Council Meeting

Greetings everyone.

Um, I'm Councillor John Rogers.

Uh, Mayor St.

Tobias is ill today and gives his regrets.

Uh, we also have Ron Mattson who's not available, neither Councillor Lemmon.

And um, Don Brown is uh coming from far away, and he's uh coming in remotely.

So we do have four, we have a quorum.

Um I'll just uh read a statement here.

Um this meeting is called to order, and uh we recognize the uh Laguankan speaking people known today as the Squamo and Songhis First Nations and their historic connections to this land that continues to this day.

Uh this evening we will be hearing from the uh the public who uh will telephone in to public participation or those that are in the room, and also question period at the end of the agenda.

Um, from members in the audience, the uh council chambers is a safe, respectful, inclusive uh space.

We will all members of the audience are asked to refrain from clapping, cheering, or open expressions of opinions when others are speaking or when they've done speaking.

When it's your turn to speak, do not speak disrespectfully about anyone else, including council of staff.

Do not use rude or offensive language, do not make statements or allegations that can be called into question the character of anyone else, and do not speak or act in an aggressive bullying or harassing way.

Council wants to hear the views of those participating in an open and impartial form.

Uh, if you wish to provide comments by telephone, uh you can call 778-402-9227.

That information is provided for you.

Uh, then there's the conference ID number 324 272 093 pound sign.

Do not unmute until asked.

You will be immediately muted once entering the meeting.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will ask who's who's available who wants to speak at the public participation, and I will announce the last four digits of your phone number, and you can ask to and I will ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback.

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

Speakers will have five minutes each during the public participation period and two minutes to ask this question during question period.

You will be timed.

This meeting will be recorded.

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

So with that, um we have an agenda members.

Um can I have a motion to approve?

So moved.

Okay, moved and seconded.

All those in favor, thank you, Don.

Proposed carried.

Um the minutes and adoptions of uh that's before us.

Um can I have a minutes to adopt, please?

Motion to adopt.

Uh moving A through D.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Allison and Damien again.

Uh all those in favor.

Opposed.

Carried.

Nothing under Mayor's report and under petitions and delegations.

We have uh BC Transit who give us an update.

Uh Mr.

Mosey, are you here?

Uh C, ma'am.

Hi.

Good evening, Chair, Council.

Thank you for having me this evening.

My name is Chelsea Mosse.

I'm the senior manager of government relations with BC Transit for the Victoria Regional Transit System.

I'm joined this evening by my colleagues James Wadsworth, our project development manager, and Tyson Loreth, our program manager for the low carbon program and on free on street infrastructure.

I'll be presenting all of our slides this evening, but I may get James or Tyson to assist me in answering some questions as subject matter experts if it's best answered by them.

In terms of my presentation this evening, I'm going to start by giving a brief overview of our plans and priorities for the Victoria Regional Transit System, followed by an update on our rapid bus project.

And finally, I'll discuss the key initiatives and projects that we have underway.

And of course, at that point, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

In 2011, BC Transit developed a 25-year transit future plan that envisions what the region's transit network would look like 25 years from that time.

And that's still the vision that we are working towards today.

This plan identified four layers of transit service, which depend on land use and density, with rapid transit service intended to move high volumes of people along key toridor destinations.

The Frequent Transit Network providing service on medium to high density corridors, down to the local transit services, which connect neighborhoods and provide connections to the rapid transit and frequent transit network.

With regards to recent changes in the Victoria Regional Transit System, on January 8th, we implemented a significant service change.

And of note, this service change involved the implementation of the West Shore Transit Network restructure.

This network restructure was looked at through the 2022 West Shore Local Area Transit Plan, which we worked closely with, which we worked closely on with our local government partners, and the planning process also included comprehensive public engagement.

The intent of the West Shore Network Restructure was to make public transit to and from key areas in the West Shore faster and simpler, to better align transit with density and development, and to improve integration with the Route 95 Rapid Bus Service.

Looking ahead, the Victoria Regional Transit Commission approved a 20,000-hour expansion in the upcoming 24-25 fiscal year involving up to eight buses.

This expansion remains subject to provincial funding, which we'll learn about on budget day later this month.

The commission also approved in principle the expansions you see there for the following two fiscal years, and those will be revisited for approval again next year.

We've developed expansion priorities across the whole region, but some of the specific areas that we'll be looking to prioritize over the next three years in terms of expansion resources include Rapid Bus and the Frequent Transit Network, development of the crosstown network on Hillside Gorge and Admiral's McKenzie, improving transit service on Quadra, and improvements to service to the airport and the peninsula.

The top priorities for investments in the upcoming 24 25 fiscal year or whenever expansion funding is available are the introduction of the McKenzie Rapid Bus Service, as well as the new Route 40 connecting Dockyard to UVIC via Admirals and McKenzie.

In support of the Route 95 Rapid Bus Service, which already offers up to 20 minutes of saved travel time at peak periods thanks to bus lanes, we've been working with the town of View Royal on the Island Highway Transit Priority Project.

In View Royal, this project involves transit priority improvement at the Island Highway and Six Mile Road intersection.

And we plan to tender construction for this project within the next month with a targeted in service date sometime in 2025.

This project is funded through the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program with a local share of the costs being covered by the Victoria Regional Transit Commission.

The BC Transit Bus Shelter Program has also received funding through the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program.

And through this program, our local government partners can apply for bus shelters for key locations in their jurisdictions on an annual basis, with the local 20% of the costs of the shelter being covered by the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and the local government being responsible for prepping the site for installation and the ongoing maintenance of the shelter.

We have received an application from the town of View Royal for a new bus shelter at Six Mile and Chilco for the upcoming 24 25 fiscal year.

The main building is now taking shape, and soon we'll be installing more than 16 kilometers of conduit to accommodate the future battery electric Bus Fleet.

If you're interested in receiving email updates on this project, you can send an email to that address, email address that you see there, or feel free to email me and I can get you signed up.

And Yumo has enabled new and improved fare products.

Adoption rates of Yumo continue to increase, and we know from the data that the mobile app is our rider's preferred method of payment.

At a later stage, we will be enabling the use of credit card and debit card payments.

A fair review of the Victoria Regional Transit System is now complete, and the final fair review report will go to the Victoria Regional Transit Commission in March 2024 for approval.

The fair review provides options that improve cost recovery from passenger fares while also ensuring fares remain affordable for our riders.

This fair review process did involve public engagement late last year, and if approved, there would be fare changes in July of both this year as well as next.

BC Transit did receive a letter from the town of Uroyal regarding free and discounted transit for youth.

As the Victoria Regional Transit Commission is responsible for all decision making regarding fares, this letter will be included on the agenda of the upcoming Commission meeting next month for the commission's consideration alongside the fair review.

Next ride is our automated vehicle location technology that allows our riders to see the location of their bus in real time and its predicted arrival time at their stop.

This technology provides us with data that we use to enhance schedule reliability, manage on-road incidents, and communicate effectively with riders.

This NextRide platform is in the process of receiving a refresh, and this process started in January.

The updated version of Next Ride will help provide increased certainty and convenience for riders, and is also coming with new passenger digital passenger information displays that you can see in the photo there on board our full-size buses.

Finally, our low-carbon fleet program was approved in 2019 to support provincial targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

As you can see, BC Transit has committed to transition to a fully electric fleet by 2040.

In support of this, our electric demonstration bus is out there on the road and it's now running longer routes, which is allowing us to learn from it.

And battery electric bus infrastructure continues to be installed at the Victoria Transit Center, including our first overhead pantograph charger.

We currently have multiple procurements underway for battery electric buses, for charging equipment, and for electrification support systems.

And that concludes my presentation.

I'd be more than happy to answer any questions council may have.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Do you have any recent statistics on um riders?

Uh whether uh whether it'd be up or down, considering the amount of investments that you know most local governments have put into BC transit here over the past, well, particularly five years.

Um, just wondering if uh your good work has been paying off with more riders.

Through the chair.

So, of course, through the COVID-19 pandemic, we did see a drastic decline in ridership.

And we're really pleased to say that we are now seeing a very strong return of ridership.

We're seeing our ridership recovering, sorry, um meeting or exceeding pre-pandemic ridership levels uh for the last period of time.

Um and uh that's a trend that we anticipate continuing to see uh increase.

Councillor Brown, any questions?

No, I'm good, John.

Thanks.

Okay, if you if you don't mind, I'll have a few.

Um we've been um hearing uh some rather bad press of you know staff shortages and mechanical breakdowns.

Um what's what's the the approach on on how to remedy that and and maintain confidence?

Yeah, excellent question.

Uh I think service reliability is paramount for our riders, and that's certainly what we aim to do is deliver our reliable service.

We have been experiencing maintenance challenges for the past um couple weeks, and uh these are largely relating to supply chain issues stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Um, and so we do have um a bit of a backlog of maintenance issues that we're currently working through right now, but it's our number one priority to resolve those maintenance issues.

Um, we know that service cancellations are very disruptive for our riders.

It's not something that we'd like to see.

When we do have cancellations, we aim to communicate those to our riders as quickly and effectively as possible.

And our customer service team is aiming to prioritize that every day.

And then with regards to your question, we're we do um we are uh looking to of course mitigate this as quickly as possible for our customers.

Yeah.

You number the uh the rapid bus is is highly successful, and perhaps maybe too much because uh we have people that are at uh the Helmican Overpass and they keep seeing the buses go past full, full, full.

Does that mean more buses will need to be um I know are you scheduling to have more buses on the rapid bus lane or route?

Uh yeah, through the chair.

As as um I highlighted, we're seeing a strong return of ridership uh throughout the transit system.

And uh in particular, we're seeing really strong ridership on that uh new blink rapid rust new ish blink rapid rust route, which is exactly what we want to see.

Um, but we are certainly seeing routes and areas that are in need of expansion resources, and so that's why we're we're looking forward to the time at which we do have both expansion hours and more buses available.

I I was pleased to see in the uh last I think it was the November meeting of uh the commission that you'd received our letter with respect to number 40 and and thrilled to pieces that uh it's um it's now on the agenda and and well well considered.

Um one of the things I I would hope that you you consult with council and staff on where those bus stops will be in view oil i know that cane and tire uh who has a lot of staff there really want to use um uh the bus as a means for their staff to get to work and it'd be very convenient the same with Rexall if uh there could be a bus stop in that area so on the record there we go please uh and it's also very close to the 14 when people want to transfer from one bus to the next is that uh is that good enough or do we need to put that in writing to you that's sufficient I'll definitely take that back to our planning team but uh in all circumstances we do work really closely with local government staff on those sorts of things.

Thanks.

I have a question kind of stemming from councillor rogers' uh comment about the buses being full by the time they get to View Royal.

So I was wondering, is there any or do you ever have a service where it would start at a different point along the route so that it wouldn't be full up?

I know that happens in I've come from Ottawa.

We have a very big bus system there where they would start halfway to avoid having those full buses.

Through the chair, I'm not sure that's something we're currently doing, but certainly a suggestion that I can make.

And we do at certain times have um what we call overload buses available for when we know that um buses are uh full and we can we certainly aim to add more service to meet the needs of riders, um, but uh as has been previously highlighted, some of our resources are currently constrained.

I'm going to piggyback on that.

When I was riding the bus uh number 14, um it was in the bad old days, and we we would see the buses leapfrogging one after the other, and both of them being full, but being very effective in moving folks along that busy road.

So it's uh yeah, that's great.

Let me take it to the six mile and six mile parking ride.

Have you got an estimate now of how many vehicles, um parking stalls you uh expect to have there?

The uh mobility hub that you're referring to is a uh project being led by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

We are engaged as a stakeholder, but it would probably be best directed to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to answer that question.

Thank you very much for the presentation, and and I appreciate it.

I just wondered if any other the other uh BC Transit reps have anything to add.

All good?

Well done.

Thank you very much for having us tonight.

Really appreciate it.

We'll see you next year.

Well, with that, um let's move on to the public participation.

Sorry, the um presentation from uh BC Transit.

I'm sorry, sorry, um Ministry of Highways.

Is it working now?

Okay.

Um my name's Tim Stevens.

I'm uh I work with Bachel Haney.

I'm the project manager for the uh bus on shoulder project on McKenzie.

Uh this is Mike Pearson, the uh district highways director for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

And uh we're make a short presentation update, I guess, on on the bus and shoulder project that um I think we were here in the summer last year, I think was.

Um so there's basically an update of that presentation if this works it does uh so we're here to uh cover provide a little bit of background it's it's kind of retreading old ground but just to set the stage the scope of the project that we're working on uh the schedule and and the current status uh the um potential impacts in the town of View Royal and and and and actually there are more uh the concepts that we're or the designs that we're working on that will affect uh View Royal traffic, and then the next steps.

Um so um it's a bit small for me to read from here, but um the the bus on shoulder project has been built uh basically from downtown Vancouver or Victoria, sorry, um out to um Tillicum.

Uh there's a project uh that is uh the design is underway to widen the Colquitz bridges.

Uh the McKenzie interchange is finished and it includes bus on shoulder, like wide four-meter shoulders for uh future bus on shoulder when it gets there.

Um, and then there's our project which goes from McKenzie Interchange through the Helmkin Interchange to the Calwood Interchange and stops at uh the Old Island Highway Interchange.

Um and that we're in detail design now and then the uh last section is from uh basically Coldwood Interchange up to WandaFuca uh transit exchange uh the scope of the project this is the project area uh goes from McKenzie all the way out to and so the yellow area is basically the area that's the scope of our project here um and so here we're showing a cross section of what we're doing between the Helmkin interchange and the Callwood interchange.

And the plan is to widen the highway because we need we've got uh two and a half meter shoulders there and we need four meters for the bus on shoulder.

So we have to widen each side by a a meter and a half plus some extra for barriers.

So we're widening into the median uh which originally was uh reserved for six laning of the highway which is never really gonna happen.

So uh the the general purpose traffic will actually move away from the edges of the uh uh highway into the center and the outside, the four-meter lane will be used for uh transit buses.

And in between, excuse me, uh east of Helmkin, basically between Helmkin and um uh the McKenzie interchange, there is no median, so we do have to widen to the outside in that area.

Uh and this this area here shows the um uh there's a rock bluff uh on the north side between McKenzie and uh Helmkin, and we do have to share that back a few meters in order to be able to get the bus lane in um so our current project status we've finished uh preliminary design the functional design is complete um and uh we've almost finished our geotechnical of uh investigations there's one last piece to do on soil evaluations and that's going to get on to underway by the end of this month we've completed 50 percent detailed design uh and the 90 detailed design is underway in fact uh we got the submission on Friday so I haven't hardly even cracked the sales on it so um and then uh we expect to have the detailed design complete uh by June of this year.

Um so one one of the areas of interest that excuse me in Old View Royal has is the ramp that comes from Burnside Road West that connects on into the Callwood Interchange.

And last time we were here, we showed you a concept with a yield.

And now we have basically an acceleration lane, let's put it, and a weave area between so the buses are coming in the area that's been shown in blue there.

And that's a a bus only lane.

So the traffic off west burnside needs to weave through the buses and the buses weave to the outside um and the the traffic there's about 350 vehicles an hour in the peak hour coming off of West Burnside and they will have basically a free run and the only people they have to interact with is the the buses which on opening day would be something like 30 an hour so it's it's not a lot for them to uh interact with and uh we think this will work quite well um next slide is at the Homecon Interchange, the north uh intersection, and there's uh the the the curve going on to the on ramp to the Trans Canada Highway is a fairly high speed ramp, and there's safety concerns with given there's a bus stop on the island.

Uh and uh so what we've done there in consultation with your staff is uh come up with what's called a smart uh intersection, uh where we bring the traffic in this case up to a stop sign.

Excuse me.

So they have to stop and turn uh right.

Um they have very little opposition because the left turn is fairly light, and uh the bus movements coming across the intersection are you know could be 30 an hour, the same as the other intersection.

Um, so it provides refuge for uh pedestrians uh using the bus stops uh for both for the rapid bus and for the north-south buses.

Um this is the south intersection at uh Helmkin, and there's not a lot of changes here, really some paint marking changes, and uh we've obviously got to put in new bus stops for the uh rapid bus and uh for the north-south bus.

So that's that's really they're really kind of cosmetic changes.

Uh and then finally, uh the Galloping Goose Trail Bridge.

I know there was a question about providing a little bit wider trail where we could where the to match the width of the bridge, which we've done.

And then it narrows down through the curve so we uh sort of narrow down to the existing three and a half meter wide trail.

And then uh for that's pretty hard for people to see excuse me, but we've um developed a plan where we inset the riprap the riprap protection for the bridge into the bank and uh cover it with uh uh the fill or earth and and made sure that all the works are outside of the wetter perimeter of the river so we don't need to go to uh get a uh authorization from DFO to modify the stream um i think that is our presentation thank you um any questions counselor brown yeah thank you tim good thank you tim for your report good to see you again uh we're old partners from rotary so anyways good to see you good report thanks thank you good thank you.

Uh thanks for coming.

Let's um talk about your plans to ensure that portage linear park along the highway uh continues to be uh a safe place for residents of Uroyal to walk, as you know.

Um I'm sure you do know that you didn't talk about it, but there's a very uh close bike and pedestrian path uh near your construction.

And uh I didn't see it get addressed or talked about, so I was wondering if you could elaborate on kind of what that's gonna look like, uh what you're gonna do to mitigate uh any debris or safety.

Uh talk about the fencing uh that you installed in Sanich and erected there, and um what your plans are for that area.

Uh so for for the for the linear park, um we're widening a little bit in towards like about a meter and a half on on that side uh into the to the not actually into the park area, still on the ministry right away.

Um and we do need to put a new drain through there.

Uh so we're there will be a uh underground, there'll be some construction in there and we will uh uh obviously do it in the correct way and keep it nice and neat and clean.

Uh it's it's relatively compact uh both in time and space.

So and and that's really all we're doing in that area.

So it's pretty minimal, actually.

Uh maybe it's better for the provincial uh delegate here to speak about that then.

Um happy to answer that one.

I I as Tim said, really this this project is focused on uh on bus on shoulder lanes.

And so the the impacts, the construction impacts to that park are are quite minimal.

So right now it's I think to say it clearly uh it's not within the scope to do much within the park other than remediation for any drainage works that uh that we have to do.

Uh what have you done or do you have any other experience building rapid bus lanes that close to a park lately in Greater Victoria?

Um I think the most recent example would have been uh Cuthbert Holmes Park uh with the McKenzie Interchange or also Regina Park uh with the bus on shoulder um between Tillicum and uh Stanish Road.

Okay, and what kind of precautions or you know, research or even communication with uh with the municipality did you do about that, if any?

Uh yeah, much like this, we provided we worked with the parks department and in in both in I guess in Sanish in both of those cases, um, and just worked on any uh roadside mitigation.

We didn't really get into any mitigations or improvements within the parks themselves.

Uh except for McKenzie, of course, that was quite impactful on Cuthbert's Holmes Park.

Yeah, I'm not going to pick up on uh on the uh previous question there.

Um I'm assuming that uh with this being the highway project and the best writing and so forth, that uh soundproof fencing will go along Portage Linear Park.

Um, do you want to speak to the cell?

Sure.

Uh this this time, we have not planned for any changes because basically we're just moving a meter and a half towards the park.

And really we view that as pretty minor change.

But if you have comments on that, we'd be happy to listen to what you have to say.

Plant a lot of trees along there themselves and still find that the road noise, and as you can appreciate, uh vehicle wheels, um, they seem to have evolved to become a heck of a lot more noisier than uh than the good old days.

So um, yes, I I would think that with this extraordinary project that um um the ministry and transit and whoever uh would be more than happy to provide uh an aesthetic improvement to uh to the community and and uh build soundproof fencing.

Uh it's it's a great asset.

I mean, one of the problems with the park is you can't enjoy it.

Too damn noisy.

So um it's that would be um a real strong consideration.

And uh I'm hoping you guys are gonna be able to work on that.

Council.

Again, maybe it's time for uh yes, the provincial uh employee to come up.

We don't we don't want to be uh directing everything at you, don't worry, I promise.

Uh we have the right person at the podium.

Um but um sir, if you uh if you look at the map behind Counselor McKenzie, you can see Christie Point uh and you can see your proposed project there.

Uh that certainly we can all agree on.

We're very happy.

And thank you for expanding rapid bus lanes.

We've heard the beautiful pitch from BC Transit earlier.

Uh we know we're all in with BC Transit.

So with that being said, with us being all in, certainly we're all in for the rezoning that happened in twenty seventeen for Christie Point.

It's going to uh I think triple in size, Counselor Rogers, meaning that you know, future View Royal residents will certainly uh bear the brunt of noisy tires if if we don't remedy this now.

So uh it certainly seems very reasonable because it it was reasonable for Zanich.

They they received uh soundproof barriers along their entire uh portage road yeah so i guess um i'm happy to could to to take that back and consider it i think what's important to note though is with the sound wall installation that falls within our ministry sound yeah i would just add uh on the the noise i was going to speak about the noise policy so the uh the the sound wall fencing is is is installed after noise.

We do base testing before the project and and then we we model that to see what the the level sound levels will be post-project.

And that's really based on residences and commercial and impacts to businesses.

It's not really something that's considered with parks.

Um so I uh I mean I wouldn't want to say definitively that it wouldn't apply here, but um I think if that's something that's really important to View Royal, uh to to make that asked to the ministry.

Uh we can also work, we've also worked with Sanich uh in their parks department on other improvements like adding trees or other improvements to the park.

But I think to to be honest, I think sound wall would not fit within our noise policy.

Um uh noise pol noise sound wall sound wall policy.

But um as I say, we'll happy to take that back to to confirm that.

If I may I have other questions with respect to the Helmaken uh overpass, I'm not quite understanding the um uh drawings that you provided for the um um how vehicles are are coming quickly.

Um I don't know who's can handle that one, but it's um when vehicles are coming from Eagle Creek Shopping Center and and racing to get on to the TCH.

Yes, that one there.

What one of the uh I just want to say that the uh the my the point is that residents are very concerned about walking over um from the bus stops walking back home uh you know towards the VGH hospital.

And one of the things they're asking for is a push button that would stop the traffic.

Well, in in this case, um I mean we can look at the warrants for a uh uh uh push button, but the the crosswalk is located in an area where vehicles are coming to a stop, whereas right now they're making the it it's on the curve and vehicles are going you know 50, 60 kilometers an hour, and um it's clearly a concern.

Yeah.

And in this case, they would be coming to a stop at an intersection.

So it's a uh sort of a different concept altogether.

And people do expect pedestrians to cross at an intersection.

Um and they're you know it's a stop sign of the intersections, people are gonna have to stop.

Um if there are safety concerns, we'd be happy to look at them.

Okay, so if do I make do I hear you saying then that at the crosswalk there's a stop sign?

Uh no, the cr the stop sign's a little past the crosswalk.

We put it back there because it works better in the design.

But um there they're definitely definitely the vehicles would be slowing down at that point.

So will you rough and wiring if we want to so if we want a push button, if the pre pedestrians are still in danger crossing that to that portion there to the hospital, uh is it going to be roughly wired in so we can easily put in a push button?

Uh that would be easy to do.

I can't say we I I don't know enough about the details of what we have, but it's it's a very simple thing to incorporate into the project.

Uh for either of you, I guess, uh you know, I I must say I am a little shocked that you would have a stop sign past the crosswalk.

Uh I'm not sure if I understood that correctly.

Are you this the stop sign would be the people the cars would be stopping past the the crosswalk.

So they would be, you know, as a driver, you're focused on a stop sign and you know you're seeing that, you're seeing a crosswalk.

I must say it does sound confusing even listening to it today.

And I'm shocked that somebody going onto a highway would not be required to have a traffic control device or at a minimum a stop sign before the marked crosswalk for pedestrians.

It would be marked as a crosswalk.

So we have the crosswalk signs and all that uh the good good stuff that goes with that.

So um I mean I can take that back and talk to the um uh our experts and uh get back to the uh the the city engineer and answer the questions on that.

We do have a lot of concerns right now about that on ramp uh to the highway, as we know drivers uh get excited approaching the highway and typically uh increase their speed.

And we have a lot of pedestrians that are very concerned with that exact area there.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, so certainly putting uh another four or six hundred uh residents in Erskine Lane, and we have every expectation that they'll want to ride the rapid bus into town.

Yeah, uh, but that is uh a big deterrent for them.

They are they they're just too cons too much of a concern.

I I just want to emphasize though that the the intersection is not a yield intersection.

The vehicles will be required to come to a stop.

Okay.

All right.

If I may, one last question.

Have you guys got any designs for the six mile park and ride?

Oh yes we do.

So on that project uh it has been progressing through functional design and we've been working with your staff on that.

We're currently at 50% uh functional design and quickly getting to 100% functional design.

Um in working with your staff we we suggested that it might be best for us to come back at a point once we are at 100% functional design and present to you then.

So that would be in April or May we're suggesting.

Sorry.

Have you done a traffic study to um assess the um um the impacts of a new light between the six-mile and COVID interchange?

I know that there's been a lot of work done on that.

Uh I apologize, I'm not prepared to talk about that in detail today.

Um we're we're here to talk about the bus project, but uh we'll be prepared to answer those and definitely want to bring you back.

You're back.

Okay.

Um thank you, thank you, uh members of council for uh allowing me to rule the participants.

I really appreciate your coming.

Any other questions?

Yeah, just looking for some uh firm uh action plans and response plans to our uh concerns that we expressed today.

Yeah, absolutely.

Uh we've heard we've heard the the comments today that uh um just to make sure I got it clear that the the there's interest in in sound wall uh along the park, the linear park, and other improvements and it'd be nice to to flesh those out a little bit we'll work with your staff on that um look revisiting this crosswalk and and how that's going to work and the potentials for uh what that will look like and if we need to think about the safety some more um I think those were the two things unless I missed something.

Thank you so much.

Thanks.

Thank you again.

All right so um if we could move on to business rising um there is a uh um motion to for oh sorry, public participation.

Yes, thank you um thank you, Acting Mayor.

I just wish to reiterate reiterate for those who may be at home listening that if they wish to comment on the rezoning application bylaw that is before council on the agenda today, that this would be the opportunity to make comments on that.

And that is zoning bylaw number 1130.

And it is with respect to a comprehensive development at Eltham Townhouse and it's um CD 29.

So I just wanted people to be aware of that.

And it's at Eltham and Helmkin.

Yeah, thank you very much, Staff.

Usually we have that with the uh the application, but this is a little different, so we would be having under public participation.

Yes, thank you for that.

Yes, correct normally it would be a public hearing, but that is that is now different.

Thank you.

So yes, this is that opportunity.

Thank you.

Yes, uh so um members of the public, uh please come forward um and state your name and location.

Linda Pecos, 336 Glenardy Drive, Victoria View Royal.

Um, I just wanted to talk about the the townhouse uh project.

I'm not against the townhouse project.

I think it's not a bad idea, but I just have some questions about the surrounding areas.

So are we anticipating a left and a right hand turn lane onto Helmkin?

Do you know?

No, we're not.

I think that you I I think that that's imperative if you watch the traffic go there.

Um the other point being I don't I think that at the very most there should be two hour parking along that road.

It's ridiculous now.

There should be no parking for a long distance to the road, and there should be two lanes to to get onto Helmkin.

If you watch that traffic, there's in the morning, they're not gonna get anywhere.

Um, my last question.

Um, I'm anticipating two years it's going to take to build, maybe.

Where are the workmen going to park?

Because if they come down and park on st on on Rudyard Road on next to the school, we already have a big problem there.

We don't need any more traffic there.

The school children don't need any more traffic.

I'm already darting around kids when I drive to my house.

So that's my concerns with the project.

And the the left and right turn lanes, I think is imperative.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

We'll have staff um also speak to that when the matter comes up.

Any other uh comments or questions from the public in the room.

So this is if you're from Elsom and want to speak to that project, just the time to do so.

Okay.

And um, yes, um, Carl, do we have any uh callers on the line?

Chair, we don't have any callers so far this evening.

Okay, thank you.

So seeing that, I I think we're about ready to move on to the next portion of the agenda and um that being the business arising the um the motion to a the resolution to a b icc is uh before us yes please so i will move it second any discussion i'm happy to provide a little bit of uh explanation.

Sure.

So we've put together a resolution to present at AVIC, which is the association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities.

And this is around police cost sharing formulas.

And so we feel that if the province wants to encourage densification, it needs to really remove barriers to that.

And one of those barriers is increase the increased cost of policing based on populations and the current cutoffs, especially on small towns.

So we are proposing that the cutoffs be increased to higher population levels.

Indeed.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's uh uh long overdue.

I think the contract, current contract it's for 20 years, and I believe it expires in 2031.

So um now's a good time to get a start on it.

And I don't know if people are aware this would only affect RCMP uh detachments uh in municipalities.

Uh the municipal police fund themselves 100%.

Thank you for that.

We have a mover and a seconder.

Can I call the question?

All those in favor?

Opposed, carried.

Thank you.

Um on to staff reports and this being the UBCM Emergency Social Services Grant application.

Good evening.

Acting Mayor Rogers, members of council.

Um, a bit of a housekeeping report.

It's a application from our emergency management officer, Captain Troy Mullin, for a uh UBCM grant for social services.

The grant is in con it's it's a separate grant for VRL, but it's in conjunction with the city of Calwood.

So it'll total uh $60,000, uh, our half being the 30.

Um this will allow the uh combination of Callwood and VREL to integrate their gear together.

Um it's sort of part of Troy's annual uh grant applications.

This one's a bit late, so I appreciate uh our finance department sliding this one in for uh the 2024 budget.

So I need approval just to uh make the application.

Thank you, Chief.

Um seconded.

Moved and seconded.

Um uh I just want to add um um I I really appreciate the uh the grant application and staff taking the time and effort to to pull it forward.

Uh the items are remarkable, and and I hope that uh we can get that funding to achieve all those.

Well done.

Okay.

Um hearing no other points.

All those in favor?

Against carried.

Thank you.

On to other reports.

Um can we have the minutes A and B if we wish to receive that from West Shore Parks and Rec and the Parks Um Advisory Committee.

Move uh to receive A and B, unless someone wants to pull something up.

Yes, I'd like to discuss B.

Okay.

So let's just uh then focus on receiving uh the West Shore Parks Rec.

Um uh you move to receive eight three A.

Great.

Okay.

Seconded.

Okay, any further discussions, all those in favor against carried.

Uh B.

Um so this is the minutes from the Recreation Parks Environment Advisory Committee.

Council Mackenzie.

Yes, I first had two questions or a question for staff around this.

So uh my question is aren't all capital projects relating to bidirectional cycle lanes all oh actually sorry, Ivan.

Sorry, Ivan is the person who knows thank you um so my uh my question was whether uh those all the capital projects relating to bidirectional cycle lanes they're already in the active transportation plan are they not yeah thank you through the chair um they are stipulated in the active transportation network plan and also at the same time the uh active transportation network plan was received reasons being is that uh it allows council to uh make tweaks should they wish.

Um there was at the time some discussion over some of the concepts whether or not they would like to see bidirectional bike lanes are shared use pass.

And so uh I think the purpose of uh pre acts uh motion was to uh should council still decide to entertain the idea of bidirectional bike lanes or multi use pass, that it gets referred to uh pre AC for consideration and review.

Okay, so there they haven't yet uh provided any feedback on that.

Uh through chair, no, they have not.

Um I believe what they're relying on is in the future as staff continue to bring designs to council for uh a lot of the priority projects that would that we would certainly bring forward to council, that if there is a bidirectional bike lane or a multi-use path component that um that's uh it would get referred to preak okay thank you um I have comments as well so I don't think that there would be too much value in referring these projects to PRIAC and my reason for this is that there are there are there is a good reason why we are seeing more and more of these bidirectional cycle lanes and why they continue to be recommended by experts including the one who wrote our um or prepared our active transportation network plan.

And these are based in evidence of what works and what doesn't work in more cycle centric cities like you know, you see in Amsterdam and Copenhagen.

So I am actually not in support of this motion because I feel we have sufficient information about these uh cycle lanes already.

Thank you.

Um any other comments?

If if I may uh jump in.

Um I appreciate the uh the point of view, and I think we need to come back to the point that um the active transportation was simply received.

There was too much controversy uh with respect to the um um recommendations of bi-directional bike lanes um and uh combining um cyclists and pedestrians in one massive um open lane.

And we you know, it's like having the ENN trail on on our streets with no division we might as well have no curbs to bring in the cars as well it's um and so there is there's a I think considerable uh controversy and concern um about that um and I I understand where the um um Wapriak um may want to see this particularly on an environmental side because uh in one instance by Shoreline School in order to achieve that we would have to be uh cutting down a lot of trees so from an environmental perspective they would be um um uh wanted to have some input on that so um given that uh the the plan has simply been received and that the projects are going to come to us on a on a one by one basis um I think um we should take a sober second thought of what those points are and and consider the success and failures of the designs that we've seen in the region compromised as it were so um if we're not getting a mover or seconder on the committee's recommendation you're not moving no well can we still ask staff without this is for to receive here so can we can we communicate with staff without a motion about this.

No one's in no one's answering me okay um well then i'll ask the question.

Uh how does staff feel about the uh committee's recommendation?

Is this something that they would uh support?

Uh uh through the chair.

Um at this time with respect to the Parks Rec environment advisory committee.

Uh council can certainly uh pass on or uh refer to that advisory committee.

And um at the end of the day, uh council has the abilities to take that feedback and use that for their decisions, whether it is for or against it.

So we can do it on a case by case basis.

Uh uh I mean I'll sub I'll move to receive eight three B in the interests of supporting uh our soon-to-be um or uh park rec uh environment advisory committee uh to encourage input, encourage uh them to be uh vocal and contribute.

Uh that being said, uh the decision will be made at a later date with staff's input.

So this certainly isn't approving that uh is what my understanding is.

Thank you, Chair.

Um also as uh staff leon's it well, as staff liaison there, uh staff will make sure that uh the comments is with reference to uh parks, rec, and environment um topics.

I'll move cell second, second the motion so you we're seconding um uh receiving yes and we receiving it okay good we have a moving second on receiving uh the minutes um any further discussion all those in favor games carried and we'll leave the um the the um the committee's recommendation on a case by case basis when this comes up okay Oh Jeff.

Thank you.

Thank you, Accomminder.

Jeff Chow, Senior Planner.

We were just loading the presentation up.

The purpose of this presentation is to present the material from the report, the agenda for bylaw 1130.

The purpose is to introduce the bylaw to talk about some root legal agreements that be registered concurrently with adoption of the prior law and to present additional information provided to uh provided since the December 12th committee of the whole meeting.

Next slide please.

The additional information includes some renderings of the proposed development and some additional traffic impact assessment information.

And next slide please the proposed bylaws in the agenda is to create a new CD29 comprehensive development Eltham Road Townhouse Zone that would permit townhouse use in compliance with the official community plan.

The plan is sorry, the bylaw is consistent with the official community plan in terms of permitting townhouse use at a at a density of one to one point two five floor space ratio and would accommodate three-story townhouse buildings.

It would also accommodate a development concept that the applicant has provided to council at the community as a whole.

That is the uh the area in red shown on the um shown on the presentation there.

So that would improve the uh the setbacks to exceed 1.5 meters.

Next slide, please.

Oh, okay.

Great.

Uh, in terms of renderings, one of the questions at the Committee of the Hole was what were the visual impacts of this development from the um existing townhouses at the Ashley Gate uh townhouses next door, and the applicant has provided some renderings of that.

This is the site plan of the development concept.

Uh in the white on the right hand corner is the um is the Ashtagate towns.

This is kind of the the uh the little rectangle that you see there, and um the development would be um sort of a double-loaded townhouse project with the central driveway.

Um what this site plan kind of shows is that the the site is um trapezoidal or kind of diamond shaped and the way this the site is um the buildings are not parallel to the ashley gate houses but kind of at an angle to it and that's why where the previous proposal had a variance because the corner of it would be um closer to the uh the building so the main point here is that the buildings don't face each other um directly they are at an angle uh some sections show from um from the different balconies of ashley uh ashley gate um the field of view.

And this cross-site section here shows that the Ashley building will be taller than the townhouses.

And here are some renderings of what the uh the site might look like from the different uh balconies at either end of the Ashley Gate townhouses.

The uh drawn on the top shows the Elton Street view, and again that shows kind of a rendering of what the building would look like next to the Ashley Gate townhouses.

And the views from the balconies uh again show that the uh buildings do not face each other um directly.

Uh the the buildings that's closest to the uh to the buildings um has fewer windows in it, and those are washroom windows, so there will be obscured glass, so nobody will be looking straight out.

In terms of transportation impacts, I'm just gonna paraphrase the uh the engineers' uh comments here.

Um a traffic impact assessment uh was provided.

Addendum has been submitted that provides a further analysis of the combined traffic impact of this development and the Royale project that's currently underway at the uh 258 Helmkin Road on the intersection at Eltham and Holmkin.

Uh the results uh conclude that the that left turn lanes uh at the Eltham Helmkin intersection into and out of the site are not warranted as a result of those two developments.

Further staff support the results.

No additional changes outside of the original traffic impact assessment are required.

So in conclusion, we have a bylaw here that will be consistent with the mixed residential line use designation in the official community plan and further advances several OCP policies that support uh family-oriented housing and home ownership opportunities, as well as increasing density near um near frequent uh sort of uh uh frequent transit corridors.

Recommendation is to um support the legal description, so legal agreements.

We skipped over the section uh for to be registered concurrently with the rezoning bylaw and that is uh that the community manage contribution of four thousand dollars per unit be provided that would work out to be about eighty thousand for this development uh there'd be no individual sale of the three uh subject properties in order to preserve it as one development site and that's because uh currently one party owns two lots and another party owns third lot um the uh that the lots be consolidated prior to uh construction and that a three by three meter road dedication be provided at the Elf and Moham Helmkin Road intersection, and it that's due to the uh the sharp corner at the intersection, and this would kind of uh provide additional space for uh sidewalk and boulevard in that location.

So that is staff's recommendation.

Thank you, Staff.

Any um any questions to staff?

I have a few.

So um I I guess I'm um staff, we're okay with um because the the rear setback, um typically the rear setback would be 7.5 meters.

And am I right?

That would be the usual requirement, and uh there's a variance now down to 1.5.

Uh through you this is a site-specific zone.

So this is this is um this is the zone that would facilitate the development concept.

So, but uh if I if I recall seeing staff like staff report, you know, the the typical setback is 7.5 meters.

Uh not always.

Okay.

And this is this is a yeah.

So um the uh the concerns that um you know I'd heard from 288 Eltham, the townhouses, is that it seems like the onus is always on them.

The hyper thing is piled on them.

Um, you know, they've got to put up with a driveway that's now they're gonna be looking over not a backyard but a driveway.

Um and um even though they may have height, it's gonna be their vegetation that's gonna provide the screening.

And one of the things that concerns me is that um when we had the development at the corner, um whatever it's called the Royale, the applicant um unilaterally decided um with in concert with Lions Cove to rip out all the trees that were between Lions Cove and the development.

So now there are no trees.

Is there any likelihood that uh these trees would also suffer the same fate um to through rot uh root damage that uh these this now screening could be eradicated um those that would be a development permit issue that's a formal um the reform character development permit will follow this rezoning uh and we would they would look at ways to mitigate any impacts on landscaping on and off the site certainly we uh can agree that sometimes uh getting people to uh move forward uh would there be a chance of a covenant to protect trees to appease elected officials up here or is that something that uh could be uh agreed upon um definitely is that something that's routine that will likely happen in a situation like this moving forward.

Yeah.

In considering the design of the building, um when council considers development permits, um we usually we do not consider um we do not council improvement development permit is on site for the one property.

Council doesn't have the authority to make a decision that impacts the vegetation on other properties without that other property owner's consent.

We'll be looking to staff for some kind of um help in in ensuring with the the applicant that um uh you know extra extraordinary amazing effort will be made to preserve the uh the screening that both the new residents will appreciate as well as the existing so I think that's where um your counsel is coming from really you know encase that in stone to make sure that those trees are protected.

I I if I may I have an another question.

I the parking is it EV charged parking that's required here they must have EV parking um so the chair the zoning bylaw requires um every parking space to be um uh EV ready so so they will be wired for it and if somebody chooses to have an EV then they would still they would have to install the charger but the wiring would be there, and that's kind of the uh these will be available to you.

Okay, thank you.

Um if I if I may uh begin with uh counsel and dolge and some traffic related uh questions.

Um it's not clear to me in the in the report will Eltham have a dedicated left out right out, or is it just one?

And maybe thank you, Chair.

It's just one lane out right now, uh, based on the transportation review.

Uh using uh what's called Transportation Association of Canada guidelines, which are used to determine warrants for additional lanes, uh a dedicated left turn and a right turn lane, or either is not required at this time.

Uh, based on the analysis, the intersection will still operate at a level of service around A or B, which is quite good.

Thank you.

Uh so is there sufficient width though in the future that the warrant suddenly says, gosh darn it, we we made a mistake and our numbers are wrong, we should be having it left in uh sorry, uh left out, right out two separate lanes so that uh the traffic doesn't get stalled up all the way out Altham.

Do we have sufficient room to be able to put that in at a future date when the new residents move in?

The existing uh road right-of-way there is around 18 meters.

So there probably might be opportunities to uh squeeze another lane in there.

Uh, I must caution, however, that an additional lane will not improve level of service in this case.

So usually when it comes to dedicated lanes, it's to uh divide the amount of people going left, straight, or right.

Uh and that does help, but given that's the existing uh level of service around A or B, the uh improvements or the additional lane age uh would likely not uh create an improvement if I can read make sure I understand you're saying that there's no chance in 20 years if we need to do a left dedicated left and left left out we can't do it or can we?

Yes or no?

As with the 18 meter right away you could probably get it done to work.

Okay.

Thanks.

Just a quick question about the Royal is can someone remind me the plans for their uh egress from their underground.

Um yeah, through you, mirror.

Uh there the currently they would have access right onto Helmkin.

And if they need to go left in off hours, they may be able to do that.

But uh presumably most would uh if there is a lot of traffic on Helmkin, they would go down the road to the roundabout at uh uh just past the uh the galloping goose, which sort of the in-end trail, and uh come back past the school.

That's the nature of uh urban development.

Then the uh the underground parking for the Royal Royale town, condos, townhouses, whatever they're gonna be, rentals, um that egress left the you know in and out is on Helmoken, right?

So it's gonna be all those those there'll be those additional cars.

And I'm assuming then from the traffic study that they've they've taken that taken that into account.

Sorry, thank you.

So the traffic study hasn't analyzed the Royale's um uh traffic in and out um in this report, right?

Uh council recall that um they wish the developer to revise the traffic impact assessment to consider the royale.

So this addendum uh directly uh answers that question.

Yeah, I saw appendix C, I couldn't make head or tail out of it.

Right.

So um sorry, Councilor Brown, do you have a question?

No, I was gonna make a motion, but uh if anyone else has questions, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um I guess my last point is that um we do know that um um Lions Cove has a road out onto um Island Highway.

Uh if uh did uh the traffic study give any analysis on when they were considering traffic on Eltham uh considering that impact um for Lyons Cove going out on on highway?

So the chair, the uh traffic review takes into account existing traffic patterns.

So should the um should it change in there?

Uh given that's the level of service of the intersection at Eltham and Halkman's level of service A B.

Uh don't expect I don't expect a drastic uh detriment to that intersection.

Um does the applicant wish to uh present.

Hi, counselors.

Um my name is Daniel Martins.

I'm as a proponent to this project.

And with concerns to the one item that you brought up about the protection of the trees to the neighbors, there's no chance whatsoever that those trees will ever get affected because those trees are currently three meters higher than our property, and they're on their private property, and they're behind a fence.

So anything that happens on our site won't have any effect to that root system because they're behind a retaining wall.

That being said, I think we've had a very good relationship with planning, parks, and engineering in getting to this point, and we feel that this is going to be a very good, successful project moving forward.

Thank you.

And I hope you'll take this into consideration.

Thanks.

Hang on a second.

Uh, does anyone have any questions for the applicant?

At any point, did you consider having a small commercial element to this property still?

So any part of it having a commercial space?

Um, when we had our public information meeting, big concern that came up was parking.

And people that live in the townhouse, a lot of them still park outside in the street, and they were concerned that their parking would become less and less.

And now with new people moving in there, if a visitor wants to park on the street or whatever, it became less parking for them.

And then we just thought that if we had to put some sort of commercial there, people that would go to that commercial would want to park in Altham, not on Helmican because it's a busy road, come and park in Altham, and it would just expand that parking problem.

So we thought that's not a decision that we want to consider to put any commercial in that corner.

Because there's already commercial just one block down at that View Royale project.

Councillor Brown, yes, what would you like?

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to accept the staff recommendation.

Second.

Sorry.

Can't see it.

Um yeah, uh an amendment, please, number five, um, that um we would install on Altham a left out, left, and right out, two separate um egresses out on the street right away.

So that there's um um we're taking care of that and ensuring that that's part of the design and we have adequate space to achieve that.

So rather than waiting for the problem, we've got a solution right off the bat.

And uh the rationale maybe I can get a second for discussion.

A second for discussion.

Uh certainly non-committal at this point, but I uh willing to talk.

So um um as we know the Eltham already has um a number of commercial um businesses on the other side, south side.

Um and as we've heard from um Ms.

Pecos, there's already enough traffic uh coming out and and parking on that street.

The um and even though the um Lions Cove does have an egress out onto um Island Highway, the uh townhouses do not.

And I think we're putting uh you know, instead of the three houses, we're putting 20 houses, 30 cars on the street.

And um I know that um um you know, we've we've given that consideration to Erskine Lane, maybe granted that's not that many as many traffic as this, but it's still you know an aspect of, you know, when people are stacking up, there's there's uh aggravation and and uh I I would just urge us to take um a cautionary approach and and anticipate the issue and have it designed properly right from the start.

So that's my motion to add.

Uh since I seconded, I I will comment.

I guess I would fall back to the fact that uh there has been a professional traffic study done.

Uh, and they've even gone so far as to calculate the traffic pattern based on uh anticipated residency in the Royale.

Uh and the other thing, I guess, probably my biggest decision point, and I and I won't be supporting the two lanes at this point, is that these people who choose to live in this townhouse will know that that is their option when uh you know that will be part of the the I assume that's part of the marketing.

Uh and I'm sure there's a full frank uh disclosure package when it comes to uh designs uh for real estate, and there's also buyer beware and due diligence for purchasing homes and looking at traffic patterns.

And uh to uh the director's point earlier, uh, we are in an urban environment, and certainly it's fair to say that in uh lots of metropolitan areas, there's lots of uh one turn uh options only.

Uh, and for that reason, for those reasons, I'm comfortable uh with these proposed plans.

Yes, um, I won't be uh supporting your uh amendment, Councillor Rogers, because uh for similar reasons as Councillor Kolovich said, Um, but I would like to speak to the development more broadly.

Um, I do continue to have concerns about the turning left onto Homkin, despite the recommendation that people would turn right and go around the roundabout and come back up.

Um, as I don't believe that's human nature, I think people would rather risk turning left and potentially dangerous lefts.

However, my main thought on this is that I don't think council has discussed or considered really at all the commercial aspect for this property before tonight in my question.

And I think there was a good reason that this property was zoned commercial originally.

There was a vision for this.

I think commercial spaces like a a coffee shop or you know small restaurant would be really beneficial to this surrounding community, which is growing.

And as well as those people who are taking transit along Helmkin or the teachers or parents from few rural elementary so and we have seen how these small little spaces can help create a community you know take the nest off Watkiss way so for that reason I I cannot support um the the development at this time call the question certainly, perhaps um some more time.

Well, actually, we've got uh I can still motivate here if if the chair allows.

Certainly uh thank you.

If you don't mind but I kinda like to hear from counselor.

Yes, perhaps Counselor Brown.

Yeah, I like the uh I like the project.

Uh shall I let you motivate before I do, considering you uh were first.

I found out about it uh long before I was elected, and I think it's a good one.

It's a nice mix, and I think it's very appropriate for the area, so I will be supporting it.

Without the turn lanes, without the left two-way turn lanes.

I understand.

Thank you.

Uh and I just wanted to acknowledge Counselor McKenzie's uh visioning.

Certainly agree with you.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Uh we need to do a better job at future uh rezoning applications and and DPs looking at ways to ensure that the commercial uh options uh are there.

Uh I I think at this point I'm I'm too far along in this process to kind of do an about turn.

Um there is a coffee shop across the street, uh, and there is a boutique style uh grocery store being built in uh LaRoyal.

We uh so and yes, you're absolutely right.

This this area is only going to get busier.

You're right.

And we have big plans for that corridor.

And I can remember having discussions about Erskine Lane and wanting to have big plans there, and we we did what we did.

Um, so I your point's taken, and I'm just I'm hoping um you would reconsider.

Uh I certainly support it.

I think it's a wonderful uh middle, uh middle option for young Canadians to uh enter into a townhouse environment, whether they're moving up from a condominium or uh have the ability to buy a beautiful townhouse in a wonderful location.

So I certainly support this.

Um thank you, Acting Mayor.

Uh, I'd like to sort of make a technical kind of clarification there.

So the current zoning of the property is C1 local commercial, which was uh both sides of the streets were zoned that decades ago.

Uh the the 2011 official community plan took a different approach to this area.

So under the current official community plan in place since 2011, um this side of Eltham Street is designated mixed residential.

So no commercial with residential, single family residential on beyond.

So introducing commercial would require an official community plan amendment for this site.

So that that's not complicated as part of this application.

The properties on the other side of Elphin, the other three properties, are actually within the uh within a uh intensive mixed use designation, which supports um a mix of commercial or residential uses.

So whoever uh assembles the other lots across the street, they could consider something commercial or something residential or a mix.

So this side of the street is a little bit different because it is a transition to the uh single family residential neighborhood beyond.

Thank you for the reminding us.

2011, the current OCP, this is residential, it's only the the South Side that's commer uh commercial.

Yes, thank you for that point.

And uh and um uh council McKenzie, um uh we do know that um other uh landowners, particularly Mr.

Louie of um uh the the uh the value village um uh concept thrift story, um uh there's uh he certainly has great interest in in building uh a significant uh commercial development that would augment whatever um the um has provided at the royal and and so I think we will have that uh that that walkable commercial services uh coming sooner than later.

So um in speaking to um the motion um uh even though I'm I'm concerned um as um Miss Bacos is with the traffic, um I'm concerned about um uh the amount of traffic on Rodyard, but fortunately we'll throw up a whole bunch of chicanes and deal with that.

And um the whether that they go down to the roundabout and turn around is another question.

We'll see what happens.

And hopefully, yes, indeed, when the 20 residents move in and just look at those people that moved next to a farm.

They want the farm gone.

Um, they'll want solutions on being able to make a left-in or left out if it's safe to do so.

Carnage.

So uh I will be uh supporting the motion.

Um all those in in favor of uh the motion opposed, carried so did i hear council brown sorry thank you zoning uh bylaw is is before us um one one three zero for first second and third reading is there a mover so moved second any discussion?

Hearing none.

Oh, those in favor against Kara.

Uh new business.

Um, I think we probably still have time.

So um uh council macillor McKenzie, you have your your new business motion there.

Yes, thank you.

Um so as I've briefly ex previously expressed, I have keen interest in both the the GVPL and the West Shore Parks and Rec.

And I would like to see municipalities start to hold them to higher account with regards to the value they provide us um in term relative to the money that we pay into them.

Uh with any other service that the town provides, we have mechanisms for gauging our residents' dissatisfaction or dissatisfaction.

But when it comes to the GVPL and West Shore Parks and Rec, we do not collect this information.

And this is despite the fact that these services are some of our biggest ticket items on the budget.

So I what I'm proposing is that as part of our annual engagement on the budget, that we include some questions that are specific to the GVPL and the West Shore Parks and Rec arrangements.

And while I'm interested, of course, in hearing from people who use these services, I'm equally, if not more interested in hearing from those residents who don't use them and their reasons why.

For this reason, I don't think um that this would be duplicative of any user satisfaction surveys that the G VPL or West Shore Parks and Rec currently conduct themselves.

Okay, so uh again that opening up the the uh the motion there, the topic.

Um any uh any thoughts um on the suggestion, Councilman McKenzie?

Thank you.

Uh well I'm uh I'm uh I'm certainly okay talking about these two uh services.

Yes, they're they are big ticket items when it comes to our taxpayers.

Uh I'm just wondering uh if you're willing to speak to it, kind of what uh is there a particular um uh concern, concerns brought to you from the public, or is this uh something that's uh strictly self-initiated on your behalf, kind of to act on behalf of our constituents?

Yeah, no, I've spoken to uh a few folks.

Um, not that they're dissatisfied or anything, it's that they don't use it.

They go to a squay malt to use their rec centers.

So I've uh been just interested to why they wouldn't use the West Shore or um, and just in general, um the the library as well, you know, whether just to know whether people are using it, the people who contribute into it, are they getting the most value from it?

So no, there haven't been any complaints.

It's just more I'm not aware of many people who use the services, and that might just be my neighborhood because it's further from that area, but um yeah.

Uh and just uh I'm certainly not opposed to you know public consultation.

We can all get behind uh hearing from our residents.

Uh would you envision this as something that would be standalone survey or what did you have in mind?

No, just as part of the survey that already goes out on the budget, that there would just be additional questions specific to it.

Okay.

Uh I don't have any more comments.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Yes.

Um and indeed picking up on your your points, um uh council call, it's the um I'm wondering if this might be something that specific because uh you know the you know the budget uh goes out um and whether or not people are going to be responding in specific detail, we can test the waters and put it in the in the budget, see how that goes.

Um but I um I guess my under now let me double check.

Um I'm sure West Shore does its own survey with um part uh the uh um recreation users and finding out what they like, don't like.

And i is that are you surveying?

Because I know the library does its own surveys.

Uh sure.

Sure, I'm familiar, we we have different levels of kind of engagement surveys for users.

I'm not sure if we would have one that you know would cover a general I I could look into it for sure.

It would not be view role specific and which is which is what you're trying to accomplish.

So certainly something I promise to look into.

And I think um you know the great advantage that we have well we can put the survey out and and see where it goes what what people have to say and and um as I asked questions staff.

Steph, would we um be able to, would it be much challenged to put in these questions as proposed by Council McKenzie in the uh budget survey.

Yeah, uh Dawn Christensen's not here tonight, so I'll answer on her behalf, but uh she assures me that we have um some new tools for surveying that make it easier to consult with the public.

So, Council McKenzie, would you be happy to refer it to staff and and uh get feedback as we're having the budget discussions and and do the best we can?

Yes.

Okay, good.

So um with that, um let's just um the motion refer to staff and and uh endeavor to get that those survey points as Council McKenzie's requested.

Okay, good enough.

Great.

Thank you.

So um uh in terms of the other business item, is this with respect to um uh staff's um comments and res uh recommendations in the last council meeting, January the 16th, and um um pointing out that 80 Atkins Road would be um uh a good location for uh an off leash uh dog area.

And um I I was very pleased to hear that, maybe not so much uh uh because uh anywhere near the Watchkiss Burn side would be a two kilometer walk one way, but um you know certainly 80 uh Atkins where the roundabout is uh is a huge benefit to the uh Choko six mile um Admiral's uh uh Atkins area with the 500 uh meter circle, it's uh dead center, it's quite amazing.

Even it uh water's edge can easily get to it.

And uh as um uh quality, you know that way back in 2019, residents had wanted an off leash and and we trip tried to propose that with choco and that failed and we've just heard from residents of Meadow Park.

So I think the um uh this is certainly warranted it had fallen off even though we had given staff um um direction to look for other uh places in that area when uh Choko Park uh took a nosedive and no neither residents nor council could support it um but um somehow it did fall off the to-do list and um I I think it's absolutely overdue to four years from from way back then.

So I'm I'm asking that um uh that we do not reinstate um the parking lot for CRD on that site and that we finish uh the landscaping for the roundabout um would uh go towards leveling this site and um and that uh we move this to budget discussions um uh because I do know that um we have um I uh I don't know what I sank at C32 um for park allocations for Chilco Park um $190,000 uh in 2024 that's I think before us if not more and um I think we can have some discussion since uh we were prepared to allocate funds in Chilco Park we can allocate those funds in in uh this area so um I'm I'm asking uh members if we can.

Oh sorry, Councillor Brown, uh you had got your hand up.

If that's a motion, uh Councilor Rogers, I'll second that motion and then uh I'll motivate.

Can you hear me?

Uh yes, I can hear you.

And um I just made made the motion.

Okay.

Uh and I'm seconding it.

And I think it's a great spot.

Uh you know, whatever's left over from the roundabout.

Uh um I like the park, uh, the off leash park they have on Station Road where the uh vendor kiosks are, and something along that line would be great.

Obviously, it would have to be fenced, but uh I think that's a great idea.

And also the uh people from Nursery Hill might also appreciate being able to take their dogs because nursery hills on leash park, so they would appreciate it, probably use it as well.

If yeah, so first of all, I think um we I would need much more information and a staff, probably staff's recommendation on this, but um wondering whether staff have an approximate idea of how much that parking overflow parking is used currently.

Is it quite popular or not?

Thank you for the question, Councillor McKenzie.

Uh, through the chair, it's popular through the summertime because parking there is free as opposed to parking in the C or D parking lot, which costs money.

That's the main thing.

Um, I can say through engaging with uh my park staff that uh maintenance of that area can be a nuisance in the summertime.

There's a combination of uh overuse erosion of the gravel area that needs to be filled in, and then there's uh illegal yard dumping that that that uh happens there from time to time.

So uh regardless of what council decides there, uh if it was to be something different, I'm sure that's something uh certainly staff can look into.

Um in terms of a staff report, uh staff has already action has been actioned by council to provide a report to uh council regarding it includes this area as well, with respect to uh a playground and nursery park area.

So um staff can certainly incorporate uh this uh this item as well as part of that report for council deliberation during budget.

Sorry, uh defer to Chief Hurst first, then give his hand up, but I'll I'll go after him.

Thank you.

Yes, uh just and to just clarify from a uh bylaw perspective, it's it's a busy area as well.

Several homeless camps, um, many vehicles have taken up residence in that parking that parking lot.

Um, but of course they've moved on now, but as soon as it's remediated back to a parking lot, it'll become a campground again.

So anything other than a parking lot would be helpful.

Thanks.

Yeah, I was going to talk about how much space will be left.

And for example, uh, you mentioned it, and I was gonna ask, I mean, is there room for a small playground structure?

And uh because I mean the dog park would obviously be fenced, and I've seen lots, there's lots of areas with dog parks, and there's playgrounds near them because it's fenced.

I mean, really, if we're gonna if we're gonna go all in in that area, how much room is there, Ivan?

Uh thanks for the question, uh, Council Kowalowich.

So through the chair, there's still the majority of the site will still be remaining after the mountain about gets done.

Um, do you appreciate the uh size and the shape of the park?

Uh I do know, and this could be further informed through a um through a staff report.

Uh but anecdotally, there are dog parks around that are quite uh long and narrow.

Uh flying fireman park is uh is a good example of that uh in the west shore.

Uh in terms of having both a uh dog park and a playground, um, that depends on what the intent of the playground is.

Um Nursery Hill, there uh what was requested was something uh fairly minor.

And so what staff will be doing as part of the report is to uh tell council uh what the feasibility is to do one or the other of both.

That's that's fine.

I'm certainly in support in principle.

Uh I'm not prepared to exact to make a motion tonight to build a dog park, but I am certainly I think it's a wonderful idea, and I would love to explore it more and look at maximizing that area uh because it's ours and we don't have a lot left there, and there is a lot of demand.

We've heard it from that area, and we need more services there and recreation.

So um uh I basically the uh the the motion is um is not to reinstate parking uh and to uh refer it on to and and um I sorry staff, yes.

Sorry, count uh sorry, acting mayor.

Um the plan is after construction to not open it.

Uh the plan is after construction to not open it back for parking as it stands.

Right, yes.

Yes, of course.

After the construction, did uh yes, there's certainly construction vehicles parked there now, but after the the project's done and um then we wouldn't reinstart the the uh public and and if I could speak to that, uh, Council McKenzie.

What we have is um in the 30 years when we did have the overflow parking, we didn't have parking on six-mile, we didn't have the fifty-three bus, we didn't have sidewalks going up, we didn't even have the um um cycling from the the ENN wasn't fully constructed to Langford.

So we've got in the 30 years so much um um uh ability, and I think the active transportation plan really strengthens the whole point of walkability, and um there is no off-leash park area, you know, to to speak of in Theatus Lake is not sufficient.

Yeah, I I definitely understand all the points made.

I do still have concern with parking in that area.

I know even visiting Chilco, no at the Chilco area parking, uh there is no parking.

And when I went to visit, I actually parked in the CRD overflow and then walked to meet someone in in Chilco.

So and I imagine that the residents there will have great concern that it will mean having people instead of paying at the CRD parking lot, coming to park in their neighborhood.

So it's it is a concern, but um I recognize that that piece of land might not be the maybe the best way to address those concerns.

But thanks.

Uh great points.

And uh probably maybe just before the last election, we lifted uh with Chief Hearst, we lifted the parking uh enforcement on Six Mile Road.

Uh so you can park on Six Mile Road now.

Now, so that that alleviated a lot of our problems.

I guess uh my question, uh you bring up a good point to Ivan.

Would there be room for parking spots there at all?

If we were to build, I mean, I know it's a whether it's a dog, probably your answer would be, well, if we only build a dog part, there may be some parking spots left, right?

It depends.

I think it comes down to the number.

Um certainly if a park was to be uh built at Idiakins, staff be looking at the feasibility of whether uh on-street parallel parking can be installed strategically for park use.

However, um staff do understand that parking is at a premium, especially in the summertime.

So uh staff will make sure that uh we provide counsel with all the information before making the call.

Okay.

So um motion is to uh you know again not put them in parking and refer to uh for budget discussions.

Um so if we can we're good there, then we can have the further details and staff can uh flush it out and and take the the feedback that we've got here with parking and and and so forth.

Would staff have uh report that quickly?

Uh through the chair staff is expected to have a report uh probably sometime next week as part of the um determination whether there's suitable park areas within nursery hill area.

Um is fairly high level and is expected that staff can only really attack this at a high level.

I would expect that uh the information provided to council would be to um establish timelines as to when about in the financial plan that that the work can start yeah uh I will move or I will sorry has it already been second yeah we've we've got a move and second basically to um uh refer to staff and and to the budget discussions call a question I'm comfortable with the uh referring it to staff however at this time I'm just not comfortable with the no parking um saying that it will not have any parking there.

So if it remains as is I will uh be voting against it.

Okay.

Well we've got a motion let's let's uh try the the motion as it is so um I'll call the question all those in favor opposed okay there we go let's take it from there okay so um moving on to uh question period um is there um I guess we could open up the floor is there any questions from the floor none my goodness okay um sorry, Carl, is there anyone on the line to um for questions?

Chair, we've had no callers this evening.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and this is I'm going to put this out to folks, but um I'm suggesting that we don't go to uh in-camera uh meeting at this point.

Uh I think it's uh enough of an issue that all councils should be uh present uh to discuss and hear the points.

It's a rather complicated point.

So if that's a in agreement, then uh we'll uh move that to another date when more members can be here.

Okay, so with that, um can I have a motion to terminate?

So moved.

Seconded.

Okay.

So those against carried.

Thank you.