Council Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Town of View Royal Council meeting for Tuesday, July 16th.

So call the meeting to order and start with a First Nations territorial acknowledgement and that we recognize the Quangwan speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and the Songhees Nation and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

If you're calling in, you can provide comments by telephone at 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 867-302-312 Pound.

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

Please do not unmute yourself until you're asked.

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

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

This meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

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

Um can I begin with seeking a motion to approve the existing agenda if there's no errors or omissions to it, including the one late item that we have.

Moved by councillor Mattson, seconded by uh Councilor Brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And can I get a motion to receive the minutes of the special council meeting for July 9th and the council meeting for July 2nd, please?

So moved.

Okay.

Moved by Councillor Lemon, seconded by Councillor Mattson.

All those in favor.

Motion carried.

Um and a mayor's report.

I'll be brief.

This is the last council meeting before our hiatus for August.

Um, so I wish everybody a safe holiday that they're away from council.

But I signed a proclamation for water safety and given recent fatalities in the area, um, particularly around Langford Lake most recently, but there has of course been some seasonally.

So I'd encourage uh council and of course the public as well to reach out to their friends and neighbors and remind them on the issues of water safety.

And one of the most primary that I can think of uh growing up around and in the water was never swim alone and uh never swim in conditions that uh don't suit your capability to swim.

So wishing everybody a safe um August.

Petitions and delegations just checking with you, Sarah, that there are none this evening.

And that brings us to our first per public participation period, and we're pretty light in the room, Carl.

So we'll go to you on the phone.

Do we have anybody that wanted to address council?

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

Thanks, Carl.

Uh, as I suspected, but you'd never know.

Um, and I think this goes down to uh agenda item seven and business arriving from previous minutes, and it's a baseline data count.

Uh, and I'll pass it to Councilor Rogers, please.

Uh yes, thank you very much, your your worship.

Um, this was with respect to a notice of motion, um, July 2nd last council meeting, and uh that we collect the baseline data for uh traffic counts and speed um um and the rationale was that's important to for the implementation of the act of transportation mitigation for uh safety and comfort, all ages and abilities.

And um, given the um um the let's say the lack of uh sidewalks in our neighborhoods and the um likelihood of increased uh development uh because of uh bylaw 1135 and 1139 uh compliance with the provincial regulations um it's I think it's important to gather that baseline data to um when in the future people um complain of uh traffic and traffic speeds um will will know where they're coming from.

Um and I think it's also uh an aspect of uh the development that we're having in the communities in in um like for example the the Cambridge Motel that's that's been approved um it uh also is good information for the upcoming OCP review and the transportation master plan and even DCC reviews as we contemplate um uh how we're going to prioritize uh $18 million of sidewalk improvements and implementation in our in our town in the future.

So I would uh ask the council to uh support the motion uh that we collect baseline data for all neighborhoods and and traffic counts.

And I under you know so I'll leave it at that at the moment.

Um and if um if there's discussion, one possibility is that we um pilot this in in a neighborhood and I'll suggest the harbor um because already we're we're um hearing residents speak of increased traffic, but there's no quantifiable means of being able to prove that.

So my motion for it.

I'll second.

I'd just like to point out the motivation before we got to everything was quite interesting.

Thank you, Councilor Matson.

Just uh your mic's still on there, Councilor Rogers.

Um did you want to motivate as well, Councilor Matz?

No, it's it seems reasonable.

We also have uh data from other areas.

We should also bring that maybe we wouldn't need the um to do the reviews in those areas where we already have baseline data, but uh having the having the data is good.

Uh um I would agree, I've just noticed with all the construction going along Island Highway, uh people are are sort of doing shortcuts there and because you know the traffic stopped and so they are running through the community already.

So it'd probably be useful data to have.

Thank you, Councilor Mattson.

Uh Ivan, uh let's go to you and then I'll go to questions.

Uh thank you, Mirror Tobias.

It it may be beneficial for staff to provide a report and the resources and budget that's required for this work and timing actually, because we do have a transportation master plan that's uh anticipated for starting next year.

Um, in terms of budget and resources, resources it will take um staff time for this, and uh it would be worth me chatting with uh our team to see what is required.

Also at the same time, just extrapolating our operational budget.

I'm not sure if we have the budget to do this work this year.

Um, we've had a lot of initiatives that use up a lot of consultant consultant budgets and traffic calming.

Uh, and certainly these are things that I'd I'd um recommend that we we uh form as part of a report to council.

And let's go to questions for staff or counselor Rogers.

Thank you, Ivan.

Uh Alison, you had one.

I mean originally was that I wanted to hear from from staff, but also I'm not really quite clear what the objective is.

So if we were to find out there's more traffic, so what?

What what ultimately are you trying to get to, Counselor Rogers?

A good example.

We have a um uh instances uh where uh residents are concerned about an increased amount of traffic.

And um uh we always do a traffic account.

Red Yard Stormont uh was a prime example where we were um uh counting the amount of traffic and and uh and the speeds of that traffic to determine what kind of actions um were were going to be necessary.

Um and that so it is typically a case by case um example.

Um, but I'm saying that um um you know we are in 2025 going to be updating our transportation master plan.

And um and uh I know I I appreciate the difficulty and and the expense of what staff are saying to be able to do it for all neighborhoods.

Um and um I I suggest that we bring back our staff for a report on some priority uh prioritize the areas where they anticipate the most growth.

Um but it also gives us um, you know, for example, in Stormont, we put in a chicane.

And that was again because uh there was concerns and and we had to we always have to quantify.

So when um we have a policy that when a neighborhood wants to have a speed hump, we do a traffic count.

And so um it's it's the the need for baseline data um in our neighborhoods is uh particularly important because we've never had a transportation mass plan, we never had uh the uh the ability to identify those areas that um didn't have um um in a lack of sidewalks.

So even with um the the whole plan that uh we've got for um having um reduce uh speed limits 30k speed limits, we know that that's going to take a few years to implement.

Um so it it um the the good data helps us to um respond to the issues um identified by residents.

Councillor McKenzie.

Um thank you.

Um so uh can I ask staff then isn't a traffic count included in the active transportation plan as well?

Would that not form part of future work?

Um yeah, Mayor Tobias, uh, that's a very good question.

We have yet to establish a terms of reference, yes.

One thing that may come as is uh require work is to do traffic updated traffic counts in key areas in the town.

Um I would argue that we may not need to do traffic counts in every single road in all of our neighborhoods, but if we find key locations, then consultants can extrapolate that data.

So, long answer short, there are opportunities there uh by looking at counts more strategically and in more corridors as opposed to one neighborhood, you might be able to get a better cost as well instead of doing it like a one-off.

Um, but that's just through experience uh through the consulting world.

Thank you.

Just a follow-up, Ivan, on that note before I go to the rest of my colleagues, and that is is um is there a baseline for traffic counts established now, uh, regardless of how old is there any baseline data that we do have?

Uh yes, so we do have that.

It's in our baseline conditions report, interactive transitation network plan, and it's based on a lot of uh regional models done not only by the town but throughout the region.

Um to give an example, uh the the counts and going through WAKIS is around 8,000 vehicles per day, uh two way.

Uh and we do have all those that have all that um as part of a baseline conditions report.

When it comes to looking at speeds and counts, that's a little different.

Um, it doesn't just register the number of cars that are going there.

There's a little more data that's required.

And so that's why there's a little bit of a delta in information.

Thanks, Ivan.

Uh Councillor Brown for the question.

I'm just wondering because we're a non union shop, is there a possibility to use volunteers for some of that?

I'm thinking of Speedwatch in particular with the uh uh Superintendent Preston's group.

Um, you know, if you give them the assignment and they go out and do that, it it would take away some of the stress and time from staff.

Just an idea.

Yeah, thank you.

Through the mayor, the the labor part is actually not that bad.

So usually you use traffic counters, um, which can basically count.

The capital regional district they did have a program where they did do counts at intersections.

Uh they do it all over the region though, so it's not like they would um they would they would prioritize areas that are in the in the heat zones.

Um for View Royal, in terms of the biggest amount of effort is through the collect, not just the collection of data, but the uh extrapolation of the data, figuring out what are erroneous outliers.

Yeah, those kind of things that requires a little bit of a thinking cap to to uh to do.

Thanks.

Uh other questions?

No, uh there are no other questions for the staff.

Just questions right now.

Counselor Matson.

Yeah this is more of a comment uh let's hold our comments no no it it it's sort of a question but like isn't there like a quick and dirty we can do I mean you know these rather than doing a really in-depth report, I don't think that's what Councilor Rogers is asking for at this point in time.

He's he just wants to collect data in terms of how much traffic is going through and some of the speed.

So it sounds to me, and maybe I've got this wrong, but it's just a matter of setting up the speed uh recording equipment and collecting that data.

And so then that's pretty much all we need to do until we look later on, because then you use that data, the data you have, in terms of to check on what's happening in the sometime in the future where we're looking at putting speed sumps and stuff.

So I don't think he's asking if it's more of a question to Councilor Rogers, to do this really huge report.

It's just a matter of collecting the data from the equipment and um later on using it when necessary.

Councilor Rogers, I think that question was to you.

Well we we kind of a response to that.

Um and and I I'd like to also respond to to staff and and there there is a good point.

Um maybe the um the whole point is is for staff to um um and when I say the town collect the baseline data, obviously staff should come back and give us a report uh and maybe a costing and a schedule of implementing that.

Um and that could be um uh a capital project over um two two or three years, and um uh we've we find out how much that is per year and what neighborhoods, and so we can we can have that in a in a reasonable way that's uh both cost effective and timely um that would uh assist us in justifying why we would want to increase DCCs for sidewalks, things like that.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

So the motion that we have right now is not the motion that I think you're leaning toward, which was more of a um uh a request for staff to bring back a report uh for this.

Um are you happy that we vote on your motion now, or would you like to amend your motion with your seconder to provide that and then we can vote on that?

Yes, let me let me try an amendment.

Um uh the staff um uh provide a a um a report um on uh for a uh for like a capital project and then over the next uh two years uh to collect baseline data of of both traffic counts and and speeds in our community so then staff would have the opportunity to assess the costs the scheduling the priority and uh then we'd be uh better off to implement that so I think I was able to scribble down that staff provide a report on a capital project uh for traffic counts for uh within the next two years but I think we're looking to get it implemented within the next two years.

So are you looking for a staff report back as opposed to a time limitation on it?

I'm suggesting that um we uh have staff provide a capital project for 2025 um that would um then give us the information uh the costing and the priority to implement this over the next couple years so then that that gives time to uh staff to put it all together for us sir was that clear that motion clear okay um was council clear on the motion counselor lemon just just to clarify, Counselor rogers, so what do you see happening over the next two years um I would see that uh staff well first off in two to 45 I expect staff and hope staff that we'll be able to um provide a uh capital project that would give us the um um uh how we would be implement implementing a traffic count and traffic speeds in in the neighborhoods, if you will, over the next couple of years.

So then staff could then say it would cost so much for Helmaken, um uh harbor area, so much for um Glantana, you know, those different neighborhoods.

And um so it it would be a capital, obviously there's going to be a cost of staff time and resources, and so I'm I want to give staff the opportunity to do that, present that's the information in the budget um as a budget request okay comments counselor Brown yeah so once the report comes and if it goes on to our budget of course at that time we can say we don't want to spend that kind of money because we don't it yeah it could be a lot of money and um yeah I I agree with Counselor McKenzie.

I mean what are you gonna use the data if you put it on the Atkins Road you'd probably get my car going through 16 times you know for different things I do every day.

So really set an accurate count and and not just me up my neighbors too I mean we're all busy we do stuff and um so you got 20 people going 16 times a day, so three hundred and twenty cars.

I mean I don't know uh and you know, um again, I'm I'm talking about in the neighborhoods.

Um I'm not talking about collector, um, but it's a neighborhood side streets that don't have any any sidewalks.

We're already implementing the solution for Atkins, but there's other neighborhoods that uh don't have sidewalks, and I'm thinking uhly and um all those other small development sites that do need that safety and comfort as the the cornerstone of our active transportation plan.

That's what we can think.

So I have concerns about the value of the data that we would get for such a significant cost and time of staff.

You know, I can tell you the the traffic's gonna increase in every area.

So that's not gonna tell you very much.

And if you asked anyone in any of our areas or neighborhoods, do you think people are going too quickly?

I imagine they would all say yes.

So we're gonna end up with essentially more traffic and speeders in every neighborhood.

So then how do you prioritize it?

I don't think it's um a very valuable information.

Thank you, Counselor McKenzie.

Just a question for Ivan that might help council's decision one way or another.

Um, but that is I think I I thought I heard you say, but I won't put words into your mouth, that some of this assessment may be under some work already in progress or may soon be in progress.

Is that correct?

Uh yes, Mirror Tobias.

Uh following this council meeting, if council wishes staff for staff to write a report, um we will be engaging with other municipalities and uh other transportation consultants that have done transportation master plans to see what they've incorporated in their scope.

Um if the council wishes to continue with this uh initiative to provide counts then uh staff will provide a recommendation on the best and more most effective way to do that whether it's incorporation of existing projects or piggybacking on on um on exit on future projects.

Thank you.

Council Metz.

Yeah uh two things one of them is we're making this way too complicated.

And for one of my colleagues complaining about the cost of doing this, we haven't got a clue what the cost of doing this is because we haven't got a report with any estimates in terms of what the cost would be.

And so and I don't think at this point we should be contact there's any need to contact traffic consultants, et cetera, et cetera, to do a report on just how much sort of time and energy and and what's the cost of putting up these equipment around the town and collecting the results.

I I sometimes we just really make things way too complicated.

Thank you, Councilor Matson.

Any other comments or questions?

Uh councilor Lemon.

Uh to staff.

Ivan, we have we have the equipment, right?

We we we have it on hand and as as we did for Storm Stormont, we we have the traffic counters, correct?

Uh those are speed counters and traffic counters, but this the the level of information provided is it wouldn't exactly be sufficient given the um motion that's on the table right now.

If the motion was quite simply to trigger a traffic calming analysis on a residential street, then we could use that, but it sounds like the scope of this is a little broader than that or a little more overarching.

Council Roger.

Yeah, uh uh allow me to give uh another motivating factor.

Um the CRD um has um both cycling and pedestrian counters, automatic automatic counters on their regional trails.

And it was critical for the CRD to acquire this information on the um the galloping goose where the galloping goose from uh Thelker Trestle and Um Metro town, uh not Metro Town, um Uptown, um, you know, to to understand how much traffic is, how many pedestrians, and and uh what the uh the um in strategic areas where the safety issues were um significant.

And that's what precipitated the the um um or justified if you like, both the the expansion of adding a third lane, the pedestrian lane uh to galloping goose and Lockside um uh through to those areas.

And it also enables them to uh do safety counts and uh you know, you know, in in every other areas.

So you know when someone complains about uh there's too much traffic, well, and at least you have a baseline, then you will know that there's been an increase in traffic, and it certainly wasn't, you know, was it because of of um people um you know avoiding another area or because you've got density in development.

But you know, it is very important to have this information to justify the DCC's um uh if and when you know we're gonna require sidewalks in in um in areas such as V Rail Avenue.

So um I strongly urge the um the members to um you know ask staff to get it report together so we can have that uh those numbers and and um if we don't want to do the whole town, let's do parts of it where it's gonna be really needed.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

So um you're not uh we've got the motion on the table now that staff provide a report uh for a capital project uh for uh traffic counts uh for 2025.

That's the motion on the table.

It's been seconded.

Just confirming with Councilor Matson.

He's happy to second that amendment.

There's no other comments or questions.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing Councillor McKenzie's opposed motion carries.

I believe the next one is 8.1 at staff reports.

The first one I think is housekeeping.

I'm hoping.

And that's acceptable.

Letters of credit policy revision.

Moved.

Do we have a seconder?

Seconded by Councilor Brown.

Moved by Counselor Matson.

Are there any questions or comments?

Yeah, plan.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And I think we're down to highway noise mitigation update for six-mile ramp.

Ivan, please.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Ivan the Young Director of Engineering.

I'm here to speak for you with respect to uh six-mile road off-ramp highway noise mitigation update.

So uh council has directed staff to uh undergo a acoustic analysis of the region to see what solutions are available before uh staff may move forward further in detail design.

So we did receive a draft report from BKL Consulting, who do a lot of work with the ministry on noise barrier walls, uh, very aware of um policy uh requirements, and so they were um we hired them to do this quick uh exercise for us.

So the BKL did do uh a noise monitoring analysis over a three-day period, and for given the lack of uh non-work-related requirements, uh BKL had to look at other ways to figure out what is considered a compatible noise in a neighborhood and what is not.

And the closest one is an American standards win, uh, which basically stipulates that uh below six uh 60 dBAs or decibels, I'll say in this case is is compatible for a neighborhood like this.

Uh anything over 65 is non-compatible, but it's not a requirement, it's not a standard, it's just quite literally a metric that's used by American standards.

So what you see here is essentially a a model map that shows noise in the area given the the monitored um noise by the highway.

Uh is pretty it's pretty intuitive.

Uh the closer you are to the highway, the the more noisy it is.

So what we're noticing here is the more purples and uh pinks, which uh is basically between 65 and 70 decibels, and that's near Casey Place and along uh the for the residents along the uh the the off-ramp right next to it.

Um there is some other areas that are around 65 decibel range, and that's to do with elevation, and then you'll notice that down by the Thetis Vale area.

Um we were looking at this area, and and BKL noticed that it was likely from traffic on the other side of the six-mile road, uh right where the highlighter is right here.

That's noise is probably coming from there.

Uh so the design criteria used was the ministry's design criteria for mitigating noise impacts from new and upgraded number of highways.

So it's again there is no real requirement for existing developments and or existing neighborhoods and existing highways, but that's the only uh metric that we have.

So we we use that for for this analysis.

Um, the noise benefit of greater than five decibels improvement at fighting residences is the metric.

So if a wall can provide over five decibel improvement, then that would be considered uh a warrant for a wall.

And then the physical limitations, mostly in the ministry, the the wall heights are around five meters, at least what you see regionally.

There are higher ones in in in many areas of BC, but those are quite um extraordinary.

So the BKL did provide three alignments to us of varying scope, uh, extents, and complexities.

Uh, generally speaking, of all three, adequate noise mitigation can be achieved at Casey Place and some residents in in Len Road and Matsy Place.

So those are the areas that are closest to the highway.

Um, noise mitigation performance diminishes towards six mile road, and in fact, a barrier along the off ramp off ramp is ineffective in the Thetisville, Lower Len Road neighborhood.

So what I'm speaking to is exactly this area right here.

So it doesn't matter what you do along the off-ramp, uh, that will still remain, uh, there will be no tangible differences in noise there.

So what I'd like to do is just kind of go through the the three alignments.

It's in a report in terms of the pros and cons.

Um, but I think what I'll do is I'll provide a better visual representation for you.

Uh so alignment number one is a singular wall that's basically runs along Casey Place and stops just before the rock outcrop.

So if you go, if you if you drive down six mile road, there's a big rock wall on your right, and um there's some trees there, and some residents are around are around that grade.

And so it stops just before that.

And so the benefits of this is a little more, it's a little less complex than it does uh address noise in Casey Place.

Uh, there are geotechnical challenges, as I mentioned before in previous reporting because it's by a slope.

Just kind of comparing these two maps.

So, what you see here is the existing map of noise, and then we and then what we have here to the left is the um noise benefit.

So, in green means that you have a five, six decibel benefit.

Seven to eight is better, nine and ten is best.

So, uh, in this case, what you'll notice is that the Casey Place, we do see quite a bit of improvement here that uh meets the the ministry policy, but that's about it.

There's not much that uh happens along the Matsey Place area.

Alignment two is a more complex wall, it's a basically an extension of alignment one, and it goes up on top of the rock outcrop so definitely a lot more complex uh not too sure at this time there's a few unknown unknowns as the feasibility of what geotechnical requirements are what if access is going to be an issue just to build it there is also potential to that the trees may need to be removed up there and that does provide a nice uh visual barrier uh not a sound barrier but uh but the greenery does provide a good visual barrier and we and at this point without detail design we don't know if that would impact those trees uh so higher costs because of unknown unknowns and then the environmental impacts of the change.

Here, what you can find, what you'll find is that there is better improvement along the residents that are right beside the off ramp.

So there is improvement along uh Midland, Casey Place, and Matsy Place.

We have one wall that's the same as alignment one.

And alignment three is basically two walls.

And then a second wall that kind of overlaps and that goes parallel or right next to highway one.

Staff are concerned from an insurance risk and maintenance perspective because with that with snow plows plowing and and um and and kicking snow up into the walls and motor vehicle incidents that may happen, we would be responsible for the repair of that.

And that does uh have a cause for concern for staff that in terms of what kind of maintenance costs and repair costs are required.

It's it's is quite unknown.

Um, so that's the one kind of uh uh flag that we have for this option.

That said, it does provide the greatest noise improvements.

Basically, you'll see that uh there is a five decibel improvement in many of the areas that are noted in pink in the existing model.

So it does provide a five, six decibel improvement at least to areas that are greater than 65 decibels.

So that does provide um uh improvement throughout this neighborhood.

There's a lot of things to consider when we're looking at these options.

We we kind of tried to summarize it into the three pillars uh feasibility and environment, how hard is it to build, um, what impacts does it have to exist in the environment, uh costs.

So, what are the capital costs and what are the maintenance and operational costs?

And then finally, equity, which is a little is a little bit more subjective, but what we're talking about here is does this solution uh solve the issue equitably a lot throughout the neighborhood?

And so I won't go into this chart uh in detail.

This is in the report, but basically what I want to say is that uh for one thing, capital costs increase as you get from alignment one to alignment three.

And operational costs, I would say alignment two has some uh unknown unknowns with respect to the rock face.

And alignment three, the operational cost, as I mentioned before, there's there could be potential for high cost to maintain and replace.

Equity-wise, uh, I would say the alignment one, uh, there's the benefits to Casey Place in North Lane, which is right directly beside the highway.

And then alignment two provides the most uh provides benefit to the most homes directly adjacent to the six mile off ramp.

Uh alignment three does uh address most homes in the area.

If you're looking at equity, these the sum of the homes further away from the highway would receive uh equal benefit to those that are uh right beside the highway.

So actually, I would do want to bring up one other thing about the financial.

So staff were fairly close in terms of the cost uh for alignment one.

Um, but the costs do increase quite a bit as you go along down the road.

And given the costs, uh I do have to check touch base with our um director Christensen in terms of future budgets.

Uh there may be some shortfalls in funding and as you know that uh casino revenue is a is a is a premium and it's is in demand.

So if there are is a need to find money elsewhere then an option can be to create a local improvement area where the actual neighborhood is benefiting from this would chip in.

Um given the high capital costs, I don't know if there's going to be a a motivate that's going to be a motivator for these residents, especially because it it actually doesn't capture a large number of residents.

But that said uh that is an option.

So what we have here is uh for options the the recommended option is to that council receive the staff report for information.

But ultimately, what we're looking for is some discussion from council so that you can guide staff on how to move forward.

So that's basically my representation.

Happy to take questions.

Thanks, Ivan.

I thought that was a great presentation.

I think it made uh really clear to all council not only the state of noise now, but also you know the impact using a bit of modeling.

So I thought that was great.

Well done.

Um I I got a question.

Can you go back a slide, Ivan, please?

Is it possible to do one and then potentially later on do three and still have the same effect?

From what I understood?

The first fence next to the off-ramp was similar in uh both versions.

Is it possible to do one and then look at assessment and then as uh and then do three at a at a later time potentially?

Uh Mayor Tobias, that is possible.

Uh the one risk is that costs do increase over time.

So if you're looking over a 10-year period, you take 2% over and over.

But that said, uh, one thing I didn't mention here, but it's in the report is that the Ministry of Transportation did acknowledge that some of the walls in the in along the highway along this region are aging out.

And it's on their radar.

They they couldn't tell us when they're considering doing a replacement, but it's likely in the mid to long term.

So if there is a a wish to wait and see and then maybe install that second in the future, perhaps at that time another request can make to the ministry.

I know that they kind of gave us an answer before, but you never know five years from now, 10 years from now.

So that's certainly an opportunity as well, Mary Tobias.

Yeah, and just uh before we get into questions for Ivan, just to remind council, I did uh meet with Moti and they um gave us permission to construct the fence.

They gave us permission to if we wanted to plant trees pretty much all the way down to very close to the highway, and even including on the meridian, uh, they would not take care of the trees, and that would be our responsibility, and they would not pay a dime for any sound fencing.

Uh so that that's where we sit with uh with provincial.

So, questions for Ivan.

We'll go to Councillor Matz and then Councillor Lemon, please.

Please hold your comments for the next round.

So, one of the things I'm confused about is like what's a five decibel improvement going to do compared to where it is now.

Again, one of my concerns would be we put this money out and it makes just a slight difference for a few houses, but I I just need clarification in terms of what it really means.

Um, yeah, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

I'm trying to remember what the comparisons are.

Um, it's not linear, I'll put it that way.

So it's logarithmic, what which what that means is that it's almost like how you compare earthquakes, where if you go up one point, it's actually a thousand times worse.

It's not that magnitude for sound.

Uh don't take my word for it, but I think it's between 10 decibels or maybe 20 decibels is double the sound.

Double the intensity around there.

So when you're looking at 40 decibels, 45, that's supposed to be a quiet office, a library.

And then when you get to 55 to 65, that's essentially operating a vacuum cleaner.

So rarely we're just talking about a quiet vacuum cleaner and a very loud vacuum cleaner.

Yeah, and uh I've just I'm just I'm just recall from a conversation that had with BKL that people will notice a three decibel change.

Yeah.

One one more question.

Um I don't suppose we have any any baseline data in terms of like what the noise was five years ago versus now.

Unfortunately, no.

Um yeah, yeah.

Councilor Lemon and then Councillor Brown.

Thank you.

Ivan, is the colors here, are they representative of the noise of traffic alone?

And and what I ask is there's a pink blob in the middle that that would suggest a really high decibel level.

And I I I you know I'm not it's not my area, but I I'm having trouble understanding why it's so much louder there in that blob than it is, you know, right next to the blob, which is closer to the highway.

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, that's based on contour data.

So sound um is a lot more prevalent when there's a direct line of sight.

So anytime you go up, anytime you go down, it does diminish.

Okay.

So this area right here is no, I can't I I can't speak on behalf of BKL, but you know, they did ask for contour data from us, and we're like, okay, we'll provide that to you.

And when they provide this, we're like, oh, it makes sense.

But you know, what at the beginning we're we're wondering why.

So yes, it very much has to do with topography.

So those whatever's there in the pink blob is likely elevated.

Yeah yeah.

So I I'm I can't remember what's here.

The two so quartz nearby here.

Uh I know that in this area right here, where the laser pointer is red on red, I'm sorry, but then I'll I'll just move it around.

That's I believe pit place.

Uh so yeah, there are some residents that may be in this area.

They are quite a bit further away, and as I said before, there are three decibels is a noticeable difference.

So 65 versus 61 is still pink, but it's noticeably different.

Yeah.

Council Brown, please.

Yeah, uh two questions.

One one of some of your the alternatives is got uh option one and option two, but it says there's three alternatives.

So maybe within within number one, there's there's there's the one, two, and three of the different types of barriers.

Is that well?

You're thinking ahead of me.

You're thinking that there might be an option three that council may enact, right?

Uh probably.

Um that's a typo.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Okay, second question.

I do two.

Um, the other one was this local improvement area.

I I'm not very familiar with that.

Um, and I may come up again.

Uh, how would that work?

So uh would like a hundred percent of the people in that area have to vote on, or would it be majority, or how would they put that out?

It'd be almost like a mini referendum.

I don't know.

I'm not familiar with that at all.

Uh thank you.

Through the chair, uh local area improvement tax.

So you define the local area that will benefit from it.

Uh the residents generally petition council so I mean council can uh initiate the process but normally it's initiated by residents uh we we would come up we've got some good cost estimates here uh council would decide uh how much they'd like to contribute to the project what percentage say and then that would be put to the residents and they would uh they would be given given an opportunity to vote on it uh I'd have to look into the details it hasn't been used in V Royal yet uh I've used it other places.

Um it's a lot of work and generally the uptake uh when a resident says um you know your share will be X number of thousands uh financed over X number of years uh they generally uh balk at that and say no I'm I'm okay without that.

So in a way it'd be similar to a strata.

If you have a strata on your uh the roofs may need to be or the whole buildings need to be repainted and you just send it out to the strata and you'd have to have I think it's two thirds or uh three quarters of a members attending a meeting.

I don't know if it'd be similar to that or not.

I I actually kind of like the idea although I know it'd be a lot of work and uh and some people obviously wouldn't get 100% or you could have renters in there, or you could have people that are planning to move somewhere down the road.

So I don't know how successful that would be.

Um, but I do kind of like that idea.

Um, you know, paying at least a portion of it.

Counselor McKenzie and then Councillor.

Um I had a very similar question, uh, Councilor Brown.

So um in a local improvement area, would the how would they pay it?

Would it be like uh on their tax or how would they actually do that?

Yeah, thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

It is financed through their tax bill.

And if memory serves me correctly, it's been uh number of years since I've been involved in this sort of taxation scheme, but uh I believe it's spread over 10 years.

And and it's still this this is a fairly expensive project divided by about 50 houses.

Um you know, you're you're looking at a neighborhood of two thousand dollars a year, I would roughly estimate for 10 years.

Uh sorry, and that depends.

Uh council can reduce that.

So council can pick a percentage of participation in the project.

So say you want to do it 50-50, uh, it would be uh an extra thousand dollars a year for 10 years.

Don't hold many of these numbers.

I don't even have my calculator in front of me.

Thanks, Scott, and uh counselor Rogers, but yeah, it seems like the local improvement um project would be uh taking care of the capital construction, but not the maintenance.

So the significant maintenance costs would be borne by every resident in the town.

If I can speak to that, Councilor Rogers, um there's there's an expected lifespan for any asset, and once once it reaches the end of the lifespan, um typically with local area improvement taxes, uh the municipality does not come to the rescue and rebuild that same asset.

So my experience is with sidewalks, um, you know, a resident will say I paid for that sidewalk 50 years ago through the local area improvement tax, and now you're tearing it out because it's in rough shape, and and then you have to go back to them and offer another opportunity to participate in a local area improvement.

And is the local uh area improvement uh on a particular house, is that transferable to new owners?

I believe it is, yes.

Yes.

That'll that'll decrease the value.

I think I'll just buy another house on the opposite side of the hill.

If if I may, I just wonder.

I imagine there might be uh a long list of neighborhoods throughout View Royal that would benefit from uh sound mitigation like this.

Um and uh there might be many that take us up on a local air improvement tax, or there might be none, but if you do one, it might not be equitable to the rest of the residents.

Thank you.

Yes, it to carry on that point.

I I guess um, if I were the homeowner, I think I'd more be more inclined to invest in triple glaze windows than uh which is uh a payback in two years as opposed to uh doing a tenure investment um you know with um questionable results.

Um it it also seemed to me that uh option three with the wall on the highway would have an unintended intended consequence of pushing sound back north to the um properties north of the highway.

Any thoughts of that?

I we wouldn't.

It seems logical.

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias, we don't have the data on that, however, we have a fairly similar analysis done by BKL about highway traffic bouncing off the C or D buildings that you see here and then bouncing back to the neighborhood.

Um the analysis basically stated that that's nothing.

It's it's there is no real uh difference in sound.

Uh it's still equal or less than the ambient sound from the highway.

And we would expect the same with uh if there was to be a wall uh for option three bouncing back to the residences on the north.

I think the um uh the staff you did a a great job, and and what really worries me is that uh two things.

One is that we would have to seriously consider canceling other important projects in the town.

Uh the maintenance costs would be significant um on one and two, and um highest on three with risks.

I think risk is a breakage, risks of uh snow plow, goodness gracious, you know, the uh the impending possibilities of having to reduce traffic down the highway um in the worst cases to one lane because of that.

It's uh it's untenable.

Minister of Highways couldn't uh I'm sure wouldn't be happy with that thought at all.

So thank you for the information.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Councilor Brown.

Second.

So Councillor Brown uh moved option one received for information and seconded by Councillor Rogers.

And is there any other comments on that?

Councilor Mackenzie.

I still do like the idea of the local improvement area if we were to go through with this.

But I know the petition was actually started by people who live further down, and they really said it was an overall neighborhood, like they because they still walk through the area, so they might actually see some benefit to contributing to it as well.

Um and what also kind of is interesting is that I believe Casey Place those homes were not built that long ago.

I believe that was the last area to be developed and might have even happened um while noise was already occurring.

So to see it be the one that would receive the most benefit is a little um I don't know I think the people purchasing there knew uh what the sound was going to be there.

So thanks, Councillor McKenzie.

Um, I did receive a letter correspondence I can make it available for counsel from a uh a woman that moved to Sydney that purchased in the area that had gone through triple glaze windows upgrades, even though it was a new construction white noise machines, still not enough to do it, and she just had to move away.

And she loved Vie Royal, right?

So I what pains me is hindsight being 2020.

This should have been a responsibility of the development of that subdivision.

And and it was overlooked because I think it went in phases, and people council was not aware of kind of the impact as getting closer to the highway.

Plus, the to be honest, I mean, the traffic from the highway has increased with the amount of population and growth and and everything with it.

So it was it should have been probably included in in the DCCs associated with the development of that community to install that.

Because it's the only community when you look at View Royal that has a real crappy mesh fence with some black um uh material on it now that's not a sound barrier.

I mean it looks horrible from the the highway as it is.

And that was part of my I guess my gut issue with this is that um is this the people that are living there is is it their fault or is it because of really crappy decision making here and not seeing the consequences in the future?

And and you know, so we can't solve that, and maybe there's a dish.

I just want to be darn sure that this council has its eyes wide open when we go in to look at other approvals to consider other things we need to consider um uh to to abate something like this because we know we're gonna grow more, and not just us, but the entire west, the entire Up Island.

We know the noise on the highway is not gonna get any easier.

Um, and we uh so what do we do?

If we turn around right now and just receive it, that's wonderful.

We've just said we'll do nothing, and it'll sit on the bottom of the priority list, or not even on a priority list, and we'll have nothing.

I've never seen our population of View Royal get together, get 200 signatures and petition the legislature for action only to be brought back to us that we would support it.

Um, and now we're just going to receive it.

So I get the fact that people don't want to spend money.

Um, but this is when you look at the thresholds of the sound there, you are at Safety Canada working in a heavy-duty uh workshop that it could cause hearing impairment if you're spending a lot of time outdoors, like they wouldn't allow you to go out, essentially, right?

And and over time, we're talking decades of growing up in a place like that.

And if council believes that we should just receive the report, then that's the will of council.

But I think our citizens are act asking us to do things a little bit differently, and I think it's two port two points.

One is it just the cost that we're not doing something about it, or we think it's a good idea, but it's too expensive to do.

And I think we need to kind of break that down.

Counselor uh thank you.

Uh certainly some good points there from Meritobias, and um we're thinking alike because uh I was going to say that um we've done something here, we've solicited information from a neighborhood, we've asked them uh for information.

They've uh sought out their own petition and gone so far as to provide that to us, which you know, I think for a lot of us who sit up here uh and have for a while, it doesn't happen that often.

We don't see large petitions come our way.

Um view of the map in front of us right now shows a very uh large community that is our newest um community in View Royal, probably in the last decade.

Uh Councilor McKenzie, you are correct.

Casey Place has new builds.

They have a new uh townhouse development that was just squeezed in there as well.

Uh the argument for providing a special service to a small group of residents, we include a moderate group of residents, can really be looked at for any uh anything other than you know something that's across the whole town, uh generic service.

So uh a park could be looked at as just providing that group um a special service.

So I'm not sure if that is appropriate to look at.

So um we've uh we've looked into this, we've asked for studies, we've got results, we know that it can have potential health risks.

Um the highways getting busier.

Um I'm disappointed with the provincial government's response, to be honest with you.

Um, it doesn't shock me, but I'm certainly disappointed, and I think that uh they're not carrying their weight in this instance.

Uh, that leaves us holding the bag to make a response, uh make a decision.

Uh the mesh fencing, I think, uh perhaps was installed for for headlights and and light debris, and maybe not um intended to be a noise barrier.

Um, but to the Merit Tobias's point, I think we need to stop kicking the can down the road.

And we do need to make uh some type of a decision here uh sooner than later uh at the least putting it on uh the next budget cycle and that would probably be like uh for for a decision point sir brown please yeah I'm gonna withdraw my motion I would like to make a subsequent one and that would be to uh look into the local improvement act option um and that have to be brought back to council um uh uh uh at uh to me 50 percent would be would be would be fair and and they may they may say themselves it's not worth the or the the expense and at least they've had that say so i'm not trying to shape your motion at all but i think counselor qualitation recommended one that was more general okay okay that just comes back um during our normal budget cycle as as a project and and we can get into the details about how much local area uh possible funding but um but that that might keep it as uh as a further consideration than just receiving it which will go kind of away to yeah that makes sense to have it at our budget discussions and then we can that that option could come up then yeah no I like that yeah perfect I'll yeah so I'm withdrawing my motion to uh to receive I I think I put that motion into counselor kualowicz's mouth actually so I'll I'll I have to get counselor kualowich to uh to make the motion so we can get a second certainly uh just so we're all clear uh support uh placing uh a series of options into the next uh budget cycle uh that can be also continued to to evolve over the next six months for decision point uh but I guess my motion could be so general that um uh noise mitigation uh installation be placed into the 2025 budget cycle.

And I'll second that motion.

Second by counselor brown.

Any other questions, comments about that, uh Councilor Mattson then, Councillor McKenzie.

Yeah, I mean I mean we're just kicking this down the road.

The reality is people are never going to agree to spending an extra thousand or two thousand dollars a year on their property taxes.

It sets a horrible precedent because we can't afford to do all the areas in the town who are going to ask and if we do one we're setting a precedent to do others.

In all fairness to the people who they bought next to a highway I I'm sorry you bought next to a highway um the fact that the council of the day didn't get a fence built doesn't change the fact that people saw what was there and they bought next to a highway.

There's maintenance costs that the town will have to pay, and there's a 15 or 20 year life expectancy maybe on one of these fences, and then it will come back and we'll have to redo it because it'll just be as noisy as it ever was.

And so I just think that we're delaying the inevitable by pushing it down the road.

Atkins Road sidewalks is just one which may I don't know when that's ever going to be built.

So, anyways, I I just think we're doing something which we aren't going to be able to do in the long run, and we're just giving people false hope that somehow a miracle pot of money is going to come.

So we'll be able to spend millions and millions of dollars to fix all the noise problems from the highway.

If you look further up Lankford, they're building high apartments right on the highway.

Again, really noisy.

Uh, people make a decision to live there.

I don't think it's our responsibility to fix problems that people have made in in those areas, especially when it was should be obvious that it's a highway, it's noisy, and it's only going to get noisier.

So on that basis, I can't support the motion.

Thank you.

Councillor McKenzie.

I don't think I can support the motion in delaying it until the budget.

I think it would be really helpful as Councillor Brown was saying, to get more information around what a local improvement area plan could look like and to start that work earlier so that we could get feedback and engage with the uh folks that live there.

Because I know around budget time we're often pressed for time and I'm not sure that it will receive the amount of attention um that it needs to.

Thank you, Counselor Lemon and Councilor Rogers.

Yeah, I would oppose the motion.

Um I said Councillor Lemon, then Councilor Rogers.

Oh sorry.

Go ahead.

I will support the motion.

Um simply because we don't have enough information around local improvement areas yet.

And I want to, you know, I want to give it time to have more of a think.

We have we have some, is it 16 or 18 million facing us for the police building?

And so we we have we have we have um projects and bills confronting us that are just so astronomical.

I you know I I I don't know how we're gonna do it.

Um so it's it's a big ask to do this.

On the other hand, I don't like to see, you know, if I look at all that pink and I look at that blue, and there are people clearly suffering.

So I'm I'm I I appreciate the room of having a few months to consider it and to give it a good look at budget time.

Yes, thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

So the motion is to uh put into the uh forthcoming budget uh process.

Uh what's also in the forthcoming budget is how the heck we're gonna pay for a new place station and how we're gonna be um because that those costs are uh significant uh and it's going to everybody's gonna have to uh carry that uh significant borrowing cost.

Um and indeed there are um many important projects in this town.

Uh I note there's uh no caller from that area, despite this report being here uh to speak to the matter.

Um the and I and I agree with the council matching, this is buyer beware.

Um the highway noise has increased, but not increased dramatically, I would suggest, um, from the time that phases six and seven uh were were put in, those winds that were at immediately adjacent to the highway.

So um uh I don't think there's there's a um um significant increase in and you we could put out the information if they wanted to do a um um a local improvement that might be new, that might be an idea, but it um I I doubt the and and but I wouldn't do anything other than 100%.

It's up to them.

And if they want to do it, fine, that's great.

But we still will be responsible for significant maintenance costs, and those will haunt us.

Any other questions or comments?

Seeing none.

So the motion on the table is to defer the item to uh the budget process.

It's been moved and seconded.

All those in favor, all those opposed.

Seeing uh four are four and three are against the motion carries to defer to budget uh deliberations uh this year.

Uh I think that brings us to C pothole and sidewalk maintenance policies.

So see you again, Ivan.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Uh, yeah, I have for you a uh couple of maintenance policies that we like council to adopt.

Um quite literally it's just a risk management exercise uh after the Marchie versus C of Nelson uh core policies and its ability to defend has changed.

So uh what council will see in the in the future is are a series of policies, maintenance policies uh for adoption.

This is for potholes and sidewalk maintenance, which are uh they're common requests to the town, and so in order for us to to mitigate our risks, we need to uh enact these policies again.

No change in uh resources or level of service is quite literally just to provide transparency in what we do already so happy to take any questions about this but ultimately the uh option the recommended option is that council adopt uh policy 52 hundred nineteen sidewalk inspection and maintenance and policy 520 the pothole inspection and maintenance staff recommendation second uh yeah go ahead counselor roder yeah i thank you and and i i i do support the uh the uh the motion here but i'm do I am wondering about um um in this these standards.

Um, and i'm thinking of um you know shared lanes for um cycling and the new e-scooters.

I just don't I just think that e-scooters have a uh a maybe it's just me, but a poorer sense of stability.

And um will these um e-scooters be at you know some level of risk uh when they do hit that pothole or uh that uh uneven pavement or sidewalk?

Um and is that uh in going to um present a problem in terms of liability?

Uh yes, Mayor Tobias.

Uh so the beauty of poor policy is that um they're predicated on four factors.

Uh the most important is the balance between uh the resources we have, the staff we have, and the issue at hand.

So what I mean by that is that core policy decisions are based on value judgments, not technical standards or objective data.

So long story short, uh having these core policy decisions should protect us for all vehicles on the road per demorative act.

Any other questions for Ivan?

Comments?

Seeing no comments, I think we got a mover and a seconder.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

I think this is over to West Shore Parks and Rec Facilities Master Plan.

Uh thank you, Mayor Tobias.

And that's uh Scott.

Are you gonna stick handle that one?

I am.

Yes.

Uh the mayor and I were invited uh cordially by Langford and Callwood to attend a a meeting of the five municipalities involved in West Shore Parks and Rec to discuss uh sharing of regional recreational opportunities.

Um the sort of synthesis of that meeting, uh the outcome was that all five municipalities went away and said we will talk to our councils about participating in a hundred and forty thousand dollar recreational master plan for the region.

Um I let them know that uh URL was quite comfortable with West Shore Parks and Recreation.

Uh that's why they're gonna spearhead the master plan.

Uh that it was only four kilometers from town hall to Juan de Fuca, but it was 12 kilometers to the YMCA and 12 to Royal Bay.

Uh so might might not be as beneficial to our residents.

Uh I've since been informed as of uh this morning that last night uh Machosen agreed to participate in the master plan, as did uh Highlands.

So I haven't heard about Calwood and I I know that Lankford will participate, so there's an expectation that we'll at least collaborate in the master planning process.

We would be wise to consider the fact that there are considerable costs coming for recreation in the region.

And after the master plan is done, we will be invited to participate in sharing those costs.

But there may be some benefit to having a a large inventory of all the recreational opportunities available on the West Shore.

There may be some marginal benefit to our residents from participating in the master plan process.

Counselor Matson.

So my understanding is this is a a look at sort of what's out in the communities and and what's needed and where.

And so there'll be millions of dollars worth of projects in Callwood and Langford, probably added to a list that we will some we will in the future be asked to pay for through Juan de Fuca Rec.

It's or is it just looking at what's currently in Juan de Fuca Rec Center and looking at how to uh ensure that it stays healthy over a period of time?

So I'm I'm I'm not 100% sure what the study is for.

Yeah, I believe Councilor Matson, it's it's the former.

Um, it's it's an invitation to participate and to avoid duplication between the municipalities.

Um, however, we're not currently scheduling any recreation facilities, so there's no danger of us uh duplicating uh much in the way of uh new and exciting uh infrastructure pertaining to recreation.

So you don't you don't want comments now, you just want to just questions, please.

Yeah, thank you.

Council Low.

So Scott, if if we participate in this and Callwood chooses to put in an outdoor lap pool by participating in this, are our residents able to use that lap pool?

I I believe our residents are able to use any of these facilities currently and will be in the future.

Uh participating in the master plan does not um we we're not beholden to participate financially any more than we currently are.

There is a process through West Shore Parks and Recreation to expand the services and vote on that.

Um I don't think that we would be uh committing to any further expenditures beyond participating in the master plan.

Okay, thank you.

And just to be clear, um, that anybody from Oak Bay or North Saanich can come and use the Wonder Fuca Rec Center.

It's the same cost as a View Royal resident that we pay in.

Just the same if we go to Oak Bay Rec Center, we're gonna be paying there.

So the the the truly the the benefit is that those facilities are available so that our collective residents on the West Shore could go to.

But there's no incentive, they they don't get a discount because View Royal pays 14% or whatever.

There's no discount there.

It's just whether it exists or whether it doesn't exist.

And I think some of the motivations behind looking at a master plan was um a new recreation center in Cawood, out where all the development is in um what do they call it now?

Royal Bay.

I quite still think old gravel pit, but Royal Bay, uh, and the YMCA for Lankford.

So two significant um recreational facilities that they're investigating, um, and that's part of this master plan, I think, as well.

So would it inhibit any of you royal residents, whether we were part of this or not, to partake in it?

No, absolutely not.

Would something maybe not exist if it wasn't there that they couldn't participate in?

That might be the case if if uh if the municipalities didn't support things like the West.

Any other questions for Scott?

Uh Councilor Rutgers.

Yes, thank you.

Um it's interesting, there's a plan to ensure no duplication of costly recreational facilities.

But if if um uh again the the province is encouraging every Tom Dick and Harry to come to Victoria, and so um with that if maybe we will need to replic duplicate an expensive swimming pool because otherwise people are gonna have to wait in line and you know for a few hours to get in, or they'll have to book a time.

Um so it is population demand um uh that's also I think um um a key consideration.

It's it's strategic to find out what kind of uh recreational facilities we should anticipate because we want professionals to come and live, work and play, and that's a key factor to attract the professionals is so that they can recreate and they're drawn to that.

So it's um um I I I I see the uh both sides of this and um and i i appreciate the the warning uh uh from staff and in terms of fiscal uh fiscal aspects that prepare for um hefty price tag to taxpayers you know maybe they won't want to do a a local improvement um to a selling wall because they're going to be facing a hefty price tag for new recreational west shore so that's all going to add up um you know to the individuals but i i think this investment of this funds is important and i really appreciate you bringing it to our attention.

Well move staff's recommendation.

Second.

Questions or comments.

Councilor Matson.

Yeah, I just have a comment.

I mean, I'm opposed to us funding us.

I think we should be sending a message that we don't want to participate as a council, our taxpayers paying for all these new facilities that are way outside of View Royal, and that we're happy with what we have.

I just don't think we can afford it.

And our residents may or may not be going there, but it's just gonna be too huge a cost.

So I'm don't want to even send them a I want to send a message that we we don't even want to participate in the study for that reason.

Thank you.

Councillor McKenzie.

I agree.

I don't see how us participating in this study will benefit View Royal residents at all.

I think it's any recreation facilities out that way out in Culwood or Langford is um too far for folks.

I'm hearing from residents that they need well they would ideally like to have more in View Royal particularly a soccer field.

I got a request for that in View Royal Park.

But right now a lot of them go to a squai malt.

So I don't see these things are going to go ahead regardless of if we participate the Royal Bay facility is going to go ahead and it might not benefit us.

So why would we contribute to that?

Um yeah, I think I think uh it it just there's really no benefit for us.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie, Council Roger.

There is a huge benefit.

Um we uh we're very fortunate to have uh the space uh at this point with the current West Shore.

But I I think um as chair um we are we've heard that um uh there's a great deal of demand for the weight room and for the swimming pool and for the the ball fields and so forth.

And um uh if the region is going to be growing by another 2300 200, 300,000, uh, then every municipality, we knew the city of Victoria is having to uh work on a new swimming pool.

So every this this recreational factor uh is important.

This planning is important for um for the West Shore.

So I'm um I I can't believe how how important it is.

Thank you.

Councilor Collins.

Thank you.

And I will, I promise, to remain objective here, regardless of uh how much I do support the society itself.

Uh I think you know, some of these discussions we've been having tonight already really signal the growth in the CRD.

We're talking about um the highways getting busier, new police buildings, new transit lanes.

And the list goes on and on, libraries being replaced.

It's it's really never-ending.

And I think you couple that with the latest British Columbia government's projected population increase uh set to be over 8 million by 2046, I believe.

We're almost at a half million in Greater Victoria.

Um I I really think uh uh my fellow council members should consider some long-term visioning here.

The town of View Royal does not have the capacity to provide adequate recreation to its residents in the future.

We have no recreation facilities other than green space to provide.

And that's fine because we've partnered with the West Shore Parks and Recreation Society for so long and uh built such a good relationship.

Uh View Royal residents uh do not know what they have uh that they may have in the future before we build it.

If you build a pool at Royal Bay that's an outdoor lap pool, you know, someone who enjoys that will probably drive the extra 10 minutes.

If you build an extra soccer field and a little Sally or Johnny needs to play there, you will drive there.

Uh no, it's not five minutes down the road.

Um, but unfortunately, living in a major metropolitan area rarely is.

So it's expensive.

It is.

This is an expensive proposition.

And will it go ahead without us?

Maybe, maybe not.

We are the third uh large, we're the middle child of the West Shore Parks and Recreation Society.

Uh, we we serve as uh the chairperson right now.

We are an integral part of the West Shore Parks and Rec and we have influence over it.

Uh I for one am wholeheartedly in support of this study, and and that's what it is at this point.

It's um it's it's a plan.

And if the plan is not feasible and it comes back with numbers that are off the charts, well, then I assume we're not gonna be the only municipality who says pump the brakes.

Council McKenzie.

I actually think as as the West Shore continues to grow and traffic continues to grow, we are going to see fewer families willing to drive to that traffic.

They're going to head the other direction.

They're gonna head into a squai malt or Victoria, where a lot of people still work, and it's just going to be more convenient for them to take their children perhaps to recreation down there.

I think people are really going to struggle with the traffic.

No one's going to want to head to the West Shore further than the Wandafuca, to be honest, to do that.

It's just not going to be convenient for V Royal residents.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

Any other comments or questions?

None.

We got a mover and a seconder for the staff recommendation to fund the study for $17,790 from casino revenue.

Um all those in favor.

All those opposed.

Stoning uh counselors Matson and Councillor McKenzie were opposed.

Motion carries.

Uh annual report for year end.

Um seat.

Moved.

Moved and seconded for adoption.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Just your comment.

Thank you for doing the uh revisions.

Uh thank you, Councilor Rogers.

I really want to pass on my commendation to Jennifer Cochran, who uh did uh the lion's share of work on the end of the report.

She did a a great job right up uh until this morning.

So I think we voted on that and that passed.

Thank you.

Um for adoption and committee the whole resolutions.

And I know there is three of them here.

Uh we could uh move them as a block.

Would anybody like to pull one out?

I'd like to move them as a block.

Okay, is anybody gonna want to pull the rest of them out, or are we okay with just pulling one?

Okay, one is pulled.

So on two and three, can I get a motion?

Second second or we've it's been moved?

It's some seconded second moved by council brown.

Secillor Brown, seconded by Councilor Mattson.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And uh Counselor Rogers, you wanted to speak to uh number one amendments to tree protection bylaw.

Uh yes, I I urge council to take a broad approach to uh this really valuable and important motion.

Um respectfully, this um this carries more weight than um just tree protection.

It is a uh an aspect of uh the tree canopy, both in terms of protection and promotion uh to expand um uh tree plantings, and that's again it's the tree protection bylaw is um is an important part, but not the only part.

Um and I think we should be amending it to uh amend uh or yeah, amend to the town's bylaws to protect and promote tree canopy.

Um that is really the the focus.

And I draw your attention to the the fact that the town of Ural supplementary design guidelines, section 12, talks about landscaping uh requirements for boulevard trees and tree retention.

So that's another example, not just the tree protection by law.

By law 900 includes important context for green spacing and um and streetscaping and so forth, and also one of the important aspects that we heard um with the um what was it natural assets uh inventory is um ensuring the appropriate and adequate setbacks so that um um significant trees can be retained in our community and that is not in the tree protection bylaw that is in um other bylaws so let's let's broaden the this throat yeah we have protect and promote in the bylaw just and and promote tree protect would promote and would protect and promote more trees so we could go on forever you could just add those two little words and I'm sure everybody'd be happy with so yeah yeah okay so um amend so if if um if counselor would be agreeable I would move that we um we change the amendment to the tree protection by log amendment to the town's bylaws to protect and promote tree canopy and that I'm not understanding fully because I think some of your concern counselor rogers is captured in the NASA natural asset roadmap program.

That's the second one.

All of the talk about the subpacks and and the briefing that we had uh was that were was what we've already approved.

Not so that that's part, and I think Councillor McKenzie's motion was separate from that in that it was a concern about the current trees and not necessarily the new development.

If I may, your worship, no.

The number two was simply uh the support that staff would um attend a workshop, a program that is being delivered by the natural asset in initiative.

So that's simply a program that we we want staff to attend.

That's nothing to do with implementing uh any any um amendments and um uh support for um and uh and we're too limited.

And the number one is too limited because it's only the tree protection bylaw, and we know that there's other bylaws that are relevant and important to ensure that uh trees and landscaping um setbacks and retention and and so forth um is is something that we we have to look at the broad aspects because if you we just have in the tree protection in one it may that that protection may not um be capable it's a loophole if you like that other sections would uh because the um uh the provincial bill 44 um and all the density that we're going to add on to that those are the setbacks and those the it was the setbacks of uh from the street that it was the um key takeaway before we talk too much more about it we've got to have what you want to see on that for a change but before you go there think about what you want to see on that change to amend potentially the the uh motion brought forward by counselor McKenzie because we can talk all we want but staff is looking to us for direction on something sustain.

So I so hang on uh councillor McKenzie thank you your thoughts first yeah I just want to clarify the intention I think of a lot of what counselor Rogers is referring to um my understanding is that's going to be part of the urban forest strategy.

With this, I was really not to create too much work for staff, having to update a whole variety of bylaws.

It was just something really quick and effective that they could do.

Um, so that's why it was just limited to that that one.

I didn't want them to do work, a lot of work now, and once we have the urban forest strategy, have to update everything again.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie, Councillor Rogers.

Unfortunately, um the um I and maybe staff can assess this on this, but um the tree protection bylaw, I don't think um would be adequate to address the last portion of the motion specifically as part of development or building permits.

That is you know, and and again, you have to think of this the uh um if that's the building permits, then that is bylaw 90, the zoning bylaw, those those amendments that we made just recently those are going to have the most significant impact and the tree protection bylaw is not going to help us at all and in in the big scheme of things so you if you're gonna have just a tree protection bylaw take out the last sentence it's irrelevant and if you want to include if your intend is to include protection and promotion then I think you should be addressing all relevant bylaws that the town has pertaining to trees and tree canopy and protection and that's not only on on private properties but it's also in in boulevards and streetscapes and so and so forth because when you have a subdivision going in you need the streetscape to define those trees that are um going to be applied so you can limit it but you will be limiting the impact and effect of your uh intent so can I I think we're changing the intent of the motion by this and I think we should just vote on this motion and if counselor rogers wishes to bring another motion to deal with those others I'd be more than happy to support it but I don't think we should change this one.

Council McGet can I ask staff just to what Councillor Rogers was saying, um, would this be a a change to the tree protection bylaw still be viewed when you're considering the a development permit?

Um through the chairs.

The tree protection bylaw is initiated when we look at developments.

It basically stipulates what's considered a protected tree and as part of removal is what the replacement tree council are supposed to be.

And then we transparently provided the council for information whether or not they wish to approve the development permit or not based on those metrics.

Uh for for um for the next couple of months, we will be uh looking at ways that we can update the tree protection bylaw among other bylaws to help promote and protect uh trees as part of development building permits.

Uh, you council recall that staff stated that that data can be provided around October, November of this year, and council basically mentioned that they would like some quick changes earlier.

So, right now, uh Director Taylor and I, once council uh adopts this item here, just extrapolating the like the workload of what is required to deliver this to council at September.

Director Taylor and I have about three weeks to collect data, collate it, make it meaningful within our bylaws, and and uh what changes are required, and then deliver that to council.

So, already as a stands, the ability for us to do quick changes is we're we're we're going to be pretty stretched for or stressed for time.

To add this, it may be best to consider that this is already going to be delivered to council at a later date this year.

Scott, please.

I just wanted to add another way of looking at this is if we do some minimal changes to the tree protection bylaw to plug the holes that council's seeing right now, uh, the sooner we can get on with our uh urban forest strategy and our OCP and the zoning amendments that come after that.

So um by front loading it to protect all the trees now, it's actually taking away from future projects.

Um just due to our limited capacity.

So I support what Director Liang is saying.

Which I ideally in the long run we'll do more to protect trees.

So we have our stop gap measure here and then let's do the comprehensive review and um update that OCP.

It's time.

Thank you, Scott.

Council Rogers.

Yes, thank you for the information, Staff.

I I think um you know we can go ahead with the tree protection bylaw, but with the canopy and the strategies of uh that we're with the staff have just informed us about, I think we should have ensure that we have that lens and are diligent uh to um uh supporting uh you know whatever um improvements to whatever bylaws so that our tree canopies um uh can be um you know protected and it yeah again like I say it's um there are it's not just in one bylaw our our tree protections and setbacks and so forth retentions is is in quite a few bylaws.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we had a mover and a seconder for uh item number one of 8.2 amendments to tree protection bylaw.

All those in favor.

Any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries uh thank you uh council McKenzie for the motions and uh staff for your reply and I think that brings us to uh correspondence and for action we've got an email from uh Mr.

Moore and that is for the report and draft agreements essentially uh staff uh stating the governance model out that we already have uh with the West Shore.

So this is nothing new, ask, it's just a renewal.

Am I saying that right, Scott?

Uh that's correct, Mayor.

Uh, I attended a meeting with our four partner municipalities, and we were unanimous that it's a pretty good agreement.

It doesn't uh require a lot of change.

I I believe Councilor Kwalowich can correct me, but I I believe the board of directors for the society felt the same way.

And so this is an easy one uh to uh roll over the agreement for another five years and carry on with the successful model.

So move uh approve the uh governance agreement report and draft, uh seconded by or uh moved by councilor Mattson, seconded by Councilor Lemon.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

See none opposed, motion carries.

And sidewalk on uh Granary.

And uh I think Linda was here to speak to us last council meeting because she wasn't going to be here this week.

However, I also have information from staff and from counselor Rogers that a um all the vegetation has been cut back now, uh, and it's looking good.

So the main concern area there was that because it was overgrown, people couldn't use the shoulder of the road um to walk on.

Um, and that there was some discussion about sidewalks uh as well.

But the main concern was just how do we get by park cars dropping kids off and people not walking in the middle of the road?

Um so I think the action there is to uh receive for information and it's not identified as a short term priority in the active transportation network plan uh but happy to have discussions or motions uh counselor lemon I would move that we have an extension to the sidewalk down to the gate included in the 2025 budget discussions second down to where to the gate to the gate to to the school yard gate any other questions or comments?

Go ahead, Council Roger.

Um, I I think you need to have a look at um um what's been improved, staff have um gone and cleared the quite adequately.

Um so if you have a look at that, you and I think you also have to appreciate there is a considerable drop off, considerable expense to um to uh construct a retaining wall to bring it uh if we're gonna build a sidewalk of of 1.5 meters is the standard, I think, 1.2.

And um that will require a rather expensive retaining wall.

And when you also think that school kids children are walking to school along Stormont that has even worse uh uh not nothing on either side, um that's that's a real problem.

So you can you could consider the motion, but I think um and uh for the but if you look at it, I think um staff have uh immediately addressed the problem.

It doesn't look like what's in the picture today.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers, Councillor.

I'm very familiar with that that stretch.

Um I use it often and and it does get overgrown again.

You know, staff will go in and you know, or Victoria contracting, the contractor will go in and clear it.

But I I don't, you know, perhaps they'll clear it every month, but I don't know that's a guarantee of that.

And it's a it's a schoolyard, you know, children need a safe, safe way to walk to school, and that safe way ends quite abruptly, about 20 meters up the road.

And uh it is stormulant.

I I don't it you you you mentioned that uh stairs there's the stairs down well that's on ruddyard yeah yeah yeah um anyway i would i would just feel i i would like to see a sidewalk there um and it would it would guarantee clear visibility and uh safety for children so uh do we have uh seconder for counselor lemon's motion seconded.

Uh you you can motivate, I think counselor lemon you is that adequate motivation?

Yeah, my only motivation is it's just uh at next budget cycle there'll be a report and it'll tell us what the costs are and we'll make a determination then, but at least we'll be on the on the books.

Council Levin question to staff.

Um it's the middle of summer now.

Can can we count on in the meantime to th until we get up to get to discussing about a a new side as the possibility of a new sidewalk, can we count on regular trimming there around the uh the gate areas uh Mayor Tobias, staff can look at prioritizing areas near schools, however, the quantity increasing the quality, quantity would be an increased level of service.

Thanks, Ivan.

But what's what I can do is probably work with staff to see if we can attack this earlier.

Thank you.

I think that's adequate.

So if there's uh we got a motion on the table that's to refer the sidewalk on uh Glenary Drive uh to budget um considerations, and we got a mover and a second or any other comments.

Seeing no other comments, all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And for information nine point two, we've got minutes for the Partners of health meeting.

Uh thank you for those, uh Scott.

Um that was uh a uh I think Scott and I talked a little bit about it.

It was uh something that has occurred a couple of times in the past, uh, but a a good uh meeting of all levels of local government plus provincial government plus doctors, and this is where we came across the studies from uh Comox and how successful they were in recruiting doctors.

Um so they're they're uh uh making some progress and and part of the uh South Island um division of family practice uh were were of course there as well as the uh um uh SIP or the South Island Prosperity uh partnership, as well as uh the West Shore uh physicians uh Society.

Uh so it was everybody kind of working together and looking at ways that we can um better uh enable uh what we can do as a municipality to facilitate the recruitments of doctors.

As I said before, it's not just uh is there a house available?

It's is there are we a well-rounded community?

Is there adequate daycare?

Is it is it walkable?

All of the other things that that really make a difference to physicians making a decision that this is going to be their home and and to practice potentially here or close by.

Um I think the motion is just to move receipt.

Uh and uh we've got a mover, uh, Councilor Mattson or Second or Councillor Lemon.

That's A and B.

Uh that could be A and B.

Yes.

Uh it certainly could be.

And there's no other comments, questions?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And bylaw.

And this is for adoption.

We can't move these as a block, can we?

No.

Because we have to move them one by one.

I'll move 872.

So Councilor Matson's option.

1140.

1140.

And Councilor Rogers is seconding it.

I'm assuming.

No?

Okay.

Um, do we have a seconder for 1140?

Seconded by Councilor Brown.

Comments?

It's been spoken about to death.

Yeah.

All those in favor?

Motion carries.

Any opposed?

Noting Counselor Rogers is opposed.

Uh election procedures bylaw.

I'll move 1142.

1142.

Moved by Councilor Mattson.

Seconded by Counselor Brown.

Comments, discussion.

Seeing none.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion passes.

Counselor Rogers is opposed.

And and Councilor Lemon is opposed.

Motion still passes.

Zoning bylaw uh 1143.

Do I have a doction?

Second.

Moved by Counselor Mattson.

Second by Councilor Rogers.

All those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries and signed by law 114 uh do i have a move and a second so move second moved by councillor matzon second by councilor mackenzie all those in favor any opposed councilor rogers is opposed and counselor lemon is opposed motion carries uh i'm seeing no new business and motions or notices of motion or would uh first we'll get a question period.

There's nobody here.

Carl, you got anybody on the phone?

Mayor Tobias, we've had no callers this evening.

No callers.

Everybody's on summer vacation.

Um thanks, Carl.

Uh so motions and notice to motions.

Uh Councilor Rogers, please.

I'll move that motion.

Second.

Okay, we got a mover in a seconder.

Do you want to motivate Councilor Rogers?

Yes.

Thank you.

Um I it's it's pretty evident the um um you know Theus Lake uh is an earthfield dam number three constructed in 1896 with no substantial upgrade since then.

Um a dam safety uh study was done in 2017 by the CRD and dam three is a very high consequence classification with a potential insufficient spillway.

Um so uh uh I I think this is um challenged by the atmospheric river of November 2021.

Recent scientific information on the Cascadia Fault Line and the Leach River Fault Line that runs just five kilometers south of the These Lake Dam presents a significant risk potential.

And so I would ask that staff provide this council a copy of the 2017 CRD report and also speak to um come to speak to council in the fall about next steps and and I would also invite the CRD uh to um share the information as well.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Councilor Matson, anything there.

No, just that it'd be good to have the CRD here and to have a discussion.

Thank you.

Uh Councilor Brown.

Councilor Brown, you sponsored the motion, of course.

Yeah, it's uh time very timely because of the seismic activity.

The dam's very old, and of course it would be major effect on the V Royal.

Um I believe, I'm not I could be wrong, but I believe Troy Mullen did a tabletop exercise a few years ago.

I could be wrong, um uh with using the dam breach as a as the subject.

And I think it's uh tabletop exercises are excellent, but they should be done periodically, maybe every two years or something.

And this, so it's been a while, and I think uh mayor, you should be involved.

Uh, council members, staff members, um uh EMBC puts on training courses to to run them, and I think sometimes the CRD runs them too.

But uh, I don't know if they include everybody.

You know, I hate siloism.

When I was in charge of animal control, we had we had a bid on contracts and we had competitors.

And we when we brought people in for training, we invited our competitors to take part because it was for everybody's benefit.

So uh if protective services puts on a tabletop exercise, they should be inviting all the councils to attend.

I think we can attend or not attend, but the dam would be an excellent topic, and the training is excellent.

And if there's if there's a disaster, the first person that gets there is gonna be in charge, and they're gonna have to start assigning duties.

And Troy's excellent, Troy puts on a an excellent thing.

So perhaps we could even host one and invite uh some of the other municipalities.

Just an idea.

So what I'm getting, I think, from uh Councilor Rogers, Councilor Matson, Councillor Brown is there's probably an issue for an engineering update and a study and some more uh opportunities to ask questions about risk and probability associated with this because if there was a significant of or the there was an event significant enough to trigger a breach in the dam, we're also going to have other things to worry about uh with that.

So there's a bit of an engineering update, but also an emergency planning aspect about it as well.

And I know Scott's got some information.

Scott.

Well, I I thought I'd share this information a couple weeks ago, but we just did this exact tabletop exercise at the end of May.

So this is our most recent practice.

Unfortunately the way emergency management works is it's usually reactive, not proactive.

So we're not going to go fix the dam, but uh if it ever breaches we'll be there to do our best to clean it up.

We we have limited capacity to have a large uh EOC practice with with all players involved.

Mayor and council are the policy group so they're typically not um not in the room, not in the EOC, but uh we had a pretty full room, and uh some of some of our staff have gone down to the CRD uh and done some tabletops with them as well.

So we do interact with with other municipalities, primarily with the CRD, and uh we'll continue to do that.

Council Rogers.

Yeah, um, you know, I I appreciate the um EOC and the planning and so forth, but um yeah it's it's great that we got that.

And uh as uh staff says, um the big problem is not our problem to pay for.

This is an earth and dam built um long ago when earth and dams um you know should by this time have been replaced.

And uh CRD has worked very diligently to uh replace the uh water collection dams, uh, a series of them uh over the last uh five to ten years, um, and that's taking a lot of money.

Um, they're contemplating an early warning system to go um on Suk River uh in the line of risk and catastrophe downstream.

I think one of the big things you can have, you can do all the plenty you want, but if there's a um a significant risk of overflow of that dam because of an atmospheric river and and and so on, CRD is working very hard to ensure that that doesn't happen, which means they released the water down Crapeflower.

And we've seen what happened to Marlow Drive, you know, and the flood there with the atmospheric river and uh release of dam waters to stop, you know, the dam three from failing.

And even if it, you know, it doesn't fail, if there is significant um engineering risk and the potential that they would stop traffic, have to stop traffic, have to stop people, even services um uh going uh up and down six mile road, that has a dramatic impact on on the the region.

And uh so it's it's um I think it's high time that the CRD and the province um you know come to terms with um uh this this significant problem and it has to be addressed.

Sorry, but isn't this a discussion we're supposed to have when the CRD comes as opposed to debating at this point when it's got nothing to do with the motion?

So uh staff, is there any problem with the motion to invite uh CRD?

And I'm not sure if there'll be provincial representatives that could come and speak to it as well from EMBC per potentially Scott?

Uh we just have to ensure that the 2017 report is something that we can share.

But uh aside from that no issues.

Thanks Scott appreciate that terminate the meeting moved by counselor McKenzie, seconded by everybody.

All those in favor?

None opposed.

Uh we will see you next week for uh counselor or a uh CAO meeting that will just be with council and the CAO.

And our next meeting is uh our first council meeting in September.

And our our 530.