Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal.

I'll call to order the council meeting for Tuesday, May 21st, 2024, and begin with a territorial acknowledgement.

We recognize the Laquanguan speaking people known today as the Esquamalt Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these to these lands continue to this day.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, you can call 778-402-9227, and when prompted, enter conference ID 385-093-885 Pound, and there will be opportunities both in the public participation portion and the question period portions of the agenda.

You'll be immediately muted once uh admitted to the meeting.

Please do not 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 live webcast to avoid feedback.

Ask you not to use your speaker phone to ensure sound quality, and at the proper time have you unmute by pressing star six.

To begin, please indicate your name and address for the record.

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

For this evening, I think um Councillor Matson won't be joining us online, but uh I'm not sure if Councillor Qualwich is logged in.

He is logged on online.

Um given the agenda plus um the items on the blue sheet that were late items.

Can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please?

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councilor McKenzie.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And can I get a motion to adopt the minutes of the council meeting on the 7th of May and the minutes of the special council meeting on May the 14th.

That's an adoption.

Uh councillor uh Rogers moved adoption and councillor Brown seconded.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

So congratulations to you all.

You can expect a little token of our appreciation uh shortly.

Uh so that does it for the mayor's report and uh uh four petitions and delegations.

I believe we have none, Sarah.

Um public participation period is where it brings us to now.

Would anybody in the room like to address counsel on a particular agenda item or something related to the town?

I see nobody in the room.

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

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

Okay, that brings us down to I think staff reports 8.1 and development permit for West Park Lane.

Jeff, I think it's over to you.

This is an application for uh the addresses will be 2001 to 2014 West Park Lane.

And the purpose is to develop to consider a development permit application to construct 13 townhouses units that are currently called phase six and will likely change to the West at the West Park at Tetis mixed residential development.

An application that we received to change the order of the phases so that uh this phase will occur ahead of what's shown as phase six in the uh on the scheme here um this was a again this is the townhouse type project.

It also includes um uh completion of the uh private road that uh that serves the site um so it includes completing the round of the uh the cul-de-sac also includes a uh kind of a a green space behind um to the south of phase between phase six and the transcanada highway as kind of um um a treed area uh the project's composed of two duplexes and three triplexes.

And the site uh slopes to the north and um and goes downhill to the to the south.

Um so this application was uh initially introduced to the committee of the whole at the on the April 9th meeting.

And in this presentation, I'll basically kind of summarize the proposal and at the same time talk about the different changes that kind of happened along the way.

So for the um for the two duplex type units, um uh to block R and S.

Um they have uh the the applicant has kind of revised some of the design details in response to staff in our comments about development permit guidelines.

They have uh increased the pitch of the roof, so it's got a bit more kind of uh a larger hat on it, and not won't look as flat as the uh the other buildings in earlier phases.

Um, in this particular pair of buildings, uh on the upper floor, they had some laundry room windows that were that we thought were a bit small, and the applicant has found a way to sort of increase the size of them.

So they again they're then the uh light blue dashed line.

So the building that's got more um by having larger windows, it just looks a little bit more kind of friendly and inviting.

Um block T is a triplex.

These three buildings also have uh T UV.

Uh these buildings also have um taller, um uh taller roofs as well.

And um the the block U there has um um has has taller this is the rendering of uh block u and that shows the previous kind of flatter roof um at the building at the street level uh the new roof will look a little bit more um give give more kind of uh a better roof line uh the landscape plan has been revised to sort of uh provide uh more um extensive gardening be predominantly uh a new garden bed at the uh between block t and u.

Um some of the trees got reloaded relocated at the black back of block V, and that's because um there is a pad mounted transformer at the uh at the street face.

They've also provided some fence details as requested by staff.

Um overall, uh the proposal generally complies with the development perimeter guidelines in terms of um having natural tone colors, um, and the design features um good durable materials, um, and they follow us can similar layout to the uh to the rest of the site.

Um the project complies with the uh with the zoning regulations, and the additional information has been provided to show how it complies with the um the overall zone.

This is a uh site-specific zone that um it's a comprehensive development zone, so there's a zoning that applies to the um the strata property, but also one for all all properties in the same zone.

This just gonna confirm that it complies with all the density requirements of that of the overall development.

Um a couple other items that were brought up at committee of the whole meeting and the staff report, uh, erosion and assignment control will be provided at the building permit stage, which is a common uh procedure.

Uh a technical memorandum will be uh condition of development permit issuance to confirm consistency with the overall servicing plan to make sure you're not gonna be over capacity.

Uh the applicant has provided some information on this, but we just need some further refinements, so we don't anticipate that to uh to uh you know hold this development up.

Um geotechnical reports uh outline the requirements for monitoring and maintenance.

I think there were some comments about um some uh concerns about some stability of some uh um posts uh outside the area.

So the applicant has had a uh these geotech technical reports outline the requirements for monitoring and maintenance.

So um we expect they will have a ensure that uh there are no kind of uh long term kind of impacts to uh the slope stability.

And in this and uh although it falls outside of what we regulate in development permits, the applicant has indicated they'll have double paned windows that are uh thicker than than what the uh building permit uh requires so there should be a substantial improvement to the amount of noise that can be heard inside the inside the units and as discussed at the uh development the committee of the whole meeting uh this site is also in a location where it is actually has could good buffering from the highway because it has that treed area behind it so we don't anticipate that we will have too many complaints from new residents.

In conclusion, uh with the kind of the the uh refinements to the design and the additional information that's been provided, uh the application substantially complies with the development development permit area guidelines.

Uh no variances are requested for this application, so uh no notice was required.

Uh so the recommendation is to um approve the applic the development permit and that issuance be um uh uh conditional on on all the receiving all the rest of the information that the engineering department needs to ensure that uh this that things are proceeding in accordance with the original servicing plan.

That concludes the presentation.

The applicant is here if there's any questions as well.

Thank you.

Um if um colleagues would agree, let's go to questions first before comments.

I've just got a couple right off the top of my head, Jeff, and I think you can answer this.

I'm looking at the diagram am I seeing a sidewalk that is contiguous all the way to throughout the community at least on one side.

Yeah it would be on one side yeah okay uh thank you and I understand that um the numbering may be a little bit o out of order but uh the the phase five is it that is an apartment building that's correct my only concern with that is you're putting probably the most traffic on the end of the road through a residential area.

Um, you know, I I completely get it.

There's other reasons to consider about where you're going to place an apartment, but that's gonna put the most traffic at the actual very end of a dead end kind of cul-de-sac as opposed to putting it closer to access.

Is there any concerns about that?

Um through you, uh Mayor.

Um if this is a private road, um, this is part of the original concept plan from from the beginning.

So um there will be an apartment building there, uh, but overall it's the traffic on that street will be much lower than what you see in a kind of a through street.

It's only the residents that live on that road.

And do we have any details about the apartment building?

Like uh how many stories, how many units?

Uh even in concept, it's okay.

Yeah, the yeah, so there are still actually I'll just so the overall development is is proposed to have um um well uh whoops.

I don't have information here.

Um so the overall development, which includes the CRD housing project, the zone permits up to 350 units in total.

Um in this case, um yeah, I think the the applicant probably has the number for for the actual the apartments, but uh the initial concepts has been for potentially a six-story building and in the final phase.

Councillor Rogers, then counselor Lemon, please.

Other questions from colleagues?

Uh yeah, so thanks.

I'll just follow up with the uh the mayor's question on on uh if you know because we did um the approval of 350 units, correct?

And uh I think you're the that you're suggesting or counting phase six is bringing the total to 264.

So um 264 from 350 means that um potentially 86 units could be uh available there at the end of the phase five.

Is that correct?

Um potentially, uh, but they would still have to meet the parking requirements, and that's whether they achieve that will be they have to meet other zoning requirements, so they are limited by the siting and how much parking they can place on that last phase.

Right.

So okay.

With with that, uh I guess my my other follow-up question was um in in the motion, uh staff's recommendation was all about uh um original system uh and capacity.

Uh so are you um you know this whole issue of overcapacity, does that um also uh entail or involve uh site five as well?

Um yeah, through the mayor, uh it is to accommodate the in the full development.

Yeah.

So that the overall capacity is is an aspect of phase five as well.

Good.

I I appreciate the um the information that staff's provided on on the scaling and safety.

Um and um helpful to know that it's every five years or an earthquake or a seismic event.

Um but there's also um erosion.

You know, erosion can cause uh um rocks to fall off the slope.

Uh would that um and any rock falls um at the base and an unusual collection of rocks uh cause uh staff or or property owners to reassess the and see if further scaling is necessary?

Um the the intent of having these covenants is that the property owners will monitor it.

So certainly uh the the geotechnical engineers ensuring that the site is stable at the time of construction and after that and you know for a period after that but obviously you know things can happen over time and uh we we count on it's a professional reliance on those geotechnical engineers to um set the criteria out for what gets built.

And so hopefully five years we'll we'll do it.

I I'm not sure if you answered the question that but I also had a concern about um um people's safety you know on on such a steep cliff with the the homes um that are going above um is the fencing that you showed um the the the fencing that will ensure that um no one's gonna be going near or risking themselves on that um that steep slope um the fences that are shown are privacy fences between units uh so behind the uh the units they are they are stepped so they're those are no more than you know 1.2 meters so they are stepped so that it's not gonna be a major drop so that should be sufficient okay thank you council lemon please thank you um jeff i just need a a memory refresh uh regarding the roof pitches.

This um this section will be the only one of all the townhouses and and duplexes to have the the greater pitch, is that right?

That's correct.

I'm okay.

Okay.

All right.

I I I know it came from council, but I don't remember why we would ask for a greater pitch in this particular one.

Yeah, through the mayor, the it actually came from staff as as a design consideration.

Okay.

All right.

So so why?

Um well these buildings are kind of in a different, they're they're in a section of the at the top of the hill where it's actually the roads actually fairly flat.

The others are kind of stepped locations.

Um, so they're also separate from the other phases by unpartment building.

Uh the buildings will have similar colors and form to the the earlier phases, but the idea is here that the buildings will look uh in this location because it's a flat location.

Uh it provides a little bit more kind of variation in the um shape of the building.

Okay, thank you.

That's all for me.

Any other questions?

No other questions.

Uh is anybody willing to move the staff recommendation, please.

Moved.

Uh moved by councillor Brown, seconded by councillor Lemon.

Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you, Jeff and you're gonna stay here for the next agenda item or is it you're gonna swap with Leanne if I may no I'll help you okay and then uh that is uh alternatives to car share program at nine Erchskin Lane yeah so I won't have a presentation for this uh this um for this uh segment but uh uh council have seen the letter of request from the applicant indicating that they have made their best efforts to engage moto to partner on a car share program.

They they've actually worked with moto in another development they had in the squaiMalt that um the way their program is there, they're not, you know, they're they're increasing the range very slowly and they need to the right conditions before they move into an area.

And at this point, View Royal, the apparently just don't seem to have the density that they uh feel is going to be viable for this uh their program in the long term.

Um trying to operate your own car share is kind of a risky venture because there's a lot involved and a lot of things can go wrong when when you are trying to um you know share a car amongst uh several hundred people.

Uh so they have and the other the other uh operator um in the area, Evo, does not really um has a different model for for that where they have cars in um parked in different zones you know throughout throughout a city they're not meant to uh they're not meant to be returned to the same necessary same returned to the same location which is necessary for this development uh so they are have sort of um been talking with staff for the last couple of months trying to find a solution that would um sort of try to meet the intent of um the discussion at the time of rezoning so uh so the two main options, the the one that staff recommends is is um receiving the the equivalent value of what that car share program would have cost and putting that to towards uh extending the bus, the transit pro pass program and uh the bike share program.

Uh and the reason for that is um certainly were neighborhood concerns was about uh vehicle traffic on Erskine Lane and having a bike share and having a transit program, pass program are is one of the best ways of reducing automobile use in the area.

So if you have a car share, you people may not need to have a second vehicle or third vehicle, uh, but they would still be driving a car.

So uh by encouraging them to uh make use of transit and uh having a um you know a nice little e-bike where they can uh ride to the grocery store or down the street to the coffee shop um those are ways where um you have encourages active transportation and kind of helps uh reduce the amount of trips on that on that street uh so that's why staff kind of recommend you know working with the applicant to recommend this this option the other option is to uh just receive the money for you know into the community managed contribution fund that can be used by the town for whatever purpose um could include things like path improvements or or whatever but um that means that the money that the impacts of the development um the idea of CICs uh CACs are ideally to help the local neighborhood.

And this is something that would benefit the local neighborhood.

Whereas if it goes into the community managed contribution fund, it may be used somewhere else for something else.

So it's still a benefit to the town as as a as a as a community.

But I think the best approach is to try to make things better for people in the neighborhood.

So also with part of this with um community managed cash immunity contributions were also provided by this development.

So we already have received some funding from from the applicant for uh community amenities.

So that's why we feel that having something that kind of um benefits local community might be a might be a better alternative.

So um so the recommendation is there.

The applicant is also here if there's any questions.

Counselor McKenzie, then Councillor Rogers.

Thank you.

I was just wondering, um, it's it is a shame that Modo couldn't put it there.

And I wasn't really clear on their explanation as to why it's not a suitable location.

So I was wondering whether we would be able to have potentially a rep from Modo come in to speak to where is there an opportunity to put in in this?

Because I know there's been a couple times where we've we've thought that it might be an option, so it'd be helpful for me to know where what would qualify and maybe they could identify a location that might be suitable.

Uh we could um we could make a request to them to uh come to a future council meeting.

Thank you, Council McKenzie, Councilor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um help me with this one because um I know that um we've got um all the appropriate um electric vehicle charging is did when we designed or you know approved the design and so forth of the the number nine um also enable sufficient um e-bike charging um through the mayor there will be an e-bike so in the bicycle parking area there will be a charging station that uh that residents can use okay so there there's a sufficient so we don't need to have any more money of this uh you know invest in that and uh since the since this project was rezoned the zoning bylaws also has been changed so that all bicycle uh parking in the future will be EV ready as well.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah okay thank you um I agree that it um it should be reinvested back in um you know it's a security deposit that they should invest back into their own uh our own although I'm I'm a little torn whether they um um we should be extending the bike share program for more years as opposed to um having another two years of bike pa bus pass.

You know, you think after one or two years of bus pass people will have gotten to a habit.

Bike share might have been a little different.

So that's um that's a that's a ratio that I don't know if we have to be hardcore on it.

Anyway, I've thought.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Counselor Brown.

Yeah, I like the idea.

I like to uh make the motion this for the staff recommendation, including uh item number one and number two.

Uh I am disappointed that uh you can't do the car share programs.

I know in some places it has worked.

There's one on Jacqueline Road that seems to work well, but um this is seems to be a good alternative and and keeping it local uh for the people on Erskine Lane.

I'll second that.

For clarification, we've uh uh and Councillor McKenzie.

I just want to make sure that your request wasn't lost, but Jeff, you'll take that away for action.

So uh do you need a uh separate uh council motion for that just to invite Moto in to have them describe?

Would you like a separate motion?

Okay.

So uh let's move yours and then uh councillor McKenzie if you'd like to introduce another one uh because it has come up.

Um uh councilor Brown, do you want to do any motivation?

No, like I say it's great to whatever we can do to keep uh vehicles off the road uh wearing our wearing tear on our our roads and uh pollution.

Um I think it's a good alternative again I I would have preferred to see a car share but uh this is a good alternative.

Council Lemmon No I j I just think this is a really fair option.

So good uh ready to vote?

Okay just a comment?

Okay go ahead, counselor.

It'll it'll be interesting now that we're we're soon to have a a transit-oriented area the uh as inspired by the province, um, that we may be seeing you know some tall buildings that might be motivating um evo or Modi to come in and and finally include View All in its uh on its map.

So that's that's a hopeful sign.

And then maybe uh number nine will come back on there.

Thank you.

Jeff, I've got a couple of questions.

Um, so I I guess my assumption and the world is built on them, uh, is that most of the people living there would already have a bike, but that might not be the case.

Um the other thing is for residential bus passes, um maybe a lot of folks are working at the hospital and don't need one or take one.

So how will that work?

It says one per person, so that if there's only an uptake of let's say 50, does that extend until that amount of money is is used up or um how does that actually work?

Yeah, that's where you, uh Mayor Tobias.

So the the initial residents, so the covenant is structured, it's the initial residents that move to the uh site uh have the option of receiving one bus pass per dwelling unit.

Uh with this second pro uh that's those will be the first tenants.

Uh the security deposit that we have here uh would be just uh be given to people that choose to have a uh would like to have an annual bus pass.

So um so that's why this one actually doesn't talk about time limit.

So it's it's a it's a fund so that anyone uh in a unit can request the annual pass and then uh once and then the next year there's still money they can still get another pass and and and so forth until the uh the fund runs out that's what we got to so does that only apply though to the first uh occupants it so for instance if we by extending the bike share program or the bus passes if someone moves out and then a new family moves in.

Does that uh can they access this or no?

They would through through the mayor, they would be able, they would the funding from this program would would allow them to uh to get a bus pass.

Yes.

Thank you for the question, Council McKenzie.

Any other comments, questions?

If not, we can vote.

We've got a mover and a secondary motions on the table right now to move staff's recommendation, I believe, unaltered at this point.

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you, Jeff.

You're gonna stay up there or I get to uh retire now.

Okay.

And I think that brings us down to the committee of the whole resolutions.

We have one through four.

Does anyone want to pull one out?

My intent would be that we would move them as a block.

Of course, Counselor Lemon.

However, if somebody wanted to pull one out, I'm happy with that too.

Yeah, I would like to pull out number one, please.

Pull out number one and Councilor McKenzie.

I would like to pull out three.

And you'd like to pull out three.

Councilor Rogers.

Number four.

So let's just deal with these as they come.

So Councillor McKenzie, would you like to speak to the first one?

Or actually, no.

Councillor Lemon, would you like to speak to the first one?

Yeah, thank you very much.

And expensive for staff to be policing.

Especially with, you know, not just municipal signs, but the province and federal.

And it's it's it's going to um I I think it will be complicating and a bit um confounding for for everyone.

But mostly I'm I I struggle with this because I I don't think it lays out a fair playing field for everyone.

As I as I stated at Committee of the Whole, um not everyone is um social media savvy.

And and I believe that we want the full the full range, the full spectrum of age diversity and abilities diversity in in Veroyal and the proposal as it stands requires people to be not just in more innovative than than they might have expected, as in marketing and campaigning, but in man you know it it requires more um footwork or wheelchair work of going to the doors and bureau so I I I I think it's an I think it sets an unfair advantage to where puts many at a disadvantage.

So um yeah so I'm I'm I remain opposed to it.

Thank you Councillor Lemon is there anybody else that wants to speak to um the uh item number one councilor Rudder.

Yes I I share this as I'm concerned as Councilor Lemon.

Um this this is uh an excellent opportunity for those that have lots of money.

They'll win because um uh they won't have to worry about signs but and they'll but they'll have lots of money to be able to do mail outs on a regular basis, glossy flyers, advertisements, and they'll be able to promote their name in a very significant way.

And I remember that I think it was 2018, we had a young student from Glentana, great ball of the fire.

He was a go getter.

And he didn't have a lot of money, but he relied on signs.

And I was really encouraged to see this 18 year old um uh do the best he could and and uh come forward.

Um but um certainly capital was his uh his big problem.

And um when you consider the um the cost of mail out, it's humongous.

And you know, everybody's got to do a mail out unless you team up as a slate uh to throw all your flyers in together it's uh it's a big uh challenge and uh as counselor I think this um um is a disadvantage to the mobility challenge if we had anybody in a in a um um uh electric wheelchair or whatever trying to get around and and frankly I think when when my daughter Emily was campaigning again as a young 20 year old I went with her at nighttime to knock on the doors because she was too intimidated, too scared um and maybe too cautious uh to go up by herself so um I I know I I give um um kudos to those that that feels uh that they can do that kind of thing.

Um but um I mean uh this is really going to the extreme, and I would hope that um we would uh strike a a medium, 20 small signs, no large signs, and uh that would at least help level playing field so that uh everybody would have a good idea.

There's not 20 signs, it's not site pollution.

We got 10 sites, two per, and uh then would um help level it and and uh be fair all around.

So I would but definitely vote against the the motion as it stands right now.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Councilor Brown.

It's a little unclear when it says public land.

I would prefer if we said uh town of view royal land because uh there's federal property pro provincial properties for sure that you could put signs up and uh you know on the main highways and stuff.

Um I think that would suffice.

So other than that, uh I like the recommendation that's uh uh solve some of the sign pollution issues, especially now with uh federal election coming soon and a provincial election coming soon.

Um and I have 30 signs and and it was a pain.

So personally I prefer not to have to go and uh monitor my signs, you know, take the damage up and and and the expense as well.

So um other than that, other than the fact uh mending the public land, because I don't know how we can stop people from putting signs up on provincial land.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Um I'm gonna make a couple of comments.

One is this this does not prove prohibit signs in View Royal.

It does prohibit them on municipal land.

Um and you know, an argument about accessibility and if somebody is disabled running, who's putting up your sign if you're disabled?

Because I know that a number of people who had signs were moving them.

Um as far as staff time goes, I know from staff that significant amount of time was dealing with complaints from counselors to other counselors that had their signs in the wrong place.

And and so that that that is a concern for me.

I know that um when I ran, my cost per campaign with a website and a mail out was likely less than a quarter of uh my competitors who ran with signs, some of them rather large.

So I don't think cost, to be honest with you, is an issue.

Counselor McKenzie and myself both ran without signs.

So I think the effectiveness there can speak for itself, as we're both here.

So I I think it it's a good issue to bring up, but the only argument I've ever seen in any literature about it is maybe name recognition.

And and perhaps Counselor McKenzie and I got better name recognition from the media for not running without signs, or not running with signs than actually seeing a sign on the road.

Um so people can still put them on private property.

People still can put them on property not not owned or controlled.

And that would, by my estimation, include the CRD unless they pass a bylaw and and Modi land.

So that's my perspective.

Counselor Brown.

Another thing is just uh don't knowing name recognition, just order on the ballot.

I mean I'm lucky my last name's Brown.

So in previous elections they say it's worth five to ten percent more to have your name first.

We did a draw here for the names and the the for the six counselors the way the draw was exactly the same as the draw except for counselor McKenzie achieved but a much higher level than than than what the straw other than that it was a number one is number one number two was number two Allison's number three she moved up from number I think you could draw fifth but the last person didn't get in there's only one person didn't get in and that was the last person drawn so it's not scientific but a lot of people go to the polls they know who they're gonna vote for for mayor and then they say they got six counselors and sometimes they just go XXXX down the list.

Thank you Councilor Brown Council McKenzie.

Yeah I echo um all that the mayor say uh said and you know they can still put signs on private property so that addresses the uh the comments from the last meeting and tonight around people who might have accessibility issues in terms of walking, and they can still have those signs.

But what it avoids is those big groupings of massive signs competing with each other, causing a potential distraction all it all in one place.

Uh, it also by having it on private property, I think the signs are less likely to be vandalized, and the homeowners, I think it'll be less work for staff because if there is a complaint about a sign, they know who to deal with, the homeowner can just move it rather than trying to track down who is to move the sign.

So, and I think around diversity, I I agree that signs are a massive cost.

Um, again, what I did was print out, I didn't do a mail out, I I printed out pieces of paper and walked around and handed them out.

Didn't necessarily knock on doors for the reasons that counselor Rogers said.

Um, but there there are other there are other options, and I do think we want age diversity not only older but we want based on past councils we want younger people as well and i think cost is a significant barrier to younger people thank you council mackenzie i've got a question for staff would uh by passing this um election review bylaw would that also trigger a look uh another look at um monetary violation costs or we take the sign and they have to come to View royal to pay money back.

Will that trigger a review of okay now?

What do we do that we have a bylaw in place for the control of signs?

Will that control can require us to develop a bylaw on how to enforce it?

Thank you.

What I will do at should this happen is that a bylaw will come back and it will put things into effect that will eliminate the sign zones.

Following that, I would follow up with candidates as we learn their names and letting them know what View Royal's requirements are with respect to science the minute we know what that is.

And so we would reach out to them right away to say, hey, just so you know, and um let them know what what the regulations are in our municipality.

And that would include the provincial and and federal candidates as well yes as well as school board when comes and so we will do it of course closer to the election dates as we know names okay thank you sir councillor brown yeah I would prefer not to have a schedule an offense schedule or MTI schedule uh with this if if there's someone that's really flagrant and just refuses to take the signs down you can always use the BC Offense Act if it came to that so there is a tool there already without having to do a schedule of offenses and municipal ticket informations and fines.

To me most people are if you're saying your signs shouldn't be there are going to take them down.

Thank you Counselor Brown.

Counselor Rogers please yes I again um this is not about big signs this is this is about um uh striking a balance and and uh for new members new individuals running um uh it's it's difficult to get um uh people to um agree to have the your sign on their lawn as a private resident that's that's pretty hard to do and you have to go around to a lot of people and hope and pray that they're got an open mind and willing to take you but uh that that's that's pretty resistant.

It's not that easy to do.

And I rely on on uh I relied on a few signs, five.

And um and that's an awful lot of work.

And and um again, walking around, handing out flyers, walking around, um, and and the cost of mail out.

If you look at the price of um in the Canada Post, it's getting more and more expensive.

So if you want to give uh a fair shake, allow a few signs on the 10 sites that are even ten.

Goodness, that is not sign pollution.

If you have 10 people, 10 signs, they'll blink.

They probably wouldn't miss it.

Have some flexibility in this.

It's not white and black, black and white, it's not the big signs, just small signs, and you're giving the best of both worlds, all worlds, to these candidates, uh, and hopefully they'll run and be able to do all that.

But why be black and white?

Just because two have been successful, but I would suggest two were successful.

One because suddenly we went from five to seven candidates.

And secondly, maybe there are some candidates that people really were campaigning not to have.

Anyway, I I would please suggest and urge members to vote against us as is and give some flexibility for those that are interested in running this community.

Councillor Rogers.

Any other comments?

Questions?

I think.

Anybody going to move the committee's recommendation.

So moved.

Second.

Councilor Brown, did you want to make a friendly amendment of clarification?

And that was of what was it, public land?

Yeah, just to change the public land to um town of well to town of the royal um lands rather than public lands.

I don't think we have control over public lands.

Just looking to you, Sarah for and Scott, for uh amplification.

Do we need to I think public land might be too general?

Do we need to be specific here?

We have control over public private, you name it.

Um our sign bylaw actually uh mostly has to do with private land, but the election bylaws specific to public lands.

Right.

So uh would it help clarify if we had uh view royal uh municipal land vice just public land in the amendment?

It would certainly narrow the scope uh to which the bylaw applies.

Thank you.

Uh Councilor Lemon.

Okay, okay.

Um View Royal land abuts provincial land, which is also public land.

So I think it's I think it's right that it's say View Royal because um the province isn't prohibiting this.

Councilor Rogers, did you have another comment um no I'm confused uh so there's public land uh everything that's not private so it could that can be hospital and ENN and roads and highways so yeah everything's out open and I look forward to the ENN being all plastered for all those people traveling on the train um so yes.

So we're gonna um so we're gonna include that as a friendly amendment to it, so it'll read election signs uh on town of view royal land, vice public land.

Council McKenzie.

So if we make that amendment and there is an ish well, there wouldn't be an issue, but let's say someone complains about a sign on provincial land, it wouldn't be our town staff that have to deal with it.

We wouldn't be enabled to deal with it.

Yeah.

Okay.

It would be out of our purview.

All right, thank you.

Okay, we got a mover and a seconder.

It's been amended now to read uh instead of public land, town of view, royal land, all those in favor of the motion.

All those opposed to the motion.

And I note Councilor Lemon and Councillor Rogers opposed to the motion, and the motion carries.

Um grant and aid policy review.

Who wanted to pull that out?

Was that you, Councilor Rogers?

Go ahead, sir.

Just to seek staff's uh um clarification.

So use your is this and you're asking for council to give you suggestions to changes that's still forthcoming to staff.

Okay.

Yes, I believe the director of finance will be issuing a survey to council.

Okay.

Um seeking your input on this item.

Thank you.

We've we've got her on the big screen.

Go ahead, Don.

Did you have a comment?

No, just concurring with uh CAO, that's exactly the intention.

And there may be more than one iteration for sure on this topic.

We'll to try to evolve our process as we go to make sure that council is satisfied with the eventual outcome.

Thank you, Don.

Much appreciated.

Uh Councilor Rogers moves number two.

Do we have a second or seconded?

Seconded by Councilor McKenzie.

Any comments further?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries for number two grants and aid policy review.

And now we're down to small-scale multi-unit housing proposed zoning regulations and amendments.

I think uh who pulled that out?

Council McKenzie, please.

Yes, I just I I won't reiterate um what I said at the committee of the whole meeting, but there are two kind of newer points that I wanted to bring out.

So not too long ago, we saw a report about the developments that are happening in town, and we did note that none of them had accessible units in them.

And so what I suspect by limiting the size of a home, regardless of the size of the lot, this is just going to discourage further that development developers are not going to be building accessible homes with the larger footprints.

It also doesn't provide the flexibility to encourage quality missing middle homes.

One of the correspondents uh rightly pointed out that it could very well discourage the development of amenities that take up additional uh floor space, such as sheds, storage lockers, and common areas.

And I think this last point is something that we need to address.

Thank you, Councillor Mackenzie.

Councilor Brown.

Yeah, I like option three.

I like the recommendation.

Um obviously I voted for it at a committee of the whole.

Um the only concern I have, and I know it's kind of like whack a mole because if you make some of the units bigger, you you probably have to make some of the units smaller.

Um, but there is a need for three and four bedroom townhouses, but the the size of them are gonna be quite small and not really uh uh that great for families, especially when a lot of families have uh adult children uh returning home for various reasons, costs usually, or coming back to school, or elderly parents perhaps like extended families.

So um I would like to see uh an increase in the uh uh maximum floor size for the the the larger units, the three and four bedroom units, with the risk, of course, of creating the smaller units as micro units, which we we don't want.

So it's a juggling act, it is like a whack-a-mole.

So um that is a concern.

I think kind of what Councillor McKenzie's getting on to two, you know.

Um family, is there's so many two-bedroom units available everywhere.

But what do you do if you have two children or you have one and you get another one on the way?

I mean, you you're kind of stuck, right?

Counselor Brown, Councillor Owen.

Yeah, I'm I um I was looking at uh townhouse prices today, and a new townhouse in Bure Oil is between like brand new on the market, uh between nine hundred thousand and a million.

So you have to be pretty well healed, missing middle to fit into that, to be able to even manage that.

So I I I think it's um I I I think it it it just doesn't work for people who are starting out.

Whether, you know, wanting a forever home is you know something we all want, but I don't know that four townhouses on a lot that are you know larger in size are gonna do it when people simply won't be able to afford it.

Um and also I um there was a an argument last at at the committee of the whole meeting that um developers would not be satisfied with option three, with the the the possible possibility of variable housing on a lot.

Um, but actually I've talked to four developers in the last week, not just spoken to and heard from, um, or maybe it's five.

Anyway, all all have said, um, we like option three, which I thought was really good news.

They say it it works for them.

And it if that's going to get um buildings built, um we need developers building them.

Yeah, I um before I go to you, Counselor Rogers, I thought I'd share some of my own thinking.

I mean, the truth is construction supplies cost a lot of money right now.

The more florary we have, the more construction supplies, the more square footage costs go.

Um and and by hopefully passing on less construction costs, labor and material, um we we can put something a little bit more attainable i won't say affordable because i i don't think that's on the menu i um but would we control or reduce costs somewhat in in in the process and i don't think there's an argument there might be some nuances there to well are we really restricting that bottom one and and just to let you know option three is an average size that's what it's kind of based on um there there's no min-max necessarily within the recommendations for option three and to be creative on that and councilor McKenzie I I hear your point and I want more accessible housing built, but unless we specify that it has to go in there, we we haven't achieved anything so far.

And I don't think this is going to limit it any further, to be honest with you, just by square footage uh dimensions or whatever.

We actually have to come out and and and build that and and factor that into a build.

Um and and you know, to me this this does two things that are important.

One is it might save some green space on there so that maybe we can plant a tree uh or two as we're trying to stuff four families into what View Royal is traditionally known as a single family lot, um, or up to six, depending on where it is.

Um and unless we get creative and think out kind of out of the box about reducing uh costs and maintaining some for a canopy, um, then people are just going to build the same old.

And it's just not that market anymore from my perspective.

It's we've got to uh live a bit smaller.

There's two rentals across from me.

The top rental has an extended family living in a one and a half bedroom.

It's not that they wouldn't like more space or more bedrooms.

They just simply can't afford it.

Right.

And that's what it boils down to.

Council Rogers, you have a comment.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I I think the um yeah still option number three is the is the strongest but um you know, the members of the the standing committees has uh can had continued discussions on this and and um um and certainly there's there's interest and support for um I you know a bike storage shed.

And um because that that is um uh if we're if we have any expectations of uh those that are gonna inhabit these uh and they're only gonna have one car, then I think bike storage is is uh something that um um uh i is is a valid concern and and needs to be assessed.

One of the uh questions we have from uh Wayne Hopkins and the correspondence um um was about common areas, and here's my question to staff.

Um common areas like utility rooms, um bike storage, um, and and stairwells, interior stairwells.

Are those considered uh free space, quote unquote, that don't affect the um uh size of area.

Through the mayor, uh areas within a building that are exempt from the floor area calculation include bluffs, stairways, vaulted ceilings, rooms, or hallways that are open to above, or other similar open areas, uh carports, elevator shafts, which don't apply here, uh rooftop stairwells, rooftop enclosures for heating, ventilation, air conditioning equipment, and then underground and concealed parking.

So to answer your question, storage is not excluded from the floor area.

So it would form part in of the floor area.

Okay, so storage lockers would not be.

That's part of the floor area.

Okay.

At least that's a helpful sign because that's uh that was definitely a uh a discussion point for uh for members in uh um in support of the um uh developing community.

Um and and folks, so I had handed out a uh piece of paper for you.

Um, and staff, you have a copy.

Um the the standing committee was um uh further reflecting on the table that you see that was moved on on May the third um and um that second par second table.

Um with that table is uh an additional column called lot coverage.

And um I I apologize to staff, this is just a real new item, and I wondered if um the members would be happy to or willing to um amend the motion to include this for staff's consideration and and um and comment back.

Uh again, I apologize, it's so late, but uh wonder your worship that that might be an avenue to um uh broaden horizons and and seek uh maybe further clarity and in as the bylaw comes forward.

I I think to be honest, that would have to be two separate motions.

We couldn't, we couldn't amend what we've got here because it's coming from the committee as a recommendation but we could um put this on the floor after we deal with the committee items okay sure yeah um any other comments councillor mackenzie yeah i just wanted to address some of the uh the comments that were made i'm not surprised that builders developers are uh happy with this option you know there's less building materials they don't have to do amenities like bike sheds and common spaces, and they can make these buildings more quickly and move on to the next one and make more money.

So, what I care about is what future residents think, and I think we're gonna see a lot of turnover in these homes.

That no one's gonna be able to stay here long time it it long term.

It doesn't have the amenities they need, it doesn't have the space to have a family and really settle in in View Royal, which is what we ultimately want.

We want people who stay here and settle and contribute to the community.

So Councillor McKenzie, any other comments?

Councilor Rogers.

Yeah, and I'm just speaking to your point and and uh Councilor Brown, um, you know, clearly I think townhouses are important, and we've been successful in in having the 20 units and and got passed really quickly on Elfum.

And I hope that um um you know this council is is you know, once we get this out of the way, that we can do something creative to um incentivize um builders to um bring more townhouses, more three and four bedroom for uh for families, and and um uh this is not to count those out they and nor to diminish.

I think um we can achieve all in this process.

Thank you.

So I move number three.

Moving then we staff recommendations.

Okay, move staff's recommendations for number three and seconded by councillor Lemon.

Uh all those in favor for option three.

Any opposed?

Councilor McKenzie is opposed.

Motion carries.

Now make an amendment uh and probably not now because we're still under the committee stuff.

So let's get done the committee stuff uh first, unless it's an amendment.

We've already passed that.

You wanted what was your you wanted staff to review this or what what was this uh further document?

I know that um uh it's sorry for uh the unusual process here, but I know that the standing committee is not likely to meet and staff have to move along with this.

Um, but um um it is uh new information that I would hope would be helpful to staff.

And uh so somehow your worship, if uh we can bring this to uh uh where uh council would encourage um this uh to be passed on to staff for consideration.

I think if we um brought it up under new business counselor rogers, we could have a discussion to see if council wanted to um entertain a motion there to uh bring it back to staff.

New business it is.

Um so that brings us down to number four.

Um and I'm happy with number four.

There's two two points that I I just wanted to get off my chest with this one.

One is that um we're actually taking out a lot of the infrastructure with the boulevards that we put in less than a decade ago um to make changes.

And for me, and I know this growth wasn't anticipated, but there's nothing that irks me with spending money on a on a uh you know uh transportation and then less than a decade later uh ripping it down.

That includes trees and that we just planted and everything else.

Now we've also uh got a situation that I that that I'm not in favor of right now, and that is the buffered bike lanes on both sides of Helmkin.

It will be the only place in town right now with buffered bike lanes.

Um the side that Modi's on, there's no real way to join that.

Like you're coming over the um either you're coming over the overpass on Helmkin, or you're going the opposite way.

Saanich does not have buffered bike lanes, so I'm just really concerned about that area, and I would see it more, I'd be more inclined to support better access across I think it's uh Chancellor to the from the goose to across um Helmkin for safety that way than I would be going up and down because really we're talking about a block and a half.

Uh we're talking about one area that there's already a development proposal in uh for the other side.

So there's there's houses along that side too.

So how are people going to turn in and out of their driveways um with a buffered bike lane, which will mean uh a fair amount of it blank because there's four rentals I think there are four houses aside from in in between the two development areas.

I think it's just too early otherwise we're gonna be ripping those same things out that we put in a little while ago with there's big billboard signs that those areas are being redeveloped now.

Uh I'd much rather like e even if w we decide later to to bring that in to factor the study, there's just a bit too much going on there that would make me feel happy about doing something like that right now.

The other thing concern I have is an is an input on traffic to assess the study because uh Helmkin is backed up to the highway during rush hour and uh all trying to get up Helmkin to Watkiss.

And and it's a useless lane from really um Chancellor to what's the other one?

Chandler?

Uh uh no for for the second lane because there's actually two lanes that converge into one there.

Um it it doesn't serve much purpose except to store a line of cars that doesn't divert back to the highway and through uh lights right now at rush hour and I think that probably needs a bit more attention.

I'd like something needs to be done there to ease some traffic, but I I think until we sort that out, um I I'm not in favor of supporting the buffered bike lane at this time, all about bike safety, but I think we we will be ripping out what we put in in very short order.

Councillor Brown.

Yeah, I incur with uh Mayor Tobias on the buffered bike lanes for safety reasons and also the fact the access and egress to the residents they're uh trying to get out onto the highway.

Um creates a false sense of security for uh cyclists for one.

Also the uh snow removal, or they're also become a major leaf collector.

So uh to me they're they're more they're more unsafe than just the regular uh paved bike lane.

So uh and and also I've seen it, uh traffic accidents that have been caused where people have driven into the bike lane not realizing it was a bike lane.

So that's another I've seen it three or four times myself.

I'm not in F Royal but in Vic City, Victoria.

Uh before I go to Councilor Rogers, Ben, I see you're online.

Thanks for joining us and I know you've been listening.

Just a question for you.

If we put in this bike lane, essentially the snow plow is gonna come through, fill up the bike lane full of snow, do we need another piece of equipment to now um you know plow the bike lane as it's buffered?

So I'll provide maybe some clarification as well and and maybe even a suggestion uh to help it along.

Um so first off, my understanding of the conceptual design is the buffered bike lane is just paint on the ground.

Um no proposal at the time just yet to put in any concrete barricades or anything of that nature.

So that does make it a pretty versatile facility.

Um so managing snow, um, yeah, we would have probably a larger problem, which is a typical problem of the snow ending up on the sidewalk, um, than it's ending up in the bike lane, uh, because the plow tends to uh work along the curb edge, and if there's no concrete barricade in the way, if it's just a painted bike lane, whether it's buffered or not buffered, um, that's not an issue.

So describe to me uh in you in engineer words the difference between a buffered bike lane and a normal bike lane, or is it the same thing so yeah through the mayor um there are two one's more of a more enhanced version of the other so how we understand it is a painted bike lane is simply a painted line one painted line right four inch white painted line um a buffered bike lane is the addition of a second painted line with hatching painted in between so everything is still that grade everything's still pavement level it's just basically more paint and it provides more of a visual barrier.

There's no physical barrier, uh, but more of a a horizontal offset between the bikes traveling and motorists traveling.

I'm all in favor of painted lines.

That sounds great, as long as they're not concrete.

Uh Council Rogers, please.

Yeah, uh, thanks, Steph, for the clarification.

I know that the uh uh double painted uh bike lanes uh in a squamo work really well.

Every time I've driven behind someone, they may cross that one line, but they don't cross the second.

So yeah, you're right.

It it is very effective and and uh it'll prevent uh Councillor Brown from driving up on concrete.

Um the uh I I think the other point message that I heard at Community Hall was um proceeding with this um design really is to take that to the Ministry of Highways and and Transit and uh the ambulance uh emergency vehicle folks to give them a better understanding of what we're proposing so they could consider whether or not to support it.

Is that the uh main idea here?

So through the mayor, we we would go to those stakeholders the same as we would any other project.

My my understanding where we're at here is um is to get a endorsement from council in principle uh to allow staff to move forward with the design phase of this project.

And then you're very correct.

Uh, with that design, we would be going to those stakeholders, uh, transit, uh, Modi, all of that.

Um we have garnered some high level input from them so we know in principle that they're in support of this.

I did want to make one suggestion.

I'm always in favor of if you're not comfortable with the prescription that's in the in the current wording of the resolution to just make it a bit more vague could go a long way.

So if you're not comfortable with it being a buffered bike lane, you could rephrase that just to be to provide a a cycling facility, let's say, which is a very kind of vague term, but at least we know that the intention of council is to provide something there and to leave it up to staff to continue to be flexible to decide whether that's a uh or not decide but rather um uh you know investigate um whether that's uh and that ended up as a a painted bike lane a buffered bike lane or a multi-use path or whichever ultimately council having uh the final say once we come back with final design thanks Ben um I'd I'd be concerned about putting a biking facility because I think one of those aerodromes are also a biking facility or whatever they call the big oval circuits for the Olympics.

I'm happy with this now that you've defined it um just to be clear about uh about the um uh about the buffered bike lanes um uh just a question are you also reaching out to Sanich?

Because um uh right after of course Westburn side, that's where we're at.

Uh just for consistency and letting them know what we're looking at and plans and seeing if uh they've been busy building bike lanes all over the place as well.

So uh are is your plan uh to do that as well.

Yeah, through the mayor.

Uh pretty much any time we make some sort of strategic transportation decision on this section of Helmkin, we're doing it um in consultation with Sanich, recognizing that it's uh it's a corridor um that they share with us.

Thank you.

Council Rogers, please.

Yes, I'm quite happy with Buffered Bike lanes.

Uh I wouldn't want to um you know throw any more confusion to it.

Bike facilities too confusing.

So um I wanted the uh the major focus that I was really pleased to hear about was um uh enhancing pedestrian safety and getting um um you know at the light of Watkins and and Chancellor and on the highway longer cross times and and uh so that you know traffic is um gives them the benefit of safety.

Um I'm not really reading that into here, but is is that going to be the message that we're gonna have uh greater time for pedestrians to be able to cross that busy road.

So through the mayor, um Ivan will know more about the details as he's managing this particular project.

However, I know that some improvements we'll be looking at in terms of uh pedestrian safety would be things such as leading pedestrian interval.

Um so that's something common that Sanich has been doing where the pedestrian presses the button and they get an extra, I think it's three to four seconds to start their cross before traffic is given a green light.

Things like that is absolutely um within the scope of the project, and any other opportunities we can make to enhance pedestrian safety crossing that intersection.

Thank you, Ben.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Um I move number four.

Uh move number four.

Do we have a seconder?

Councilor Brown.

Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Other reports.

We've got the standing committee on housing legislation and the minutes from the West Shore Park.

We should read a both.

Can I get a motion to receive?

Receive A and B seconded by Councillor McKenzie, or did you want to pull one out?

Question?

Okay, certainly.

Yeah, I was just wondering when the next of the standing committee on housing legislation would be and uh until what time does well what month will that continue?

I think that the next meeting, I think uh just looking to the CAO here.

We've got tentably scheduled for is it next Friday?

That would be June.

We haven't set one, we canceled the one, um, but it'll probably be next Friday.

Um, and one of the topics there, Councillor McKenzie will be uh uh of course we don't have an agenda, but one of my questions was is that once we'd done the work of getting um these two pieces looked at for our bylaws, what is the committee's recommendation?

Because we'll have more of a requirement and a better idea as well from staff.

Um we got the OCP coming up, uh, we've got other things.

So, what does the committee feel uh about?

Does it need new membership?

Do we need to move to an appointed committee specifically for that task?

So I don't uh I think the end of June was kind of the the date we had put on uh the duration, um, but also wanting their feedback on what comes next as far as requirements for public engagement and using that opportunity to to get some information and where where they think we should go for for engagement, um, because the fund doesn't end with these two bylaws.

It actually is just the beginning of an engagement process for our OCP and and then the rest of the work that staff has got to do.

But uh happy to leave space for staff to make a comment or thoughts.

Uh the committee has been meeting uh every two weeks with the exception of uh the last meeting which was cancelled, but May 31st is would fit that schedule at uh 3 30, I believe.

Uh okay, and I know we've got a uh regional transportation governance meeting coming up too.

I'm not sure if that's the same Friday or not, but it's all day on Friday a CRD sponsored activity.

Council McKenzie.

Sorry, another question.

Um I was actually surprised at the committee of the whole meeting to see a report prepared by the standing committee uh to sent to council.

So I was just wondering, um, maybe staff, maybe Scott, uh, is this common practice?

Because I've just never seen it before.

Uh yeah, I hadn't seen it before either, but there's uh on the formatted agenda which is set up through the procedure bylaw, there is a section for reports from the committee.

So uh although it hasn't been used frequently, it it's certainly was anticipated.

Okay, thank you.

And sorry, just a comment.

I will be voting against receiving the minutes of the standing committee just for previous concerns around representation.

Certainly that is your given right as a counselor.

Councillor Rogers.

Um yeah, just speaking to the other um West Shore uh recreation uh they're these minutes are amazing.

The the information and um um I hope um um you know speaking to Damien, we can see some way of getting this out to the public because it's such good news and I never realized that um um you know that there's been so many successes and and I didn't know the um the the preference of beer that they have at the um the Gulf uh road club.

It's amazing.

Anyway, excellent uh report and let's get that posted publicly.

It'd be a great opportunity.

Good PR.

Thanks, Councilor Rogers.

So we had uh somebody willing to move A and B.

Did we get a second or for that?

You've moved it.

Uh um and seconded by Councilor Lemon.

All those in favor?

Any opposed, noting Councilor McKenzie's opposed.

And we have uh correspondence.

None for action.

Uh A, B, and C to receive for information.

So moved.

Moved by Councilor McKenzie.

Second with thanks.

Seconded uh uh by Councillor Rogers.

Anybody like to comment on it?

Uh Councilor uh Lemon and then Councilor Rogers.

I I really appreciate sorry council.

I I think it's interesting that all three have to do with Bill 44.

And uh it's um I'm just you know, I I as council council member appreciate that people are paying attention and are interested in and um seeing how it will affect them potentially or the town and uh just grateful for these thank you councillor Rogers please and and again similarly uh my thanks to um Mr.

Hopkins and Mr.

Campbell for from their perspectives on on the uh uh Bill 44 and and I think the um uh the comments with respect to parking and and the uh the trials and tribulations of folks that don't have a card um those won't go away so that's another uh I think a group of citizens that we have to acknowledge.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Um, so we've got uh mover, I think, and uh seconder for A, B, and C.

Uh, all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Um, was I wrong, Sarah?

Did we have a mover and a seconder that you recorded?

Okay, good.

Um, bylaws, and that brings us down to amendments to noise control bylaw, municipal ticket information bylaw.

Good evening, mayor, council.

The report before you this evening um requesting an amendment to our current and existing noise control bylaw.

I asked that you receive this report for information.

The purpose of the report is to establish some bylaw amendments to the Town of Your Royal noise Control bylaw to eliminate the current subjectivity in the bylaw.

Um, we've seen an uptick in noise complaints.

We've made a slight amendment to our existing bylaw.

That amendment uh reads um one second here, sir.

Uh individuals will not be permitted to allow or facilitate the playing or operation of any radio, tape recorder, audio playback, machine, stereophonic equipment, or any other instrument or apparatus for sound production or amplification between the hours of 11 p.m.

on one day and 9 a.m.

the following day.

And that is just a the currently we don't have a time slot in our bylaw, and we're running in some challenges with uh noise control and some complaints.

So I'm looking uh for a amendment that will also amend our MTI bylaw.

I will point out that on Schedule 10 there is a slight typo that we'll correct before the final reading.

In schedule 10, it indicates uh 11 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

That should read 11 p.m.

to 9 a.m.

and we'll make that correction prior to the adoption of the bylaw.

I'm more than happy to answer any questions that you have.

There's a few.

Council 11.

Sort of a question, partly a comment is out aloud.

Sure.

Um a friend um has been has had several complaints from a neighbor because she's a sensitive sleeper and he has his his his music playing on his deck and he thinks it's quite quiet.

So he was reported and his what he said to me was what's the what is the decibel level that is allowed?

What's permitted?

Um and you know, good point.

So I'm I just I think I just want to say, so that's a question maybe, um, but both I just want to say I'm glad that we're putting some some boundaries around this and some clarification.

So thanks.

Councillor Rogers.

Um I just wondered if.

Yeah, that's a good point.

So that that's the issue of the bylaw now, is the subjectivity.

It's it's at the discretion what constitute noise.

By putting a time limit on it, we can say def you know, definitively between 11 p.m.

and 9 a.m.

there will be no noise.

And then that allows the RCMP to make that that call on our behalf when the bylaw officer isn't available.

So you're right, it's a very subjective.

Yeah.

Paul, thanks.

Committee the hole is um I I really had noticed, and if we had uh you hear it then, uh I I'd be saying that uh is quite amazing and and a concern how much bylaw increase that we've had year over year here to date.

So um, you know, I appreciate the consistency with our neighbors.

Um, I'm assuming that it's consistent with the squamoult or Santa's, but maybe we don't care as long as we're wet.

No, not that we don't care.

Just it's it's more for a wesher RCMP so they can apply a consistent application across the board.

Okay.

So how does um um repeat offenders, individuals that don't pay attention, um is it um a fine every instance?

That would be the plan.

So you know you um there's an infraction, you're given your uh your warning, you're given your education.

If you continue then you're fined.

If those continue you would just continue and escalate the fines.

It would probably get to the point if you had a repeat offender that was attracting the attention of counsel that that person would probably be before counsel to explain the number of fines.

And uh for those individuals that get repeat of um fines and it starts racking up is and they refuse to pay is it uh do we have the recourse to be able to tack it on taxes no not with not with uh mti's you could we could swear in information and go out to West or I believe it's a long form is it Don that um and then swear in information and recover the challenge is is unless the fines are substantial you have a substantial amount the the amount of staff time and cost associated with going to court to swear the information you we have to weigh we're hoping we're hoping to get compliance voluntarily and of course then the the tickets follow.

I'll be sure to listen to Ramstein at uh five in the morning.

No, five p.m.

five p.m., yes.

Anything after 11, I'll come give you a ticket.

You bet.

Counselor Brown and then counselor McKenzie.

Chief, you're correct.

Uh you can get a long form information under the BC Offense Act.

If you have uh consistent uh violators that don't just don't pay the tickets or just ripped them up or whatever, you can and the fines are up to ten thousand dollars under the BC Offense Act.

That's for any bylaw.

So um, and it's a mandatory uh court appearance too.

So people pay attention to that.

And sometimes a lot a letter informing people that that's the next step can be a good deterrent as well.

Council McKenzie, please.

I have a very practical question.

So if somebody um experiences like their neighbors too loud, how do they know who to call?

Do they call the town and then it says to contact you?

So bylaw.

That was very loud, probably in violation of our bylaw.

So residents have the option, they can call the police, and the police can enforce that bylaw in our absence.

We usually follow up in the morning and it's a knock on the door and then we we determine do the investigation to conclude whether there was noise or not.

So it puts the person on notice that you know you're now on the radar, and um if we receive, you know, a second complaint or a third complaint, you know, where there's smoke, there's fire, and then we can start to, you know, advance and escalate from there.

But generally, if if it's after hours, it's two in the morning, it's a loud party, it's gonna be a call to the West RCMP.

Okay, so it's not uh actually in real time essentially, it's the day after, and then it's a little bit of hearsay, I guess, if you're not there to experience the actual um event.

So um we have had an example where our bylaw officer outside of his regular hours of work has done some assessments on some properties on off days and evenings.

Um, but in the case of you know, the the loud stereo at one in the morning, I mean, it would be a phone call to the police if they if you wanted instant remedy.

And then this this would allow them, it would give them the tools to say, well, it is after 11 p.m.

we can now issue a ticket, or they would uh do the investigation, send a note off to bylaw saying we were here last night, we'd recommend uh ticketing or fines, and then Brad can follow up from there.

Uh so I I've got some questions, Paul.

The the the any radio tape recorder, audio playback, machines, stereophonic equipment, or any other equipment just seems like a lot of words to describe the one thing that most people are using, and that's an iPhone and a Bluetooth speaker to cause the noise.

So maybe uh I I'm I can't support this because it's got a lot of stuff on it, but I think we can dense it into like a word or two just to make it realistic.

Um and the other thing I I I I want to talk to counsel about and get your opinion, I think 11 p.m., particularly on a weeknight, is really late for a young family.

Um, you know, uh I I I get the nine o'clock, but that could probably be eight o'clock.

But I mean, just my own view if that was going on in my neighborhood that there was significant music going on at 11 o'clock, people will be calling the RCMP before that, but there's no way to really enforce it if it's loud before 11 o'clock.

So I I get the consistency part, but the reality is if somebody was was having a significant uh party during the week or even on the weekends because people are working shift work.

What what do you feel about 11 o'clock?

It's uh something offered up and something that's being done, I think in Calwood and Langford, but is that something that you know you would support as a as a no-go?

And I I know it would depend on a lot of variables such as how loud and and whatnot, but is that reasonable?

Is that a reasonable hour to say cut her down or should it be less than that?

So that's my question to you to find out is that too late or is that reasonable?

Council Brown.

I know the CRD bylaw, which is pretty generic, covers all the unorganized areas, um, and also municipalities that don't have their own boss.

But the um uh the time um the if I recall, it it excluded uh or if included uh statutory holidays, weekends, but I know that doesn't help people that are on shift work that typically uh maybe work on Saturdays and Sundays.

But if I recall it did say um specific times on weekends and statutory holidays, so I don't know if that's a help or a hindrance.

Council Rogers?

You know, it it I I hear what you're saying.

Um, but maybe what we want to do is at least get this into the bylaw, get the amendments, and test it.

And if we do get um people that are you know concerned about that, you know, 10 o'clock, then it's always something that we can come back and and uh reconsider.

So so what we're saying in this, if I'm reading this right, is that there's a pen drop from 11 uh PM to 9 p.m.

Anybody that wants to submit a complaint, that's not turn it down, that is off.

That is the bylaw, right?

Right now, and then before that, if somebody's playing obnoxiously loud music, like what's preventing them from calling the RCMP or would they even respond if somebody's having a real party and it's really loud, but it's before 11 o'clock.

No, good point.

Um, I think there's there's an element of reasonableness.

I'm sure if my neighbor had it cranked at 9 p.m., I'd be picking up the phone as well.

Um, I I I think you know, it comes down to the almost a good neighbor policy.

You know, the the purpose, I hear you on the the iPhone issue.

I think the the main purpose of this is the amplification of the music.

Um again, um one man's trash is another man's treasure.

You know, your music might be offensive, but his music isn't.

It's it's so subjective that all we can really go on is a time.

Um and that just to give to give some guideline to the police or the bio office that, you know, if it's pin drop at 11 p.m.

and it's noisy, then we can deal with that.

We can't deal with the the type of music or the type of noise, it's just the noise.

So, no, good points.

And and I know the struggle you get into by trying to monitor decibel levels, even though that might be a scientific methodology, is like wear on your property.

Is it outside?

Is it inside?

Oh, I usually sit here and it's important to me, but it's yeah.

So I get that point of it.

Um yeah, okay, thanks for the explanation.

Any other further comments?

Uh Councillor Lemon.

This is an off-topic question.

Have you ever had complaints about a hawker's cry, a huckster's cry, or a peddler's cry?

I believe there was a a bylaw about your horse running free as well.

I saw that.

That's an interesting one.

I don't know what a hawker, a huckster, I don't know what a peddler is.

Um I don't know what a hawker is.

I'm I'm gonna sure I will be looking for them.

Yeah can we in your process of going through these uh maybe for a uh amendment coming down just modernizing languages and and suitable uh I the the one thing again I didn't see is very loud mufflers on on cars uh that were aftermarket that uh was there and I noticed in one of the schedules it had on highway and off highway or not on highway.

Um so highway, I'm assuming is a car traveling on the highway with loud music or a loud muffler.

I'm thinking okay.

Okay.

There's no other comments have we got a mover for the staff recommendation.

Move to receipt, seconded by counselor Lemon.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And now we're down to the noise by law in relation to noise limits, and that's bylaw 1136.

Councilor Rogers moves first to third.

Councilor Lemon seconds.

Any comments or questions?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

And this is the um, I believe the schedule.

And that's bylaw 1137, and that amends um peddlers which cries which disturbed and hawkers and hucksters that were a concern of counselor Lemon.

Um and uh yeah, again, if you could go over in an iteration that we wouldn't see before too long and put down some of the obvious causes um of of things.

Yeah, so 1137 is just gonna need a small amendment.

The time is uh the time is incorrect.

So we'll make that uh amendment right now.

Right now it's reading 11 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

We'll make it supposed to be 9 a.m.

I'll make that change.

Yeah, and could and just uh to size things up, um could operating a vehicle with a motor or operating a motor uh or operating sound equipment or whatever would be there.

Um and uh you know to counselor Rogers' point, is it does the second fine get any bigger?

Or is it just hundred dollar fine, hundred dollar fine?

100 fine.

Does that mean $100 fine per day?

Does it mean a $100 fine per complaint?

Probably per offense.

Um we we did have a discussion on um upping that fine amount.

Um that will be coming in a future amendment.

We wanted to actually make the fine substantial to get people's attention.

You know, we had a construction complaint.

Um, you know, for instance, uh, you know, construction on a Sunday.

Uh there was some installations going on at two in the morning.

So when you're dealing with a $30 million project and you hand them a $100 ticket, it makes no impact.

So we'll be coming forward with some amended uh dollar amounts, and we can uh at that time we can uh get rid of the hawkers, hucksters, and peddlers.

Thank you for that.

Uh Scott, um, is our current noise bylaw when we're looking at it, it's like a hundred or it's a fine per hour.

Like if you get, you know, if you show up there and somebody's making lots of noise, you can file them find them a hundred bucks an hour later.

You can go back and and do it as long as they're generating noise is that correct our current statement yeah that's correct it's uh currently each hour is a separate offense and would this work the same way I believe so yeah that part of the bylaw is not being amended okay great I'll move uh first through third of one three one one three seven as requested amended okay and uh counselor lemon will uh second unless she's got a complaint she will and all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And now we're down to adoption or the fourth reading for bylaw one one three four.

And I think we've seen this a bit.

Um is there any concerns after review?

I'll move adoption.

Second.

Uh move by councillor McKenzie.

Seconded by Councilor Rogers.

Another opportunity for questions or comments.

Uh very well.

Uh all those in favor of uh transit-oriented development.

Any opposed?

I'm just gonna oppose on principle because we're being forced to do it.

So motion carries.

Note that Mayor Tobias was not in support of 1134.

Uh and that brings us down to fees and changes for by the law, and that's building and development fees.

And did you want to talk to this?

We've already reviewed it.

Okay.

Uh Councilor Rogers moves.

Move adoption.

Uh seconded by Councilor Lemon.

Any questions or comments?

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Uh, new business.

I promised you a bit of a floor here.

So I think under normal procedures with new business, um, you've all got a document in front of you right now.

Firstly, before we entertain Councilor Rogers, kind of for a same-day consideration, that's more than late, we'd have to vote on whether we want to discuss it and give uh the benefit of counselor Rogers to um to make the uh presentation.

Uh so councillor Brown moves, seconded by counselor Lemon.

You're in favor or not in favor?

No, I'm no.

I was I no, I'm not seconding it.

You're not seconding it, and your mic's still on, by the way.

Um second uh seconded by Councilor Rogers.

All those in favor of consideration today, all those opposed, Councilor McKenzie and Councillor Lemon are opposed.

So motion carries and what focus this in on being a motion.

What would you like us to do with this, Counselor Rogers?

Yes, this is um uh and again apologies for uh the late information, but um I I think um it's it's timely information, and um I'd like to move that this go forward for uh staff's consideration as they prepare the bylaw, and with the hopes that this would uh you know seek to provide further clarification and and support and been moved and by seconded.

So any conversation you've uh what what's your motivation, Councillor Rogers?

Then we'll go to Councillor Brown.

It's um um it it just simply helps because this is actually based on the GIS test fitting um that was uh was done on the original design, and it just helps to um I I think better understand um um the implications and and that's really all that I can speak to and and it's uh in hopes of providing staff uh further information for consideration.

Thank you, Councilor Brown.

Yeah, I just saw it the first time tonight, but it's useful to me because it shows the lot coverage and because I as I mentioned earlier about you know larger three and four bedroom townhouses.

So um if I was to make a motion like I thought it might make uh to increase this the maximum size, um they would have exceeded the lot coverage, it would have been too too much.

So you wouldn't have had room for for trees like you mentioned earlier.

So uh to me it's it's it's useful information for well for all of us.

Council McKenzie.

I would certainly want to spend a little more time looking at this and comparing it to the uh original options and also allow staff time to consider and comment on it as well.

Thank you, Council Lowe.

Yes, that's why I um did not second um the opportunity to discuss this.

Um simply because I did I I want I I want some context.

I want to look at it.

I'm looking at it right now, it's just a lot of numbers, and um I need to wrap my head around it.

And it Councilor Rogers, go ahead.

Yes, I no, I appreciate everyone's uh concerns, and I and again I apologize it for it coming so late.

It's came to me this this afternoon.

So um I'm I'm simply wanting to uh pass this formally to staff for their consideration because it wasn't in the the uh the minutes and and um I hope uh staff will scrutinize this as much as we will too.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers, and uh just a quick question, Leanne.

When will we see that bylaw kind of in front of us for first to third, I guess?

That's through the mayor.

Staff is has tentatively scheduled to bring the bylaw forward in early June.

Council McKenzie, I had a question.

Early June.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, I just wondered if it it changes the the previous motion because you're essentially option three was something specific, and now we're adding additional information.

So I'm not sure now by referring it to staff, staff are going to accept it as if we had approved it originally.

It's just a bit confusing.

Thank you.

I don't I don't think it changes anything.

It's just based on the test, but for the lot coverage percentage uh that they did the um test fit on.

So I don't think it amends anything, but it just specifies that that's where they were coming up with their information, and that's the coverage for the lot.

So it's a column that wasn't there before, but I don't think it changes fundamentally um option three at all.

That's my read on it anyway.

So the motion on the floor is to refer this uh to staff uh for um uh consideration for uh inclusion into the bylaw.

And I'm not going to certainly fault the committee, fault staff, fault uh councilor Rogers.

These deadlines are imposed on us and they're coming in hot and heavy, so they're things that would normally take months for us to consider and and uh go through, then uh I'd be uh happy to support this.

So we've got a mover and a seconder.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Council McKenzie is opposed.

Motion carries.

Uh I think that covers new business, and now we can move to question periods.

Anybody got a question for council at all?

Yes, please uh come on up to the mic.

Check one.

Kyle Porter, uh 537, Prince Robert.

Lane.

Uh good evening, bearing council.

A hawker is an individual who sells wares by carrying them through the streets.

A peddler is defined as a retail dealer who brings goods.

So we learned a little bit tonight.

I had time to look that up.

I don't remember what the third term was.

A huckster.

Okay, we'll have to look that up on the downtime.

Um I learned a few things tonight, so I'm actually glad that I missed uh the initial question period or or comment period.

But I so I think I I filled in some blanks while I was sitting there.

But um I learned that uh Councilor Rogers holds a better party.

Open later, better music with Ramstein and Counselor uh or uh Mayor Sobias may not get as many people over with uh shutting down the music early.

So that's what I've learned.

Um so I think the uh purpose of uh of me being here is to ask some questions about all the things that you guys are having to deal with right now with the housing thing.

Um it's I've been uh devoting a lot of time into this on the on the background, sort of watching the meetings and and it's brought up some questions and uh and so maybe I can just take this moment to uh confirm some things that uh that I think I've uh some I I have the answer to and some I don't.

So I'll just kind of rip through quickly and and uh let you guys get out of here.

So um uh excuse me looking down and reading this, but I figure it's better to not go off the off the cuff uh site time frame it's not clear when what the new regs will result in and i'm concerned about the unintended consequences and and so every time that we make a bylaw something else that we're not thinking about changes so um now i gotta read this and then figure out what i meant um i guess the question that i'm leading to is um uh we want to get it right once and we don't want to lose further control so you guys are running the ship right now, and and uh for council to have control over the neighborhoods is really important.

So we're losing that.

We lost step one.

It's not your fault.

But I I suppose the concern is that if we don't get this right, do we run the risk of losing further control by the uh provincial government stepping in and taking over?

So we don't want that necessarily.

So um is there a way to push this to a later meeting similar to what they're doing in Central Saanich, where they're they've adopted some things, they've discussed, they got another meeting the end of May, and then they're pushing to a public consultation period at the end of May, and then I think they'll make their decisions in June.

So I think that was discussed tonight, and maybe that's what I'm understanding is that is that the option one, two, three, and what what council's decided on option three?

There may be some changes to explore this a little bit further.

Is that is that correct?

I think staff's still writing the bylaw as we speak, and I think option three gave some um specific committee recommendations for it, but it's certainly not the whole bylaw.

Um and uh it and I think overall, if I could kind of sum up the option three that committees concerned was is can we reduce site coverage um uh to allow for some more green space, uh hopefully make it less expensive to build uh and less expensive to buy.

I think those were the the three things that we were kind of interested in doing, the rationale behind it.

As far as getting it right goes, yeah, if we don't pass this thing, then the province has definitely got in its legislation move to come in and and kind of assume greater control over things that have to do with zoning and approvals.

Yeah.

Um, so I guess I'll lead the I've got lots of of of sort of opinions on things like cost to build and and uh you know there is a sliding scale, and land is the big cost.

And if you divide that by 4,000 square feet, that's what your land cost is.

If you divide by four units, a million dollars, it's two fifty a unit for land.

So density has a is a major impact on on the the end product.

And so, you know, the committee has great members in it, lots of uh a wealth of knowledge there, but it's not as simple that a building costs four hundred dollars a square foot.

A thousand square foot building might cost $400.

A $2,000 square foot doesn't a 3,000 square foot doesn't.

So you can't just run that number all the way up so that the uh the once you've paid for the majority of the structure the extra bedroom does not cost the same amount as the initial structure.

So we can't just take that and and just say well a a three bedroom is more expensive than a two bedroom.

It is but there's a there's it it's just way more nuanced of a conversation than that.

So it's just not that simple.

That's why I was hoping maybe there's a bit more time to sort of explore these these things a little bit, make sure that we're not using one set of a logic that's that's really going to run us into trouble down the road.

Um so the question is, is it too restrictive?

Is kind of what I after analyzing it through the the lens of a of a resident and a lens of a builder and a developer.

So the way I understand it is I think right now, the way that it's written, that we that if you own a house on a lot, the only thing that you can add is a garden cottage.

I'm pretty sure that's I believe you can put in a suite and a garden cottage.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So a house with a suite can add a six, seven hundred square foot garden suite.

A house, a rancher can add a garden suite, but under no circumstance can you add four units on a site.

So I guess my concern about restriction is we're promoting the demolition of these houses to now create four units.

I don't know whether it's good or bad.

I just want to make sure that we all know exactly what we're what we're looking at here when we're talking about these bylaws.

So the the second question is can this be removed?

Is there still time to say?

Because basically it's saying if you have a house on the on the property, no, you can't build a duplex, no, you can't build really anything other than this cottage.

No, no, you you can if like this is um we couldn't say Leanne pop in here.

If you want to build a single home on the lot that you just bought that old rundown house on, you can build a single home.

You don't need to do anything else except a normal uh request through the town for uh a permit to do that.

If you wanted to build a duplex, I don't think there would be a rezoning required, Lianne.

Correct me if I'm wrong for a duplex, even though you could build four units.

If you want to put up three, you you you you know, the only time you would have to really go through the extra hoop if you want to put up five and a thing zoned four.

Am I correct, Liam?

Yeah, through the mayor, uh that's correct.

However, the the zone, the draft zoning bylaw does not contemplate retaining the existing single family dwelling and putting and building a duplex in the backyard.

Exactly.

So we're we're also um Kyle, when we're thinking about this, there are certain developers, we're not gonna name names, that would take that square footage and build a monstrosity with no setbacks as a single home or a duplex.

That was a monstrosity to take up the whole lot.

So again, behind this was how do we save a few trees in the process?

How do we try to make it affordable?

But that doesn't mean anybody can't go through a process and build a a significant home with our current zoning bylaws that would be in effect uh with a suite that would be legal and allowed, and with a a uh a potentially a granny suite or laneway house as well.

I I don't know that I asked that question properly or or stated.

What I'm saying is that I'm gonna just estimate that ninety-eight percent of the lots that we have have houses on them.

None of those lots can build anything other than a a cottage without tearing down the house.

And that's that's what I'm saying.

So that's why I'm saying, are we restrictive?

So that's the test I'm trying to pass when I'm putting these things through, is saying that somebody with a rancher that has economic life left, we're saying you can you can't add a suite because there's no room in this in the so you can do it renovation, you can do these things, but no, you can't put four units on there.

There's no feasible way you can put you can put a guest cottage.

So again, I just want to get clear on what we're so that everybody knows because I because it this is a lot of stuff to weigh through.

And I do this every day, and I'm looking at I'm reading through and I'm trying to get these questions answered, and I'm going, I I just don't even know what we're what what are you guys voting on?

You know, what are you contemplating?

So, anyways, um that's that's enough for that.

The max square I I think you covered it tonight, the max square footage of per unit.

I think it was an unintended addition.

I I think the the uh committee had put that in there just without thinking that I don't think that was the intention.

It was never said max.

Yeah, it's all average.

And and on option three of the last meeting, it was max square footage of a ninety-three square meters.

So just so that everybody knows that's not possible to uh to to produce a three-bedroom, you know, like it's just it's just too small.

So as long as it's an average, then that it fixes the house plexes, but it doesn't fix the uh townhouses.

Um so as long as it I just wanted to confirm that the um and Kyle just to remind you you're like way over I know I'm I know you're patient so sum up I know but it's really important so the question four is and I think this is my last uh last question is um no no it's not it is it's my last I the last thing was the last question so I I think the last thing is is just regarding the uh the committees it it was interesting to see that there might be some additional opportunity for discussions.

Um I I I really have to side with uh counselor McKenzie on that.

It's I I I really like the committee.

I like them as a resident.

I like that they're protecting the neighborhoods, but they're half of the conversation.

They are very, very one-sided with with the discussions.

So I I agree with counselor McKenzie.

Um as a resident I prefer the committees.

As a unbiased party I uh I would say that uh that you're not it's so heavily weighted to one demographic that you're just not getting the full story from the uh from the neighborhood.

So I guess my last question is how far can we do this before and get more information and get staff's opinion of things a little bit more until we make a final decision on these kind of things.

I think we've already voted on option three right now.

So I think staff is gonna take that in, and that's the direction they've been given to construct the bylaw around.