanne had a comment.

Okay.

Yeah, um through the mayor.

Um it's like the the crow as the crow flies.

So it's 200 meters, pardon me, or 400 meters out from the from the bus exchange.

Right.

And my my point, my question is, is 200 I get that as the crow flies.

Understand that entirely.

But uh somebody had to have made a designation where the center, the pinpoint, uh is and I thought that the problems provided a GPS location.

They did, yeah.

They did, yeah, where the bus exchange is.

So they actually they provided that location.

Excellent.

All right.

Thanks for that clarification.

So um the councillor Metz has a question too.

I have another I have another question, if I may, you wish you.

Thank you.

So uh so my point is with respect to number 10, Erskine Lane.

So, you know, we can prepare the bylaw, but I would certainly you know want to make a valid verification that number 10, Erskine Lane, also falls within that 200 meter circle.

Because it it seems a little questionable the way I see it and the way it's drawn here.

But let's uh we can easily validate that with uh um property lines and and doing that circle from the GPS point, right?

Through the mayor, the the the point that was provided by the parcel is drawn on the map, so the the point in in question with respect to GPS low coordinates would be accurate, uh as would the uh the measurements so the 200 meter and the 400-meter buffer.

Okay.

And I would say that's the same thing.

Something uh staff had also mentioned that sunk in for me, and I just wanted to reiterate it because maybe it hasn't for you.

If somebody wanted to go in and build a single family home in any of these lots, they can.

There's nothing preventing them to do that.

That's just that um they, if they wanted to utilize the specific uh legislative requirements, they could in the inner circle go to 10-story with no residential on-site parking, and uh up to what is it, six stories outside of that in the second layer of the circle, uh, with no on-site residential parking.

The other areas, even including the two properties that were pulled by by staff because it didn't match exactly the legislation are still going to be affected by the other provincial legislation right so they can still um uh be uh there's there's still going to be subject to um the next series of rezoning this was just for transit uh area uh or transit oriented um developments uh councilor mattson yeah i'm not sure if it's number 10 but the area just outside of the smaller circle it sort of just touches it as opposed to goes through yeah so is it is it under screen link does it actually have to be like is it any part of the property then is uh included in the like the 200 area even though the lion share of it is outside of the 200 I'm referring to through uh through the mirror correct uh counselor mattson if uh any portion of the property uh even if it is the property line or a very small uh sliver of the par uh property in this in this example it is uh captured in that uh in that designation and that is the direction from the province.

That's their sorry that's the province's direction.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh councillor Lemon and then counselors brown or McKenzie if you've got a question.

Uh Sterling, when we do our OCP given that the inner circle is the the uh um the center of of the of the high density do we need to designate that as specific to a size type of building in our OCP um thank you, Sterling.

So when we start looking at our OCP update, we would likely look at updating the OCP designations for this area so that it's consistent with the legislation.

But that's something that we can look at when we are embarking on our OCP review.

As Sterling mentioned, the only thing that we have to do under the legislation is designate the transit-oriented area.

That is the minimum requirement, which is what we're doing.

Then I'm gonna go to the others that haven't spoken first.

Did you have a follow-on, Councilor Mattson?

If there were no other questions, I'm just gonna move staff recommendations, even though I hate it.

Uh yeah.

So I just wanted to leave space, Councilor McKenzie, do you have any questions for staff?

Okay.

Uh Don, go ahead with your question, please.

Yeah, no question, but I would second Ron's motion.

Thank you.

And just uh before we go to a uh uh vote, uh Leanne, can you explain if council passed a bylaw that they required the first floor as a commercial for daycares or doctor's office, just a commercial space within this area.

They'd still uh have to be compliant to that.

But how would that work out for 10 stories?

Does that mean it's 11 now, or is that just our designation?

Nope.

Um, it would no that we wouldn't have it's it's it's just 10 stories.

Um and um and the the legislation actually doesn't prescribe uses, so it could be 10 story commercial building, like office building.

Um, it could be a 10 story mixed use building.

So they're not prescribing the uses.

Um and um, in terms of uh if we do get a proposal for a mixed use development um on one of the vacant lots here, and uh we can always work with the um the developer on you know encouraging ground floor commercial.

So I mean I I don't think that will be a hard ask.

I mean, given the location, it makes sense to do mixed use anyways.

Uh so it's um given the location.

So yeah.

Thank you.

Uh Council Rogers.

Yes, thanks.

With respect to the uh the bylaw, um there's there's you know, I'm I'm confused in terms of what section three of section schedule E is and um 585.52 of the local government act, and so in section 514, what are those um, and I'm sure anyone else will be looking at this bylaw and considering the ramifications.

Where does that reference and to what?

Can you help me with that?

Section 514 refers to the uh the local government act, and the the legislation that was passed by the province is rooted in the local government act.

So section section uh 514 is is referenced to the legislation that uh requires this uh this bylaw.

Okay.

Is it unreasonable to uh specify the GPS point um in this bylaw so that people know 200 meters from where?

Um I'm gonna answer this question, Sterling.

So the map already um identifies the the bus stop which was give um which was provided to us by the province, uh and it's and it's um is identified there with a symbol on our on our map.

Um, and then also just wanted to mention that our this this designation bylaw was reviewed by our legal counsel to ensure that it does meet the legislation and the requirements so it was it was um vetted by them thank you and my my point is this this is um 2024 that's terrific and the bus stop is where it is today if they redesigned the the whole street and other um um you know street changes on that because of the density and the bus stop is moved then we have a moving target and then we don't have a baseline reference i e a GPS point which is irrelevant to where the bus stop moves so it's um we presume that that bus stop shall always remain there and it likely won't.

So that's that's my point for you know clarity and um and longevity.

So uh I I had a similar question.

So uh this the TOAs were generated by the province and given to us.

So really if they arbitrarily move the bus stop, if it's of no consequence unless they change the regulation, the province changes the regulation designating those TOAs, correct?

Um so yeah, through the mayor, if the if this bus, if this bus stop slightly shifts, um I should go back.

Uh the province also worked with like BC Transit.

So we we we it was a combination of the province, BC Transit, and they told us this is where the transit stop is.

Um and we took that information to and the other information that the province gave to us to draw draw up these um these circles.

And so if that if that bus stop shifts in some shape or form, then um we we would may have to amend this bylaw in the designation.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, if there's no further questions, we got a a bunch to deal with, and then we have another meeting at the end of this.

So we got a mover and a seconder for staff's recommendation.

Uh all those in favor of moving staff's recommendation.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed motion carries for bylaw 1134.

And that brings us to item B small scale multi-unit housing extension review and update.

Sterling, I'm assuming this is you again.

You're on a roll.

Thank you, Mayor Tobas.

Oops.

Oh, uh.

Yeah, just um there's no formal presentation.

Um, I do have some slides here that were presented at the uh standing committee on Friday.

Um the purpose of this uh report and presentation uh just to provide an update to council based on the recommendation from the standing committee um from the April 19th meeting uh regarding an extension application uh for the uh coastal flood risk areas.

Uh since Friday, staff were able to have a discussion with a member of the province and were able to get some clarity on terms of what what would be considered for an uh exemption application.

So, with respect to um the uh idea of of applying for an exemption for the uh coastal flood areas uh and updating the official community plan and uh development permit areas and subsequent uh coastal uh adaptation plan.

Uh the individual from the province uh reiterated that those are not uh capital projects, those are rooted in and policy and also in procedure uh and they would not be uh considered uh a capital project nor would they be considered a um an ongoing uh project for uh deficiencies and services uh or or a uh obviously not a uh consideration for um a uh a community wide uh um uh catastrophe or or extraordinary circumstance um so that that's really all that the uh the that staff were wanting to clarify for this just that uh conversation with the province um and i do have the the slides just showing the the the smew mapping that that was uh conducted of um of importance per tap perhaps for this conversation was the existing development permit areas that we have in our uh in our community um the areas shown along the coastline is the existing water course and uh uh watercourse and uh natural shoreline uh area so it is regulated by development permit which is uh uh authorized through uh council and uh is subject to various different professional reports so if there was development in those areas, it would be subject to uh to council review and and staff review.

The uh flood areas that were in question that were discussed on Friday were those shown in red and yellow.

So the area shown in yellow is um the portage inlet.

Uh it shows uh uh the worst case scenario of flooding at uh two meters and a flood level of uh 4.63 meters, and then the red area shows a uh high watermark for a tsunami uh that is projected to be 8.46 meters uh and is a one in 2500 year event.

Um this information uh that all the data that was used to show the uh the flooding and tsunami uh information on this map was uh gathered from the capital regional districts inundation mapping project, which uh was completed in uh 2020.

And um i'll yeah i'll just share that uh staff are just uh they're recommending that uh this report be received for information thank you move a seat thank you uh go ahead for seconder mover which is counselor um masson seconder is counselor lemon uh counselor rogers you have a question yeah thank you for that um the you know you showed the uh yellow um areas of the um sea level rise uh to 2200 years, I believe, uh, with a two-meter increase.

Um what of the impact of a one-meter rise by 2100 um that would bring some of those properties uh you know part partially or otherwise um uh under you know threat and probably not insured for flood damage by insurance companies.

Any um does one meter at uh 2100 um present uh any options or exemptions to the province?

I think Leanne has uh uh an answer.

Yeah, so um this update report was just to clarify because there was a you know a lot of discussion at the steering committee meeting on this, and um, and we wanted to just confirm with the province that um an uh an extension request like this would actually quali qualify, and um so we didn't get into the nuts and bolts of of um like a one-meter sea level rise or a two meter sea level rise with the province.

It was just like, oh, would this qualify with as an ex as an extension application because the application criteria speaks to um infrastructure upgrades?

And um, and so the province clarified for us that um requesting extensions um to establish like development permit areas or refined existing development permit areas or to establish policy would likely not qualify for um an extension.

And so that's what this this is just to inform council on on that piece.

Uh again, we didn't get into levels of sea level rise and impacts, it's just in terms of qualifying for or being eligible for that type of application.

Okay.

So given that Sanders and Squamulton View Oil are entering in a common crisis pact to try and address sea level rise in the gorge and portage inlet and so forth, and likely to require some significant infrastructure works, is so the ability to uh pause developments until those infrastructures are complete is of no interest to the province.

Is that what you're saying?

The town is welcome to make an application staffed.

Staff just wanted to inform council that an application for extension to expand development permit areas or develop policy is it will likely not be eligible.

Basically, the existing infrastructure cannot support the current density under the SMA legislation.

I guess the um the other question, if I may, worship, um, and that's um you know mitigating risks and uh hazards.

Um one of the significant hazards to V Rule and the fire department has this report from the CRD and that's the um um the dam safety aspects of TheS Lake Dam three which is the beach and dams one and two in the back and when I was uh there um with last week with CRD Parks and a and a bunch of environmentalists um CRD Parks made specific mention um of concerns for TS Lake particularly uh with the uh atmospheric storm surge events in in the winter and uh sudden impacts um that would threaten to uh have the lake spill over the beach.

So their um their attempts to understand in mitigation and risk, low risk, high impact, um is uh their solution is to release waters uh out uh Craigflower Creek, which probably was a contributing factor to how Marlar Drive got swamped and uh significant housing damage was uh ensued.

Um and just as uh an aside, we are now having a land assembly uh efforts on Marlar Drive right where it's uh it's a flight plan in significant risk.

So um given that where CRD has concerns about uh this lake's ability for an eighteen eighties dam, earthen dam, that would not qualify these days.

Um wouldn't that be considered a mitigating risk and high impact that um would preclude um well may ensure not to put lives and property at in r at risk um through the mayor uh as many of those properties around theetis lake are exempt from the small legislation because those lands do not ha have um water or sewer servicing so they're they're exempt and also several of those properties are greater than four thousand and fifty square meters and are also exempt from the SMA legislation so those those the insect map there so the parcels north, North theetis area.

Highlands, Highlands area.

Uh, you're talking about Riverside Ridge?

Um, I'm I'm talking about um the highlands area in the Thetis, like sort of n um northern that used to be the land that used to be part of Highlands and now it's part of Uroyal.

Okay, you you're referring to the urban containment boundary.

Because I'm I'm specifically referring to Riverside Ridge, where there are the developments where I would assume that those properties would be uh, and that's where the land assembly is is being considered, right across Villa Creek, at Watkiss Way, on Marlar Drive.

And so in that area in the Riverside Ridge, all those properties that are, you know, you know, could be potentially impacted, even those along the the beach.

So my question is CRD Parks is very concerned about, and that's why they were so cautious about that buildings that were going into uh adjacent to Theatus Lake Park, that they did not have any high explosives that would cause some structural issues.

Now, um at this point, CRD does not have any monitoring devices that would give any indications of you know quake um impacts or liquefaction, whatever.

So wouldn't we consider that the the cautions of protecting private property property and lives, that there would be a reasonable application of the province to ensure that we don't put any more lives at risk in these areas with these old dams?

My question.

Um through the mayor, um as per council has to make a resolution tonight um if they were want staff to move forward with uh an application for extension to um to the province regarding the coal coastal flood risk areas.

Staff is more than happy to put in application.

Um however we have limited documentation um other than the 2021 CRD map.

Um we do we are required to put to submit submit reports with with the with the um with the application.

Um and uh yeah so again if that's what counts council if if council wants staff to do that, we're more than happy to um tonight is just to provide council with an update because we did get some additional information from the province that was not shared at the steering committee meeting.

And I'm gonna move to somebody else, Councillor Rogers, you've had a go.

Um, but uh the it all comes uh back to there's other recommendations down that the committee had made.

If we want to modify those, we can do it then.

But let's do it by motion as opposed to um and ensuring that we have the proper documentation that the province can do.

And just because we asked for an extension does not mean the province will grant it either.

Counselor McKenzie.

I think you've answered my question.

It was whether by moving receipt of this, if we were um asking staff to do something to uh make the request, whereas I understand this is just information.

So if we approve receipt, that's it.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, no, it's a uh it's a good was a good reminder for the committee, Councillor McKenzie, just where those areas are, what it looks like now with overlaying the uh CRD data and the um and uh the other areas off of Esquamwal Harbor so we could see how that intersects with our zoning right now.

Uh and uh the one thing that I learned from uh from staff is that those areas are already somewhat protected as a development permit area so that staff would have to review the type of mitigations that are already being built and that would still apply with the future zoning.

So if it was something was being proposed that was too close to um a reasonable uh thought of uh of water rise, then uh engineers would be called in to do an assessment and mitigations for those.

Um any other questions for staff on the uh small scale multi unit housing?

That's just called a question.

No questions, nothing.

Uh no other questions, and we've got a call to question, so let's take a vote on calling a question.

Uh all those in favor, calling a question.

Yeah.

Uh so uh we got a mover and a second or move receipt.

All those in favor.

And I'd like to make make another motion you wish.

Uh yeah, we can do that now.

So that motion passed unanimously, I guess.

Um Don, did you have a question?

I saw your hand up for a second, but was that indicating that you're in agreement?

No.

Or you had a question.

Yeah, in in agreement.

Okay.

Uh and your your motion, Councilor Rogers.

Sorry, thank you.

I know.

I no, it's receiving the report.

Well option one was to receive.

To just receive it.

Yeah, this one uh item B was received, but there's some recommendations that we'll deal with in item 8.3 uh regarding uh the yeah, regarding uh a second councilor Rogers.

Yes, thank you um yeah so we've moved the receipt with respect to the coastal flooding risks but um my uh my motion is with respect to the's lake and the dam so that um let me make a motion we can talk about it okay and see if we get a seconder so um my motion is that uh we apply for an extension um based on the crd re uh report on the's lape uh dam and the the um um hazards um related to that um that dam.

Um and it's um it's you know that not to not be practically uh mitigated.

So yeah, if my motion is someone can check it, we can discuss it.

Question for staff, do we have a copy of that?

Uh or does anybody have a copy of that?

Um uh through the mayor.

Um I don't um I don't have a copy on hand, but I'm gonna pass it over to Director Lung because he'll he ha he can provide counsel with an update.

Thank you very to bias.

Yeah, I don't have a copy myself too, but um that question itself with respect to safety as a result of um a dam issue at Thetis Lake, it it could be um it may be good to pass it to uh the fire chief because he has been working on EvaC plan to make sure that uh risks associated with uh with life is mitigated and um engineering has been working with them in terms of the operational component, the rules and that, but um in terms of the issue with with what uh counselor Rogers is speaking to uh I would imagine the province may ask for some information from the fire chief.

So it's certainly an option to to do as council wishes right now.

Um however, uh Chief Hearst may have some more information.

Thank you.

Ivan, so we got a motion on the floor.

Is there a seconder for Councillor Rogers motion?

Maybe I speak more?

Second, if you don't have a second or no.

Uh uh.

No, no, no.

This is entirely different.

Without a seconder, we can't proceed.

Yeah, with your motion.

Um, so uh that motion passed and carried to receive four.

Uh so you did you give two kind of briefings there at once?

Um uh Sterling, you did the kind of an update for the coastal risk areas, and then you kind of blended that with the uh with the housing lace legislation infrastructure.

Uh and now it goes over to Ivan, I'm assuming.

That's that's correct, Mayor Tobias.

Yeah, I did uh seven in uh or sorry, eight point one staff reports.

I did uh A and then I also did uh B and uh I've lungs now.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias Evan Leong, Director of Engineering.

Uh I have before you a um it's actually the exact same replica report from the standing committee meeting that happened last week uh regarding SSMUH housing legislation and infrastructure.

Uh I won't go into too much detail here, but for those that weren't um available for standing committee meeting, I'd provide a little bit of a uh a little of a summary of discussions.

So uh the purpose of this exercise is to see here we have a map.

Um the standing committee has uh requested uh staff to find properties within the SMA designation that uh do not currently have sidewalks in front of their property or across the street.

So uh in essence, underserved by sidewalks.

This is uh considered by the standing committee to be uh an issue uh with respect to density and uh pedestrian um safety and accessibility.

So before uh the standing committee wanted uh before the standing committee wished to make a decision whether or not to move forward with an extension, um, they wanted to see this map.

So this map here, uh what you have here in orange is the SMA parcels with no sidewalks fronting to the property, either directly in front or across the street.

Um, some assumptions did need to be made because uh there are some corner properties that have side yards with sidewalks, but front yards without.

Um, and then you'll notice in uh the JEDBerg area here is actually a rather there's not a lot of highlighted areas there, uh, and that's because uh the town does have a capital project there this year to install sidewalks.

So that was excluded.

Um you'll notice that uh there's some areas in blue.

So these are properties that are served by strata roads.

Um the town does not own those strata roads, so they're not able to install sidewalks.

So generally speaking, these areas uh would not be able to have uh sidewalks installed by the town.

Um that said, in total, uh counting all of the roadways that would require sidewalks uh to uh service these areas in orange would be an additional 17 kilometers of uh sidewalks.

And just for reference, our current inventory of sidewalks is 26 kilometers.

So uh maintenance is not generally a maintenance cost is not generally linear, but it will be around twice as much for the budgeting for these sidewalks.

And the committee did state emphasis that there may be a need to pre-build or to install these sidewalks under quick order to serve the uh anticipated density increases with respect to the SMA designation.

From the town's concern, the front from the staff's perspective, uh, should the standing committee wish to have sidewalks on all of these areas in orange, uh, there are concerns with respect to taxation.

Um we don't know whether or not those are underserved.

Uh but that said, we do have a 2016 and a 2008 uh transportation based master planning that is quite old, so it does need to be updated to better uh to better uh figure out what the what the actual um impacts are.

So after some deliberations uh with the standing committee, uh they um they essentially uh received the report, but also they added a resolution that uh the committee recommended to council that a uh request for a four year extension for the um SSMH SMHUMUHs be considered for those areas that are underserved by sidewalks to allow for the traffic management plan, drainage master plan, DCC bylaw updates and um amendments to be completed.

So the reason why it was a four-year extension was because staff currently have in their capital projects the transportation master plan and the drainage master plan in 2025.

Probably took a year, year and a half to complete.

And then following that would be the DCC bylaw update.

So in all in all, it'll probably take maybe three and a half to four years to do.

And that is the reasoning for the standing committee's uh request for extension for four years.

Uh one last thing is that uh staff also looked at other pinch points in the region.

Uh, from a sanitary sewer perspective, there is the shoreline trunk, which serves uh basically the area in red here.

Um that shoreline trunk is currently at capacity, and we can't stop any more sewage in there.

It's actually shared amongst the town of Squimalt uh and the Songgies and the Squimalt First Nations.

So we are at capacity in our end there, and in order for development to happen, um some mitigative measures would be required.

So uh while not what could possibly be uh used as a as a reason for extension, there are mitigative things that developers can do to make sure that uh they do not exceed their flows.

Um that said, the reports uh in in front of you.

Uh, the like I mentioned, the stand committee recommended council for four-year extension.

Happy to take any questions.

Councillor McKenzie.

Thanks.

So, within those areas that don't have sidewalks, if you were to develop there, is there a trigger point at which you have to put in sidewalks?

And then, if so, is there um also standard in terms of how far from that development site you need to have sidewalks?

Yes, thank you.

Mayor Tobias, um page well, it's not 14 years, page two of five.

There is uh staff have mentioned three options of what um staff can compel developers to do um to make sure that sidewalks get installed.

So uh the traditional way is that with one parcel of land as it develops, this uh the town compels them to install those frontiers improvements, sidewalks, strain services, curbs, bike lanes within the frontage uh only.

So property line and property line, just that area.

So that's the traditional method.

There's another option, which is to obtain a cash-in-loop.

And what the cash in loop I think just to clarify my question, it's more could you choose not to put in a sidewalk?

Uh, not the developer, but the the town.

So could we say, you know, we'll have development, but because there's not a whole lot more traffic, let's say that fourplex goes in, it might not necessitate having a sidewalk in that area now, just because one fourplex went in.

So at what point, what density do you decide?

Okay, now it needs a sidewalk in this area area.

Yes, thank you.

So um, Council McKenzie, you're referring to the connectivity.

So maybe not now, but later when we're coming and you want to connect them all together?

Is that it's it's more like at what point do we as a town say this area needs sidewalks now?

Like we're ha so these ones in yellow right now, we're okay with them not having sidewalks because you know it's it's quieter, etc.

But it what what triggers us to say actually now we need a sidewalk there?

Yeah, I can think of uh mayor to buy us I can think of two trigger points um you know it it it always depends so at the top of my head there are two trigger points one is if you do go through the motions of updating a transportation master plan it says you gotta put in a sidewalk and it says you need to put a sidewalk in zero to five years of five to ten years or 10 to 15 years that they do take into account growth and percentage growth to allow us to prepare our five year plans accordingly.

So to give you an example um in one of the tr the last transportation master plan it may have, or the Active Transportation network Plan, it may have said that um recommend to connect these sidewalks along the island highway, like by the casino.

If there is one right there, uh, it would say zero to two years.

So that would be the trigger point, zero to two years.

Uh, it may also state, okay, here's another area, maybe Viral Avenue or something like that, that may say this is a long-term endeavor, probably need to get more information, probably need more growth.

This is not for another 10-20 years, and then that would inform our long-term plans.

And is that based on traffic or population in that area?

Uh I would say both.

It's one is based on the facts, which is the transportation master plan or active transportation network plan.

And the other is based on uh anecdotal and what council tells staff essentially.

So there's this good, there's a little tangled dance between um the technical data and then what uh what people see in the field.

So that's why I'm saying it depends.

And staff cannot um with the crystal ball figure out which areas of your are going to see these little pockets of development happening, which is why it's a it's uh there's that little small section of um we gotta look at it from a case-to-case monitor that monitor it here from our stakeholders here from council.

And then finally, uh, in terms of no sidewalks at all, um, yes, uh staff can enact that.

I think the approving officer has the ability under the subdivision development bylaw.

Council Roger.

Yes, you know, Erscan Lane was a great example.

Uh we never had um that on the um transportation master plan because we just thought it was gonna be single family houses or stay that way forever.

But suddenly, kabam, all that density.

And then uh that's when we had to rely on developers to put in those sidewalks and the bike lane and the traffic light, all of which was not expected and probably not the C DCCable.

I think the big uh issue is that you know, places like the Harbor don't want sidewalks, but the the province is putting that that strain on us.

Um uh in each of these areas, I think we'll um you know, the provinces now have decreed that um every single area could be um have four times the amount of cars, uh, depending on our guess, our car policies.

But um it's not only traffic, it's speed, it's population, it's risk, it's um safety, comfort, which is the active transportation plan, all ages, all abilities, and it's also about the uh accessibility legislation that the provinces have put in.

So, you know, those are all the components and all the reasons.

And you know, we do have cash and loo, and we do have, you know, these property uh situations, but they're all piecemeal.

And I think what um that this this whole point, I'm really happy that we got we had planned to to do the transportation master plan, because that'll help um with the province's uh um changes in in our community.

Now we're we're not we can realize that we're not Victoria we're not Icequamo we're not O Bay that have um you know all the sidewalks and then we'll be able to um prioritize back in nine in 2000 we had a priority list of of sidewalks and hopefully with this transportation master plan based on on um you know the the the uh the densities and the traffic and the safety issues uh we'll be able to uh prioritize logically and appropriately where those sidewalks should be and um and you know good example view all avenue I don't know if we need it on the other all the other streets but when you consider the two steep hills in Viewwell Avenue, it's either uh the car or the cyclist.

Anyway, so it's um I'm I'm certainly happy to uh uh support the extension as recommended by staff.

I I think this one uh is just uh that we receive, correct?

Yeah, well the the recommendation goes further.

I think this is the time where uh where council will vote and then the receipt is 8.3 because that was the standing committee meeting.

And I'll I'll just clarify that uh staff did not recommend the extension.

It was the standing committee that did.

You've motivated us.

Yeah, uh and so my sorry, um I've just been corrected.

It looks like we are just receiving right now.

And uh Councillor McKenzie, to your point, uh, I think that was the committee's concern.

Is that you're right, a four-plex on a street.

I don't think it's gonna, but we have no idea where that fourplex is going.

So uh traditionally we could zone and plan for sidewalks, but the concern is right now is we don't know.

And and one thing I would hope the the transportation master plan would provide us um is what trigger points do we decide at what rate of traffic.

Um because if the fourplex moves in and nobody's got a car, maybe it's still not an issue.

Um but if if you know we do see uh a a car plus another car or uh or the traffic increases, it just makes it difficult for the town to plan uh effectively.

So I'm gonna go to Councilor Lemon and then Councilor uh Mattson and then to you counselor brown if you have a question or not counselor lemon um thank you i'm i'm not convinced that this legislation is going to make a big difference to our town i'm i'm really not um just a bit of a segue i i was talking to a former um municipal government um elected official from vancouver the other day and a couple two three years ago vancouver eliminated single family zoning, making it all residential with the proviso that every lot could have a duplex.

And according to my contact there, there have been two duplexes built all across Vancouver.

So I think I think that we will find that there will be, you know, and I'm I don't have a crystal ball, obviously, but I I think there will be more basement suites.

I think there'll be some carriage houses, but I don't think your average resident has the knowledge and the wherewithal to develop four to six townhouses.

And I don't think your average developer has the interest in that small of a development.

So I guess, but I but I have to have a question.

And my question is, are we asking for the extension simply so we can get the uh transportation master plan completed?

Uh mayor Tobias, it was um for the transportation master plan, during this master plan, and the DCC bylaw update to be uh to be completed.

That would be the four years.

I think the reason why the committee wished to extend it past the bylaw DCC bylaw update is so that DCCs could be used, or we can charge developers DCC fees to pay for this as opposed to town paying for these assets.

Thank you, I think.

And particularly on the DCCs, is they have changed a little bit, and I think Don needs some time to figure out if somebody puts in a fourplex, we don't want to have them pay for the whole sidewalk.

That's just not fair.

And it's not really allowing affordable housing if we've got to straddle them with that much money.

So what is fair?

What is that going to look like?

How much out of taxation or capital projects or grants and how much for new developments?

Um, that this is something that staff needs to recalibrate as well.

Um Councillor Mattson, you had a question, and then Councillor Brown, if you have one.

Yeah, I just again one of my concerns and I remind our colleagues is just the number of people who walk on those narrow streets.

I mean, we have people coming from other areas of town to sort of wander through the area.

I mean, so there's a lot of traffic on those streets and they're narrow.

And I really do think we need to get our ducks in a row before, you know, then the more people we add to the, you know, that area and to other areas, the more people are gonna be coming over because they, you know, get to wander down to the water.

So potentially we could have a large increase of people wandering around our community on tiny those tiny streets making it unsafe.

So that's one of the reasons for the uh the extension is so that we get all our ducks in a row so we don't make a mistake because uh this isn't something we'll get a do over on.

Uh Councilor Brown, did you have a question?

I'm just going to you so I don't forget you because you're on like yeah, no, thank you.

Uh no no questions.

Uh I would certainly support a motion to extend for four years if one is made.

Councillor McKenzie?

I if I may, uh I have a question to actually um Councillor Rogers.

And I just wanted to clarify, he mentioned um in particular that the harbor doesn't want sidewalks.

And I just am curious, other than maintenance, how come a neighborhood would not want sidewalks?

You know, at this point they don't want sidewalks because they have the ambience and and it's um reasonably safe and and people are drivers are respectful, you know, of those people walking, their dogs and and so on.

But Council Matthews's got a great point.

Um as more people move in and and there's more pedestrians and more cars, you know, the the conflicts are inevitable.

And I I say that um holistically the harbor may not, but they have they're prepared to you know consider specific streets like View Al Avenue, maybe not Besborough, maybe not Heddle, and but you know, a a particular corridor where you see Helmigan having a sidewalk, and um and yet the extension, the logical extension, is to have it on V Wall Avenue.

And I think the the point that uh staff are making here is that you have Cash and Lure, you have uh these in in front of individual uh houses, but the great idea of the OCP, which then brings about the transportation master plan, which then has identified specific areas and priorities, and and you you would then have um a DCC where all those those properties are contributing to the DCCs where the staff and and uh count the council of the day can then prioritize how those developments um and how that those sidewalks, one or both sides would uh would become um available in whatever community.

You know, it's it's really um uh like uh you know we don't know where um who will develop what it depends on where that uh suddenly we have a um um uh I don't know a shopping center, a new shopping center, a new shopping complex, um, and people now start wanting to start walk to walk to that.

Uh we have land assemblies actually ongoing.

There are real estate agents and developers assessing our town and making some very interesting ideas and and thoughts about the how they're going to assemble that those parcels and it's not just gonna be for houses.

So I I I exp support the extension.

Okay.

Uh so we're not voting on the extension right now.

We're just receiving uh Ivan's report for uh information.

Uh and did we have a remover in a seconder?

I don't think we did.

So uh uh counselor Matson moved, councillor Lemon seconds, uh all those in favors to receive Ivan's report for information.

Uh seeing none opposed, uh that motion carries.

And now we're down to uh other reports and out of this there could be uh motions.

Um so I just asked for clarification certainly on this the standing committee, the coastal flood one, we've already dealt with that, haven't we?

Just a few minutes ago.

No, wasn't that the motion read the first one?

Well, that was just the transit one, not we just chatted about these fund for step.

Yeah, sir, we didn't vote on anything with the um mitigation.

Stay.

Okay.

Councilor McKenzie.

I'm moving the recommendations of the standing committee, which is coastal uh housing and transit and uh we we could almost uh because staff have already removed um the last item, I think we can just say that that's been dealt with.

Um councilor McKenzie had your hand up.

Oh I j I would I would like to speak to both items, so I just want to make sure that by moving both there'll still be an opportunity to discuss both.

I I think we we should pull them then and just deal with them one at a time.

There's only two.

Yes.

Um if that's okay when amenable to you, Councilor Matson.

So let's start with a coastal flood risk uh areas map.

Sarah, did you have a point?

I have Councilor Matson making the motion.

Who seconded.

I I don't think we had a seconder.

We're just in the discussion there.

Um so I I think he withdrew the motion that we'll just deal with these one at a time.

Yeah, because it was all three that I did, and now we're just down to one.

Yeah, so I think what we've agreed that we wouldn't consider the last one because it's already been actioned now by staff.

So right now we're on coastal flood areas map, and so that's the recommendation.

But so I'll move that one then.

Moving that one, do we have a seconder?

Second.

Uh uh, so we got a second and a third.

Uh, but counselor uh, before I go to counselor McKenzie, uh Councilor Mattson, and uh we'll go to Councilor Brown this time for motivation.

Counselor Mattson.

I guess most of it's already been said, so I won't repeat it other than I just think we need to have a good look at this, know what the impacts are, and we're just asking for an extension.

Thank you.

Counselor Brown.

Yep, same.

Concur with Counselor Mattson.

Okay, thank you.

And uh Counselor McKenzie first.

Thank you.

So I am not supportive of this motion uh because I feel like it is unnecessary.

We don't tell people where they um that they can't build single-family homes in certain areas due to flood or tsunami risk.

So I'm not sure why we're doing it here.

Developers are not going to want to build in these areas where there are flood risks because homes will be less likely to sell.

It will be harder for them to get bank loans, insurance, and they're going to have to spend money trying to mitigate these this flood risk.

And staff can already require engineering reports to establish flood construction levels and flood setbacks and require covenants.

So that's why it's unnecessary.

But I also think the motion is exclusionary.

From a socioeconomic perspective, waterfront properties are generally of greater value.

To make it worthwhile for a developer to develop uh one of these um properties along the waterfront, they'll probably want to maximize the number of units allowed under the SMO.

So, with this request for an extension, what you're doing is reducing the area permitted for construction, which would likely reduce the number of units that could be built, or perhaps discourage the development altogether, which in turn ensures that nobody who can't afford a multi million dollar home can live by the water in View Royal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor McKenzie.

Any other comments?

Counselor Rogers.

Yes, and I I guess one of the questions to the mover and seconder is um we we talked about coastal flooding not being a tsunami and and sea level rise.

Um would the uh mover and second consider adding dam safety to the motion.

Oh if if we're just looking at I mean I don't have a problem with adding dam safety staff can include that.

But I'd have to figure out where it is, so I maybe we get a separate motion on that.

We did, and it didn't go anywhere.

Yeah, I think that would take a separate motion because we had a defined map of those areas and zones that it would actually do.

So if we do this one and you wanted to raise a separate motion with this, if we had a seconder, then we can go with that.

I'll I'll speak to the motion as that's presented to you, wish you.

So yes motivation.

Okay.

Um yeah I I think that um it is responsible um uh particularly as these uh staff are now um uh working and uh I I don't know if the RP is out but the coastal inundation report is coming up and the CRD report was 2021 and we've had a heck of a lot more temperature rise global uh glaciers melting and uh and the ice caps uh diminishing so I think uh getting a fresh look at um the implications to this town and determining what the new floodplains are um because we don't want um people um you know uh living in a in a fantasy thinking that uh their houses um the newly built house um uh is is going to be having a longevity.

Their investments.

I know you maybe they're insured now, but there's a whole lot of properties that have just had their earthquake insurance canceled.

They live on the on the new uh leach fault and they're canceled.

And so uh suddenly you're in a in the throngs of um and who who knows what properties would be suddenly subjected to uh uh flood cancellation and and um and what recourse would they want to take to the town because we approved a floodplain because we didn't anticipate, we didn't do our studies.

So this is the prudent method to the province who already knows what uh what the flood issues are for Richmond, Vancouver, and and and Delta.

And um uh we're we're being very practical, and I would hope and expect that Esquamilton and Sandis would do likewise, but that's their problem.

The whole biggest issue of uh um sea level rise is in the port of Jenlet.

So I support it.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Any more questions, comments?

Uh then uh I think we're good to vote on.

So we've got a motioner and a seconder to uh to support the committee's uh request for a four year extension uh for the coastal flood risk areas and the coastal adaptation plan and uh First Community Plan update are completed.

All those in favor of the recommendation, all those opposed to the recommendation i see councilor mckenzie opposed to the recommendation uh so that motion carries um sm u h housing small is that how move announcement yeah i'll move the recommendation you've moved the recommendation is there a seconder to move the recommendation seconded by councillor rogers uh motivation and uh from the mover into secondary yeah i mean a lot of it's already been stated.

I mean, one of the issues is uh we need to actually if we start getting housing built on a street, we need to ensure that we've actually collected funds because somewhere along the line, if enough development happens in those areas, there's going to be huge infrastructure costs, and we need to be able to have that money on hand from those who benefited from the development of their properties.

And so, yes, they should be paying, the taxpayers shouldn't be paying.

And this is all part of that whole process of ensuring that we know exactly what we need and and when we need it and who's going to pay for it.

And we'll be able to come or achieve that with the the four-year extension that we've requested based on the reports that staff are preparing.

Council Rogers.

Sorry, uh, we had very good discussion at the uh standing committee and and uh I thank staff for the map.

Um that that's very useful and we can see that it's not just the harbor.

This is all overview world where um as in the baseline study for the uh active transportation plan clearly stated that we not only have no sidewalks, we have inferior sidewalks.

And um it's uh prudent to uh go through the uh steps as uh staff have suggested the OCP the transportation master plan then the DCC bylaw so that we can practically assess and and yeah we can adjust the um um uh assist factor to whatever but this is almost like the CRD is doing its water by law for the two billion dollars that we're going to have to do uh for the now the population increases and and climate uh um mitigations dictated by the health ministry so uh or VHA so um this is um good planning and um and again i'm I'm really pleased to see the drainage master plan is a component in this because we see that um um many areas um uh that have ditches where those ditches are likely to build be filled in and those dite ditches are likely in rock which means there's a great deal of um rock work and blasting that I don't think the current taxpayers should bear the burden of um it's um it's it's an appropriate methodology and and um uh tried and true through all our DCCs through all our years good move counselor uh McKenzie and then councilor Lemon please if if I can ask a question first and then comments um so I just curious uh either for staff or maybe fellow counselors uh how come it's four years is is it because that's how long those plans listed in the motion will take yes okay okay so I again I'm opposed to this uh motion.

Mainly one of the reasons is I think this will actually be laughable to the province.

Uh, the majority of our town, as we saw on the map, don't doesn't have sidewalks, and I'm sure a number of towns across BC are in the same position.

The fear that we are going to need to build this full sidewalk network in all these communities tomorrow is just unrealistic.

This is going to be a very slow uh transition.

We're going to have time to consider this.

We have identified in our active transportation plan that there are long-term pedestrian upgrades required in those neighborhoods that we identified as not having them right now.

So to me, it's just logical that we use the DCCs from development in those areas to build the sidewalks, which we have already identified that we need.

Not because I don't think much of this work needs to be done, but because I feel that we're we already have a target on our back, and I think this will um this will um put us even more in the um lights of the province.

And once again, we're tickling the elephant, and I I I think that if we um and I think I I also I also think that this is not going to be as grave as we fear.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you, Councillor Lemon.

Counselor Brown, uh I see you're off camera.

Did you want to make a comment?

No, it's okay.

I'm back on again.

Just had the lights off for a minute.

Okay.

Uh did you have a comment to speak in favor or against or I'll be supporting uh supporting it.

Okay, thank you.

Um I'll just add my part, and that is uh council had previously uh approved a Vanti place.

It was next to the highway, uh up north of the highway where I live.

It's a wonderful sidewalk.

It comes to a dead end at the end of the development.

Um, and and I think there's a weight there for it to be connected.

Uh contrast that to when uh council approved Camden Green.

Uh they put a sidewalk uh down uh down Connard Street in front of my house and connected it to the main road.

So that there was at least one good way to um get safely um to an intersect point, uh a bus or whatnot.

Um and I am concerned about this, and it comes down to safety because I think we all think about sidewalks as people walking, and there's some people in wheelchairs, some people with walkers.

Uh, and you add more cars to the street and to parking and uh try to negotiate that with the walker.

I know from first hand that's why my mother-in-law didn't go for many walks uh down uh Chancellor Avenue.

Uh so my concern is for safety, and um the the concern that I have with this legislation is it doesn't really allow us to do the planning, it's everywhere all at once all the time, and council can't make an informed decision about where to put those sidewalks.

So I would uh benefit from uh the studies that we've approved that are planned in order to come back to us and and particularly ask the questions in the studies uh from some of Councilor McKenzie's concerns of what trigger or what standard are we going to have so that we need sidewalks on that street?

Um because a four plex won't do it, as I said before, but add six of them, what's the impact going to be or the amount of traffic?

And I don't know.

And I'd like to make an informed decision before I have to feel responsible of a child getting hit on a street uh or an old lady um getting hit.

Uh I would like to have the information in front of me that we come up with a solid plan.

So that's why I'd be voting in favor of it.

So I think that's where we're at is a vote.

Or did you want to uh make another comment, Councilman?

Yeah, I I just find the argument that it's for safety interesting because in the interim, while we wait these four years, there are going to be no sidewalks.

So we're saying we want to wait the four years so that people aren't walking on these streets so that we can build sidewalks.

It's just it's it's counterintuitive to me, but yeah.

Uh thank you.

And I think where we're at is a vote right now.

So all those in favor of uh the four-year extension for um for the studies regarding drainage and sidewalks.

All those in favor?

And all those opposed.

Uh so we've got councillors McKenzie and Councillors Lemon opposed.

Motion carries with the remainder voting uh for it.

Uh and I think that brings us down to no correspondence.

We are at a question period, I think, Sarah.

Any questions for council?

Carl, I'll go to you on the phone.

Any questions for council.

Mayor Tobias, we've had no callers today.

Thank you, Carl.

And I think we go to a closed meeting resolution now.

You want to read it out, sir?

Thank you.

There's a need to have a meeting closed to the public and persons other than the immediate members of council, officers, and employees of the town, and those identified under section 91 subsection two of the community charter should be excluded on the basis of section 90 subsection one, I legal advice.

If we could terminate this meeting, please.

Move termination.

Don, I hope you're gonna join us on the next one.

No, we're not terminating.

We're just yeah, we terminate at the end of uh the actual close.

Yeah.

Uh so councilor Rogers move termination, seconded by councillor Lemon.

All those in favor.

None opposed motion carries.

Meetings terminated.