Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal.

I'll call the council meeting for uh Tuesday, September 3, 2024, to order and start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize Laquanguan speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and Songhees Nation and that their historic connections to these uh lands continue to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public who telephone in during the public participation and question period portions of the agenda for members uh of the audience, which we have one tonight.

Um thanks for coming out, Donna.

Um if you wish to provide comments by telephone, call 778-402-9227 and when prompted, enter conference ID 409327-809 pound.

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

Please do not unmute yourself until you're asked.

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

Ask you to mute your live webcast and ask that you do not use your speakerphone to ensure sound quality and ask that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

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

Speakers will have five minutes each uh to speak during 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 from on the town's website for future access.

Can I have an approval of the agenda including the late item sheet?

Moved by councillor Matson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And can I get our motion to receive the minutes of uh July 16th, please?

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councilor Rogers.

Uh, all those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Uh, just a brief mayor's report.

This is our first meeting back uh from an August hiatus, and I welcome council uh back um to the business, which will likely be a busy fall.

Uh today um our CAO and myself, as well as the CAOs and uh mayors from uh the West Shore met to discuss um uh a proposal by the um VMCU, which is the criminal investigation for homicides, uh, and their need to expand.

Um the outcome of that meeting, I believe, is uh the uh provinces going uh away and understanding that we all said this would represent a significant tax increase for us, and it's very hard for me to communicate the value that it might bring, uh, although uh obviously necessary.

So they're going away to bring back to the group a number of things.

I don't expect to get an update until after the provincial election, which might be more suitable for that level of discussion.

Um as well, I want to uh thank staff for um uh I I know our our new engagement uh um coordinator has been very busy, and I was really happy to see a social media post on the agenda tonight that was like had just bullets of what was on the agenda.

Like not everybody has time or knows where to find the agenda, and I thought it was just a another way that we can get the message out.

If you're interested, here are the topics on the agenda.

So commend staff for that.

Um yeah, uh seeing that there's nothing else pressing on uh on my docket that I wanted to report on uh Sarah just confirmed no petitions and delegations this evening and that brings us straight into a public participation period not a okay uh Carl have we got anybody on the phone that would like to address counsel mayor Tobias we've had no callers so far this evening maybe I was so fast I beat Carl to oh okay Carl can you give it another test we just can't hear you very well um yeah Mayor Tobias confirming we've got no collar so far this evening thank you Carl appreciate it so I think that brings us down to reports that's uh section eight one and it's uh Parks trucks purchase twenty nineteen's uh Chevy Silverato uh replacement and I think this is Ivan good to see you.

Good to see you, Mayor Tobias, and thank you, uh, Merit and Council.

It's good to be back here in September.

So this uh report is uh basically the emergency purchase.

We had a motor vehicle incident that happened.

Um vehicle was written off.

Uh not our fault, which is good.

So this was um one that uh Jenny Severle uh has in store for us.

Uh but that said we're in need of a new truck.

Um it's pretty much the same as the last truck we purchased a half ton.

Um we have two parked truck purchases this year.

This one is the emergency one obviously but the other one we have is for a full electric vehicle truck and that's meant for engineering department.

And so we have that staff report forthcoming to council for the consideration probably in the next council we just got to figure some budgeting things.

But in the meantime, this staff reports before you about trying to get a um get a replacement truck as soon as we can.

We had a rental truck for a bit, but we were mandated to return it uh end of last week.

So uh we're without one truck and uh level of service does get impacted as a result.

Happy to take any questions but the recommendations here before you that council approve the purchase of a 2024 Silverado from Generator Chevrolet Buick in the amount of 51200 net of GST to replace the 2019 Silverado funded from the machinery and equipment reserve and the ICBC funding.

I'm just wondering, I'm happy to hear that the other truck is an electric, fully electric.

I'm just wondering the this purchase because it's on the lot ready to go is is as it's kind of we need the vehicle quickly, or why aren't we looking at uh buying two electric trucks?

Uh yeah, thank you.

Uh the Mayor Tobias, there's is the answer is twofold.

One is I mean it took us about two years in a waiting list to get this truck that's on this EV truck on the lot right now that we're trying to purchase.

So um notwithstanding the fact that EV trucks are kind of no longer the fad these days, so it's a little more easy to purchase a truck, it's still a bit of a wait.

And as a result, uh a level of service could be diminished for an unforeseeable amount of time if we were to wait for one.

The second more important item is that uh we have a capital project that we're doing right now to uh put in our EV charger for more um EV fleets in the future.

Uh right now that budget is to allow for that one EV vehicle this year to be plugged in.

And what we found through analysis is that uh if we want to put in one more vehicle, an EV vehicle in, uh it would require a massive upgrade to our properties electrical system.

And that's not accounted for within any budgeting.

It's between the order of magnitude of $50,000 to $100,000.

So we don't have that right now or that capability.

And so as a result, our charging capabilities are severely diminished.

And I believe if I was when I chatted with the electrician, they mentioned that it's a technical safety BC issue, so and a regulatory issue that we need to kind of tackle before we do get more EVs.

But in the meantime, one is enough.

Uh to we with a minor upgrade, we can support it.

Uh, but any more would require a little bit more thinking to do within our facilities.

Uh go to Councillor Rogers and Councillor Mattson.

What I do.

Yeah, I thank you.

And um yeah, helpful to know about the EV situation in terms of charging station as we get more vehicles.

So um um that is certainly an overhead uh to consider.

The um and I I see the urgency to buy this one in the future.

Um, and because I know we have that list of uh, you know the planned list of replacements, but um maybe when we do get the infrastructure, vehicles like this could be a trade-in for electrics when there may be more available and um just uh another planning contingency or option for us.

You know, would this have trade in value for another EV in the near future?

Yeah, through Mayor Tobias.

Um, you know, us in parks are are are uh we we're for purchasing EV vehicles provided that they suit um the town needs.

And uh we've expressed this before that's the most of the EV trucks these days are consumer grade.

There are some work trucks, but you know, out of the couple of municipalities we looked, we looked at those EV trucks are meant for specialized purposes, whether it be parks inspection, which you can use a regular car to do so, or for carpentry, which is very, very specialized.

Um but there are more trucks coming in the future.

It's just that the biggest thing about our park staff is that we are a lean company of parks people.

And um by diminishing the size of the truck box volume, does impact level of service in terms of the ability for parks to um go to one site, do their work, and not have to go back and forth to to uh to do operations.

Uh staff and us are looking at all EV trucks as they come in.

That's pretty much the first question we ask when we uh we look at uh trucks replacement.

And so if this council's wish to completely replace the fleet in due time, then it might be worth to have a staff report so that council can have a better understanding of what we look at.

Um looking at the next few years, to give you an example, we have a I believe a dually dumped truck, which is the F 450.

It's pretty much like a one-ton vehicle, if not more.

There's no equivalent for that.

Long story short, that said, we'd be more than happy to provide the information so that we don't so that uh council has the information and and we can uh answer the right questions when when new truck purchases come in.

Um at this time, the uh what we're looking at is the uh Nissan Frontier, which is a a mid and medium sized truck.

Uh that's going to be replaced by the I believe it's going to be a Chevy Silverado EV truck, uh, which is a half-ton truck, half-ton truck, quite equivalent to that.

And so that will work out quite actually quite nicely.

And I'd love to give you more information.

The staff reports in draft right now.

Uh, but in the meantime, for this parks truck, um, the the recommended course of action to maintain the levels of service is to purchase a gas vehicle.

Um gas vehicle trucks are still in demand and trade-in value is still quite high.

So that's always an option to replace the EV as better trucks come in.

Council Rogers hasn't been watching Fox News.

He doesn't know that EV trucks are are passe A now.

So but I wanted to ask the uh how much did we get for the truck that was demoed?

And uh I'm assuming that that's 51,000 is excluding the whatever we're get got for the old truck.

Um yeah, so the uh the purchase of the EV trucks in the 70,000s around there.

I think it's in the staff report.

The write-off amount was around 26 and a half thousand.

And so the uh what we're asking for here is um actually, you know what?

Let me read this for a second.

I got my trucks mixed up.

I was talking about the EV truck.

So I apologize.

Let's erase what I just said.

This uh gas powered truck is $51,000.

Uh the write-off amount that we got was $26.5.

And so as a result, the the the difference is the amount we have to take from reserves.

So I heard the right total cost of the new truck is $51,000 and we get to $26,000 or something for the old one.

So we only we need less than $51.

We need $24 or something.

Close enough.

I mean is that is that correct?

Um yeah, through Mayor Tobias, we're asking for additional 35,000.

Yes.

And the reason why is because uh there's decaling logos and lighting, emergency lighting that needs to be accommodated.

But 35,000 is the number we're asking for extra.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Hi, um so two questions regarding what you've said.

Uh one is whether there's a possible workaround for the capacity of the EV trucks.

For instance, could a trailer or something like that be used to uh help out?

And then my other question was whether a second EV truck could be parked at Centennial Park, because I believe there's also charging there.

Yes, uh great questions.

Uh Mary Tobias, uh, we have two trailers as it stands right now, and they are used uh all the time, especially for mowing.

We don't actually have room anywhere in the yard to um put an additional trailer.

But speaking about Centennial Park, it is locked, it is locked to prevent access, uh, not exactly locked to prevent theft.

So it is certainly a question that you know we have not explored ourselves.

Uh knowing that we have a Parks and Trails Master Plan coming up with engagement in mind, that can certainly be something that could be added to as an amenity to uh Helmkins Antonio Park for sure.

Um something that we can write into the project summary for that.

Council Lemon.

Thank you.

Um there's a vehicle that we're still waiting for that was ordered two years ago.

Did I understand that?

Uh yes, that is correct.

That's the EV truck.

So when we ordered it, there was an 18 month to two year wait list.

And so that truck is actually on the lot.

And so what we are planning on doing is uh providing a council report, probably in the next council recommending purchase of it.

It does require a budget amendment, which is why we have to go back to council.

Okay.

Um just so I'm because I I think you know council as a whole feels that you know we're we're committed to reducing GHGs and I know you understand that and that's all been covered.

But by purchase purchasing a brand new truck it could last for a long time we're going to be committed to a gas driven vehicle for quite a long time is is there a possibility of a secondhand, you know, 2020, 2021 vehicle of the same same brand size function functionality.

Yes, thank you.

Uh Mayor Tobias, in the financial implications portion of the report, there was uh a paragraph there about us searching for a used vehicle.

There are none.

Um that said that we did find like one that maybe meets 75% of our needs, 80% of our needs, something better than an EV truck.

Um they're widely, wildly expensive.

And um of the prices we saw in the Carfax, we're not too sure it'll last a while, quite simply because of accident history, um, and not having a five-year warranty.

So those things can all accrue quite heavy at operational costs or risks.

What's staff recommendation?

Uh not sure everybody's had a chance, but thanks, Councilor Matson.

Uh, I haven't had a chance to ask some questions.

Um Ivan, what's the um what would be the difference in greenhouse gas emissions with an electric Ford truck and our um proposed gas truck per year?

I don't have the exact numbers in my head right now.

Um but generally speaking, the electric trucks would emit I mean, I think the general consensus is close to zero, uh minus the fact of going to the shops and using and the shops using greenhouse gases to fix the truck or maintain it and that.

Uh but generally speaking, it's uh it's a lot better than the gas truck vehicle quite simply because it doesn't burn anything.

And what would the difference be in cost for oil and gas for the vehicle for a year um yeah so mere tobias we did track that with our EV vehicle so we have a plug in hybrid as as well and that barely takes any um I don't think we've I think we it rarely gets filled up with gas so an EV vehicle versus gas we're looking at um it can be in the order of magnitudes of thousands for sure um with respect to offsetting of operational costs what we also look at is staffing add additional staffing costs and like I mentioned before uh certainly we can bring forward a staff report to kind of crunch the numbers a little bit for you.

I w last year we purchased a a truck and I had inquired at that time why aren't we purchasing an EV truck and the answer there was um uh was the bed wasn't long enough uh and that we needed that but now there's no bed long enough to accommodate uh that that we can buy without special order um during the uh power play event um uh Collwood had brought their EV truck that uh their mayor had plugged into and did an an induction cooking competition with me and and the uh fellow that I was uh hooked up with had an un F-150 lightning and he had a trailer that was enclosed.

It had a solar panel on the trailer.

It charged the truck.

It charged all of the electric tools they needed for gardening, including um removable battery, twin motor um industrial-sized mower uh for it.

And uh and then if something was lacking the truck could charge the rest of the thing and they didn't have a problem at all.

So I I'm reticent to do this because I'm looking at probably an operational savings cost and gas of potentially three thousand dollars a year.

There is an F-150 lightning for sale in Vancouver that you can pick up off a lot.

That's $59,000.

Um, and I I'm just wondering if this is the only motivation because it seems almost cultural that we don't want to do this, where it seems like it's council's will that we already want to get there, and and certainly the executive of the town.

So I'm just wondering, is is this the only impediment to to making this shift?

Because with a setup such as a solar panel on a trailer that charges the truck, one could come up with the argument, well, maybe you might use this for an emergency measures and augment the you know, the fire department in the case of emergency, and and what happens if you know there's electricity so well that goes out the window because now you can power itself.

And when electricity is out, fuel pumps don't work generally, unless you're getting it from something that's manually overridden.

So I I'm just wondering your take on culturally.

Um, do we have a shift to make and that yeah, we're gonna have to do things differently, but are are we ready to do it?

I mean, are the are are the staff ready to do it?

Um, Mayor Tobias um you know noted, especially with Callway, they do have a larger public works department.

But that said, um, they do have some of the equipment.

I'd be actually quite interested to see interested to see what they actually use that truck for because when we look talked to the in our municipality that was one of the first to do it was quite limited as to what they were going to use it for.

But that said, um I just had a chat with my park supervised advisor Dave, and he mentioned that we're all for it.

It's just we need to make sure that it meets our level of service and that you know if we're gonna go back and forth an additional time, that's 20% time off.

We only have five staff as opposed to 50 that we see in other municipalities.

So there's not a lot of redundancy there.

Um the recommendation that the staff is thinking about is purchasing the EV truck as intended for the engineering vehicle.

And then from there we can determine whether parks can if that could meet the needs of parks by testing it out.

But in the meantime we do have a budget to replace that engineering truck with an EV truck.

And I'm sure that there might be some there might be some shared knowledge in terms of hey Dave take this truck out see if it works for parks.

That's a little safer method certainly probably a little more conservative than than and than what's being asked of right here.

But what's important for myself as a director is to look at level of service and making sure that we're not uh one um increasing the level of service required for staff or if we're to maintain it to uh increase the amount of overtime required for them to maintain that level of service.

Thank you Ivan Doug just did a little research myself and I know one of the dealerships is is tripling their manufacture of four trucks or I've mentioned it now uh tripling their their manufacturer so I think the waiting periods are going to go down but the lightning like the truck that uh sit uh mayor to bias mentioned uh it also has a 15 cubic foot trunk in the front and also has it's a crew cab so um I see lots of uh plumbing trucks and electrical trucks that have the big box in the back rather than carrying a you know third and fourth plumber.

They can put tools and equipment in there.

So it may be an option I realize that you know long poles and things like that, but that's perhaps where the trailer would come in handy.

So yeah, I I know it's an it's it's urgent.

Maybe you should be looking at a rental again.

I don't know.

I'm not really very happy about approving a motion to buy another gas-powered vehicle.

Thank you, Councillor Rutz.

Um the question on page uh uh two is the uh the financial implications.

So um we're from the machine and equipment reserve, we're gonna be um uh funding both the uh cost of $35,000 as well as $7,500 for um all the additional equipment.

So it'll be a quite a grand total of $42,500 from the machine and equipment reserve?

Uh Mayor Tobias, the $35,000 is inclusive of the $7,500, I believe.

Yes.

It seems like my understanding reading this is that there was going to be an additional $7,500 on top of the $35, because it says to fully fund the purchase of the vehicle and for the installation of additional equipment.

Yeah, thank you.

Just point of clarification.

Uh no, that's incorrect.

So $35,000 in total.

It is, I yeah, because it says to fully fund the purchase of the new vehicle and for the addition the installation of the additional equipment.

Okay.

Good.

Thank you.

See no other comments.

Would anybody like to move the stack rep staff recommendation?

That is uh to approve the purchase of the 2024 Chevy Silverado work truck uh to the amount of 51200 you already have second.

Seconded uh okay uh do you want to speak to it for motivation no if somebody can pick uh an electric truck that would work for us in the proper time frame I'm I'm all for it given I'm one of the few people here who has an electric vehicle so I certainly know it's cheap to run and uh I I would be supportive, but I didn't I did hear that that was uh uh be very likely, so that's why I'm supporting this motion.

Thank you.

Um I would certainly uh be happy to support an electric vehicle um uh for the considering the the additional cost, but what worries me is uh the information that uh our our electrical capacity to uh charge um more electric vehicles is uh an outstanding infrastructure issue that we have no idea how much that is gonna cost.

And I hope that um uh staff would sooner or later come back with a uh a project cost on that.

Other comments.

Council Quote.

Thank you and great discussion.

I think we can all agree that an electric vehicle is something we would support.

In this case.

This is an operational need.

Uh staff has described their efforts to um procure electric vehicles and the waiting list.

Unfortunately, this is uh the situation we're in.

I support staff's recommendation, although it probably won't pass, uh, because of because of the reasons provided by them.

And in the future, we'll continue to make efforts to purchase electric vehicles and make further efforts, I guess.

Counselor.

Um I'm I'm gonna vote against the motion.

Um and here's why.

I think it's time to make a change.

I think I was hoping it would be last year that we made the change.

And I think the argument then was the size of the box.

And I think uh right now we're purchasing a Chevy Silverado 1500.

Uh, and I think the capacity specs are very similar to the um uh the lightning, um, you know, the uh as far as that goes.

And I think it it it may take a bit of adjustment for our staff to to do, but I think it's the right thing to do.

Um, and I think this is a town expenditure, and if we're invested in the environment as much as we say, this is one of those operational decisions that I think um needs our direction.

And so I'm not going to support the motion.

I think that um it's time we've got other municipalities as well as contractors that are taking care of very, very large lots, including golf courses that are running entirely on electric, and I think it's time to make it now.

And if we're buying um a a new Silverado truck, uh then there's no motivation uh until uh a life cycle happens that we'll consider replacing it again so that's you know beyond our term down the road um so i i won't be uh supporting it but um uh encourage you to vote as you will so with that uh if nobody's got any other comments to make uh we can call the questions we've got a uh mover and a seconder uh in support of staff's recommendation to purchase the 2024 Chevy Silverado all those in favor all those opposed.

And I see the motion does not pass um thank you, Mayor.

Thanks, sorry.

And I think that brings us down to an interim housing needs report.

And uh is that you, Lian or Sterling?

Sterling, you got the big job tonight.

Great.

Thank you.

Um yeah, good evening, Mayor and Council.

Uh gonna be presenting on an interim housing needs report.

This is a uh an update uh to our uh housing needs report.

That's a provincially required update.

Um the province has required that uh the interim housing needs report be completed by January 1st of 2025, so just uh a few months away.

And all governments, all local governments are required to do this.

And the intent of this is to ensure that all local governments have a standard methodology, a standard approach to understanding their housing need moving forward, and that this the standardized methodology and standardized approach to identifying housing need will also be used for municipalities' official community plan review and update that's uh required to be completed by uh December 31st of 2025.

Just as a reminder, the the housing needs report is a a document that provides uh some crucial information for municipalities, including uh overview of demographics, household income, existing housing stock, and various other metrics that's used to understand housing need currently and into the future, so five to twenty years into the future.

And the town completed a housing needs report in 2020 and the local government act was amended in 2019, requiring all municipalities to have a housing needs report.

The interim housing needs report is simply an amendment to our existing in the housing needs report.

Staff are recommending an appendix be added, but I'll get into more details here in the in a second.

One other thing I wanted to differentiate is that the interim housing needs report is not the housing targets.

Housing targets are a ministerial ministerial order set out by the province that specifies a number of housing units that must be provided.

And the town has already already received that order.

The interim housing needs report identifies a number of housing units that would be required to provide a I'll say healthy number of units moving forward to meet a various uh various factors, which uh again I'll get to in a in a moment.

Next slide.

So the interim housing needs report requires uh three things the first is a overview of the number of units uh over the next five and 20 years uh i'll to get into more detail on this uh in the next couple slides in addition to that the interim housing needs report needs uh a statement uh about the need for housing in close proximity to transportation and this includes our cycling uh walking and um or overall uh transportation infrastructure staff have prepared uh a statement using existing language in our official community plan uh with our uh existing vision uh existing objectives and policies uh to have uh and created a statement that's available for s uh for council's review in uh attachment one to the staff report.

In addition to that, uh staff have also prepared a description of the actions taken by the local government since receiving the uh the uh housing needs report in 2020, and that includes uh council's motions, different projects uh and um uh different uh policies that council would have passed since uh since 2020.

And again, that's available for review in attachment one to the uh the staff report.

Next slide, please.

Getting into a bit more uh of the meats and potato of the uh the interim housing needs report.

On screen is a an overview of the the six components that are considered in the housing needs uh report calculator.

This was a uh standardized method, as I said earlier, that's been produced by a multifaceted uh organizations, including the University of British Columbia, the uh province, and the Canada Housing Mortgage Corporation.

And together they've come up with a series of metrics in order to determine uh what is required for five and 20 years housing need uh for the town.

The different components on the the left hand side of the screen, I'll just give a kind of a brief overview of what each of those are.

Uh, extreme core housing need is where uh individuals would be required to pay more than 50% of their pre-tax income for housing.

Persons experiencing homelessness would be persons that have either uh stayed in a BC housing shelter or have spent more uh up or sorry, a minimum of three months with no fixed address.

A suppress suppressed household formation refers to uh persons within a household between uh the time period of 2006 and 2024 that were unable to move out of their existing household and create a new household.

This could be due to economic constraint, um increasing housing cost or just difficulty uh finding a new home.

Anticipated growth refers to the additional households required to accommodate increasing population.

Rental vacancy rate adjustment refers to uh what I'll say is a healthy level of uh rental vacancy, and that is typically referred to as three to five percent based on best practices.

And the final item here additional local demand this is the one difference between the housing needs target or sorry the housing target and the housing needs calculator is the additional local demand and this is a factor that has been established by the province and includes certain things like the location of existing housing in the community, the size of housing, transportation infrastructure and local amenities that may be used by the the community.

Based on the number of housing starts that we have now and those that are under construction or in the pipeline, staff believe that the five-year housing target would be uh would be met.

You'll see that the five year sorry, not housing target, five-year need.

You'll see at the bottom of the screen here, that's uh 842 units, and the 20-year housing need identified through the interim housing needs report uh is 2,889.

The other thing you might notice is that those numbers uh are fractional in their uh component section, and then the the total is a is a whole number.

This was uh a decision made by the province in doing this, and um the the note that I've added there at the bottom of the screen is that um all the numbers are first summed and then um the final number is rounded.

So the the total units is the final count, and that unit that unit count has been rounded to the nearest uh whole number, and these numbers are taken from uh from the uh HR, so the housing needs report calculator that uh has been produced by the um by UBC, the province and uh Canada Housing Mortgage Corporation.

Uh next slide, please.

In terms of next steps, the interim housing needs report would be used to update the um official community plan.

Following this, um, an interim housing needs report uh would be followed by a regular housing needs report, which would be completed by December 31st, 2028, and then every five years after, and uh this housing needs report or future housing needs reports would be used to inform uh other OCPs, uh, which are also required every five years thereafter.

Next slide, please.

Staff have three recommended motions for tonight.

Uh the first is that council received the interim housing needs report, delayed uh dated July 31st, and one uh correctional point out for councils.

You might see in your package that there's reference to July 23rd, just a small uh administrative area uh error, but it is July 31st is the uh the date for the report.

Um second, and that council authorized staff to attach the interim housing needs report um as an appendix to the uh town's 2020 housing needs assessment report, and further that council authorized staff to submit the amended 2020 housing needs assessment report to the province uh to fill the legislative requirements.

Um as I said, this is a legislative requirement, it's uh an amendment to the uh housing supply act, uh and we are required to do this.

Uh staff have also prepared an alternative uh recommendation.

Next slide, please.

And that is uh that council decline to receive the interim housing needs report, and that council authorized staff to prepare a request for proposal, RFP, for public tender for the preparation of a new housing needs report.

Um next slide, please.

Staff do not recommend the alternative motion.

Uh there's various reasons.

Uh I'll kind of highlight them here.

First that the the province has already established a standardized approach.

Doing a new housing needs report would not generate any different findings that have already been identified in the interim housing needs report.

It's not a provincial requirement and a a regular housing needs report has already been established by the province as being due by December 31st and the town has already identified this in the 2024 to 2028 work plan and would be completed um in two uh 2027.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you thank you sterling good report uh go to questions for Sterling first and i i'll i'll lead with one of them uh can you remind me sterling what the um figure for new total new units was for view royal for our housing targets mayor to buy us i b believe the uh the housing target had identified five hundred and eighty new units be completed in the next five years um so what we're I may just jump in actually um through the mayor that is actually 75 585 is 75% of the target order.

The actual um target order, like 100% number of units is is is 700 is 780.

780.

And we have to meet our order is that we meet a minimum of 75% of that, which is 585.

Right.

Okay.

It almost seems like they use the same calculator you use to determine our housing need for five years.

Um okay, thank you.

Just questions uh again?

Yeah, I guess just for clarification.

I mean, one of my problems with some of these things is I think I heard it's gonna be used to establish what our OCP looks like and the development in our OCP will have to meet these numbers.

And so if if you don't like these numbers, I know when we originally heard what we were being when we originally heard many years ago what these this report was gonna be, it was going to be something we weren't going to have an impact on our OCP and and zoning and things and so now it's going to be the focal point for what our OCP looks like and what we have to do in terms of development so I I have a problem with with that and I just just want to confirm is that staff's intent is to use this number when we do our OCP to sort of up like upzone everything to ensure that we meet those targets through the mayor, yeah.

But that that is the intent um of using the interim housing needs report.

Okay, and is it are we mandated to use this document in our OCP?

Or is this just something staff thinks is appropriate?

Through the mayor, the direction from the province is to use these numbers to inform land use based decisions.

The land use based decisions would affect uh uh different land use designations, and uh that would be identified through the OCP review.

Okay.

Leanne had something to add as well.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um, and just to add to um Mr.

Scorey's response there is that uh to put sort of put this in perspective a little bit, under our current OCP.

Um, um I mean, we are currently delivering over 700 units that currently under construction under the current OCP.

Uh, as part of this OCP update uh that we have um that we're gonna be launching in bringing a report to council in terms of scope, and um we need to you know launch this in the fall.

Is that um looking at land use and designations is all going to be part of that, but the we are mandated to update the OCP to reflect our in-term housing needs report, and it's not gonna be challenging for us to get there based on what we have under construction in our community right now.

Um, however, there, you know, there is a lot more opportunities for infill development and things like that, so we will likely exceed that number based on things that are coming down the pipeline.

However, um, it is something that we yeah, we are required to do.

Council Levin.

We have to redo the OCP every five years under government mandate now, don't we?

Or update.

Update.

Not yet.

Yeah, not a wholesale report.

It's just so we have to update it every five years.

That's correct.

Just by looking at our land use destinations and densities and things like that to make sure that we are meeting the housing need.

So in this next iteration, we've pretty much got it covered in terms of housing needs.

So what we need to be be perhaps more concerned about is um you know year six and on correct yes so it's um we have to we're looking at the five year and the in the 20 year and so the OCB update has to reflect the 20 year need which is um on in this it's 200 and eight uh pardon me two thousand eight hundred and eighty nine units that's what the the calculator has calculated us based on the various components and I'll maybe get Sterling to actually to to elaborate on that a little bit because he did the the an the analysis on on on this part of it.

So perhaps I'll just pass it back to Sterling.

So we have to be that far reaching and thinking for 20 years in this next next round the next update.

The idea is that we're being mindful of the the 20 year need um the focus uh being five year and um from what I understand reading through the the guidelines um being mindful how the 20 year need would be met it's like like uh when working with OCPs that the typical timeline is is that 20 year outlook as well um which is consistent with what the the housing needs calculator is um I think the intent with the province here is that we're being mindful of how uh current and future land use decisions would be uh would play into how housing could be supplied counselor Rogers please Ron Um yeah I we I was having a difficult time trying to sort out um uh the um what is it?

Uh the attachment one, you know.

Um, because it didn't have operational definitions of what extreme core housing was and what um uh you know I get anticipated growth.

Prison is experiencing house homelessness.

Are these all did their each of these have operational definitions somewhere?

Through the mayor.

The uh the province has uh created a uh technical resource guideline, and I'm just gonna if just bear with me one moment, I'm gonna grab my report here.

The um the report makes reference to the housing uh technical guideline in so on page four of the report I uh I had added a uh a subclause or called a maybe maybe better not maybe not subclause but a a footnote um so second paragraph had an uh added a footnote uh highlighting the guidelines for housing needs report H and R method of technical guidance that uh was uh a guideline there uh or sorry uh a link to the guideline the guideline document goes into detail it's roughly 20 pages it goes into detail how the uh the numbers are calculated and it actually uses a um from what I from what I was told uh while attending um some webinars uh on this it was actually based off of a uh a real municipality the the numbers you'll you can see there what's uh what uh is considered in the um in each of the components the calculation what the required data uh data was and then actually goes uh through uh a step by step process and how and how it was uh determined the the HR calculator um is uh an online online tool it's free free to the public um you don't have to have uh special access and um it was like I said, it was completed by UBC and and those other organizations.

They make it publicly available.

I do have a in the report also a link to that HR calculator.

So you can actually go to View Royal View Royal.

You could also pick one of the other municipalities that's required to do this.

So you could pick Langford or Collwood and you can see what the numbers are for their municipalities as well.

So thank you for this.

And if you've already done this, you can help us out here.

So the calculations for V Royal, did they take a regional number and then calculate by our area, by our current population?

How did they manage to determine based on what the region was that our and what our anticipated growth would be?

They're using uh so all data is taken from the uh 2006, 2011, 2020.

So they project from the census the rate of growth.

And it and it the 2020 report did indicate that View O grew faster than the region, than the CRD region.

So because we were growing faster, we get penalized to have to do more based on the census numbers.

So we were doing really fast, we had good growth, but because we're doing such good growth, we can do a hell of a lot more.

Is that the message?

Through the mayor, I I can't answer that question.

That seems to be.

If that's if they're using past data to project, you know, how much we're growing.

Um, I guess my concern is we may be growing, but our infrastructure is bad.

We need probably about what, 18 million for sidewalks, another five million for bike lanes and so forth to accommodate you know what uh this anticipation is.

We still haven't got the funding for the island highway that we've been wanting millions for for the last two decades.

So um while we have this dream of dealing with a housing crisis and the pro push from the province, where are we going to get the money to do this?

Is it's all going to be the burden on existing taxpayers?

I know you can't answer that either.

Yeah, okay.

So Councillor Rogers, I think you're you're you're pushing this to the implications of it.

Is this just the housing needs report.

I know, but it's because the housing needs report that is going to quote unquote inform our OCP, inform our residents that they will probably be informed to direct and ensure that we're going to have the capacity to do, you know, this this uh all these components.

I'd be really interested to know where in our housing needs we're gonna zone through or you know, envision, visualize uh where we're gonna be putting the homeless camp or the homeless uh 28 beds, whatever they the the projections are.

So it's really as interesting that this report how it boils down to um you know the other demands and other uh challenges that we've got here.

If I may, another question.

So we know that the province is has directed us that in four years we gotta have 585 units.

Now we got this other one saying that we've got to do 482.

When does one start and one the other start?

Are they both starting in 2024 at the same time?

Or does one start a year later and enable us to you know find another 300 homes somewhere?

Through the mayor, just to clarify, you're referring to the five year and 20 year need, or do you?

I know that they've that's the province has been clear.

The clock's ticking now.

I get that.

But now we've got this other housing report that talks about 842.

And so now we've got it, you know, what portion of eight uh uh of eight forty two is 585 because obviously you know we're not going to count twice we don't have to do 585 and 842 plus do we I might jump in Sterling um so we we have been we've given an order for 585 units that's that's the order we have not been given an order to construct 842 units we have under the local government act it has it has stipulated that local governments must um incorporate their five and 20-year housing need.

There hasn't been any communication to local governments if there's going to be any implications if we don't meet that need.

And so basically, I think the intent of all of this is that we recognize that provincially we have a housing crisis, there's a housing supply shortage, there's a housing supply shortage, and we have been tasked around the all municipalities been tasked to incorporate five and 20-year housing needs in their OCPs.

This is not an order.

Our order is the 585 units.

And so we have been given this direction through the Local Government Act, and this interim housing need calculator has been developed to help municipalities do this, and so staff um recommend that we use this housing need, use the housing needs calculator because the work's been done for us and all the data has been inputted into the housing needs calculator to spit out these numbers um to give you just an idea in our 2020 housing needs report um back in 2020 our housing need our total housing need was 723 units so this is um slightly more um just over a hundred hundred units but obviously um this the interim housing needs report also takes into consideration a uh uh I think it's called a projection buffer or buffer projection, um, certainly may have will could clarify that for me.

Um, but that has been incorporated as part of this as well.

Yeah.

Thanks.

But a counselor Brown and then Counselor McKenzie, please.

Doing questions.

I'd like to move the three staff recommendations.

Still doing questions.

I'd like to get everybody a chance to speak if we're ask questions at least, and then um definitely it's moved or second.

Yeah, thank you.

Um so counselor Mackenzie and then Counselor Ratson, please.

Okay.

Um, so I think uh we've kind of gone off track of what the question is here.

It is, it's not about the targets, we're just really looking at how do we calculate our needs?

Is do we go with this uh province's calculator, or are we going to get a consultant to come up with a different methodology?

Uh I personally think that it's cost and resource effective just to go with the provincial's um government's calculator.

Of course, our need to counselor Rogers' comment earlier, our need is going to be based on our past growth rate.

That is the best indicator.

What else can you base it on, except for our past growth rate?

So, regardless of if you use the province's calculator or get a consultant, they're going to be basing it on fairly similar information on our past growth rate, on our census data.

So, to that, for that reason, I don't think we will have a much different calculation and when we've spent this additional time and money on a consultant.

So thank you, Council McKenzie, Council Matson, please.

Yeah, my just a comment on my colleagues' comments.

We don't have to have hire a consultant.

I mean, one option is take one of these numbers and drop it by 15%.

It's about as arbitrary as the ones, the whole calculations that they used in the first place.

A lot of this is just wishful thinking on part of the province.

But my specific question is anticipated growth.

How did the 621 get calculated?

Is that based on whose projections for our growth?

And it just seems like a self fulfilling prophecy.

You know, you come up with whatever numbered, and then we have to build housing for it, and then we fill them.

Anyways, how do we get the anticipated growth numbers?

Through the mayor.

Um, the the guideline I'm I'm gonna read from there and refer to there.

Um, the calculation uh based on the guideline refers to uh increase uh increasing population over 20 years, and the calculation uh to estimate the anticipated housing growth is data drawn from the recently updated BC Stats household projections, and two 20 two 20-year growth scenarios are developed.

Um the local household growth scenario uses uh household growth projections for the applicable municipality to determine the number of housing units needed, and the average of the two scenarios is taken uh as the new units required for or sorry there's also a regionally based uh household growth scenario and the two are uh the two scenarios are are is taken as the new units required for the anticipated housing growth for housing needs uh calculations so this is i'm i'm reading from the the calculator this is what the calculator says and the uh the data that's required for this uh are the total number of households for applicable municipalities the total number of households for associated regional district bc stats household projection data and bc stats household projection data for uh so for both the municipality and the regional district.

So again, the information that this is all being taken from is between uh or sorry is the uh the census data and the province has established how the the calculations are are done.

Leah?

I just I just want to add to that that um the province has a step established a standardized method.

So this is the standardized method.

So if you um if you look at the attachment, uh you will notice that this is the standardized methodology um that all local governments and consultants will have would have to comply with.

So, um, Sterling, just so I understand and break this down, thank you for your report.

Thank you for answering our questions.

Essentially, we have to use this formula and your result in our OCP.

We could, however, hire a consultant to put some words around it, but we'd still have to use these numbers in our OCP.

Mayor DeBaz, that's correct.

The the province has established the housing need report calculator for a standardized uh approach for all municipalities.

So if we hired our consultant, the result would be the same.

And our OCP has to accommodate for this level of growth and this many new units, otherwise it's not doing as job and fulfilling the housing needs.

It's not a plan to get to building your or or uh or using your land use designation to acquire the density that you're going to need to accommodate this growth.

Am I assuming that correctly mayor debut bias that's correct the the intent of the housing or interim housing needs report is to establish a uh five and twenty year housing need it is different than the target uh which is Leanne said is a ministerial order but um the intent with the interim housing needs report is to establish housing need for the five and twenty year uh time timeline thank you and as I understand it we this is um uh the staff's recommendation is to go with what the calculator has said because we're going to have to use it.

We've been ordered to use it.

Uh or uh the alternative is we could perhaps not use it or or we could get in a consultant to put flowery words around what this is gonna have to say anyway.

So that's my specific question is are we mandated to use these numbers?

Oh does the province forcing us to use these numbers?

Yes.

So what if we just change the numbers in here?

Like is the province gonna come back and haunt us?

Yeah, because anybody can punch those same numbers for V Royal in and get the output that the calculator is already biased on.

So they're gonna get the the the numbers.

So we can't alter the numbers if that's what you're saying.

I know.

I'm just I'm just fed up with the province screwing us around yet again.

So Rogers, did you have a point or could I get your first?

Yeah, it's just uh just for um to make a s a point and make sure it forms part of the public record, is that we do not have to use the um the H and R calculator that's um the province provide like pro um developed for municipalities and we could hire a consultant that would still have to follow us um the standardization method, and they would use their own type of Excel spreadsheets or whatever to try and figure out what that is.

But the province has developed this calculator, a free tool for us, and which means that we don't have to utilize our $22,000 that we have allocated towards an inter-term housing needs report because we have this available and we can use those funds in 2027 when we do have to do a full new housing needs report in accordance with the legislation and update our OCP again based on those numbers.

Thanks and and I mean it's fluid enough now to expend that amount of money on something that's evolving as far as housing needs goes.

And just for council I read an interesting article today with already the change in um uh lowering the amount of foreign students coming in for a university university towns have already seen a drop in their vacancy rates for uh rental availability so there's there's my point in bringing this up is that it's going to be dynamic over the next little while and I think there's um uh I support the staff recommendation because I I don't think there's merit in spending money on something that we have an expected outcome for that's free.

So I think that's the only thing staff is saying with this.

I know all of us have our frustrations on on many levels on uh with this but I I think that's the bottom line do we just use this calculation uh and go with these numbers or uh hire somebody for twenty-eight thousand dollars to come up with very similar numbers with more words around it.

John.

Yeah, I support the motion.

Obviously, it's um uh it's it's available, um, it's free, it's fast.

The only problem is it's gonna be the fine print when we put this into the OCP.

This document, I'm really interested to see what the whole thing is for the region because I'm really interested to see it about the two billion dollar pro um infrastructure challenge that we all will have when we have to build the new water treatment center.

Because we're fast tracking this.

So that'll be DCCs, and that'll be really interesting to see if they have the uh the developers are gonna cope with that.

But that's the cost of not only the housing crisis, but the water purity crisis.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, we'll move to a vote.

There's an implication here for uh Leanne and Scott, probably as well for me for the CRD, because as we know, we've had regional growth strategy for a while.

Well, the regional growth strategy is pretty much done uh for us, and uh and so it could have implications on on how we're doing, how we're thinking, strategic planning, regional relationships, uh, because now it's it's no longer a wish.

Those desires are very apparent now, whereas they haven't been before.

So it will have some implications there.

So we got a motion uh and a seconders to support the staff recommendation of going with the calculator numbers.

Uh all those in favor, all those opposed.

Councilor Matson, uh motion carries.

Uh thank you, uh Sterling.

You always get the juicy ones.

I think uh Leanne just sets you up for this.

And I think this brings us down and finishes eight.

And now we've got uh correspondence for action.

I just uh remind council to take a peek at their blue sheet as well as the new um updated sheet for uh some stuff that it came in since the agenda was published.

And we have uh letter from Mayor Goodmanson um uh uh requesting collaboration to support Vancouver Island uh Ukraine fundraising uh activities.

Councillor Brown and then count Councillor Brown and then Councilor McKenzie Planck.

Yeah, just for comment, uh I would make a motion, but I think it's uh well it's almost a motherhood and apple pie issue, then I think uh uh if someone made the motion, I would certainly be happy to support, uh, including the uh the uh suggested five thousand dollars from the mayor of uh Lankford Councillor McKenzie yes obviously this is a a worthy cause um however I'm not sure that this is the right mechanism for it I think there's an expectation of residents that their money the taxpayers' money is going to services to support View Royal and their neighborhoods and um like with like we do with the grants and aid we support organizations that are close to home uh I think we can encourage people to do this personally to donate to um charities and and things that support Ukraine.

But uh although this is well intentioned, I think this um we're not the mechanism to do this.

Uh international support is also usually nationally done and it is done uh currently by uh the Canadian government.

So for that reason I I wouldn't be supportive of this.

Thank you.

Councilor Rogers.

Um VW did um uh give a grant.

I I can I can't remember how much, um, but that was at the the beginning of the Ukraine War.

And um uh I think what can uh so I understand the intent and certainly we have um as a municipality uh supported a donation.

What concerns me about this is that every municipality putting in 5,000 where assumes that every municipality has 20,000 people.

And so I I think a proportionate amount uh and it's also an annual contribution, I think it's something that should be considered uh annually, as is probably a grant uh grant process.

So um in in proportion to V Rolls, um uh I would move that uh uh V Will donate a thousand dollars toward the support of Ukraine.

Thank you.

Uh other comments.

Councillor Lennon.

Oh I I agree with Councillor McKenzie.

I I don't see this as our purview.

Um, and I don't think that the residents of U Royal necessarily see it as our purview.

And you know it it's it's a bad time in the Ukraine and it a city that my my daughter was at recently and who had she has staff there was bombed yesterday.

So it's you know it's close to heart and it's close to everybody's heart.

But the Sudan is also in big trouble and is probably in a in a worse crisis.

So I I don't know that we can single out um individual crises and wars.

And it I I don't know if we're start we're setting a precedent here.

I would rather encourage people to contribute to the Red Cross.

Thank you, Councillor Lowen.

Other comments?

Questions?

Councilor Matthew.

Yeah, I just also noted as part of the Friendship city program.

You know, I think both Damien and I provided more than a thousand dollars a number of years ago.

Um I just think it sends uh a message of support.

So for that purpose I will support Don's motion or John's motion.

Whose ever motion?

John.

We have one here.

War's not over.

And I don't know whether uh time passed that our our flag came down, but uh being an almost member of uh of NATO um and and being into thrust into a war they didn't count for um separates it out a little bit uh differently as well as it's uh the many Ukrainians we have uh in Canada that are Canadians that uh that are still there.

So uh I I am a support of this um mainly because we we did start a trend when we raised the um the Ukrainian flag um before uh Don and um Allison our our time.

Uh that was the previous council that decided to do it, and I thought it was a a strong message as well as the internal flag here.

And I think that would that this motion would uh rejuvenate some of that commitment that uh you know when we say that we're in support, it doesn't end because something else has come up.

It's uh we're supporting till the uh the conclusion of the uh the war effort.

So I'm in support of this.

So we got a motion on the floor.

Um and I think the motion was for a thousand dollars uh for a friendship city program.

Um uh and we've got a mover and we got a seconder.

Uh if there's no other comments, all those in favor?

All those opposed and noted that councillor Lemon and Councillor McKenzie were opposed.

Um thank you.

Uh let's move to uh parking in Nursery hill.

Move that referral to staff.

Second.

Uh all those in favor, unless there's going to be discussion.

Uh motion carries.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Request for increased funding for most uh mobile use services team.

Uh and this has come up before at the CRD level.

And this has been going on for 20 years, and each year these folks have to come back and ask for money.

I mean, this is one of those things that Don reminds us that if it's come back a second year, it probably shouldn't, and it's going to be a recurring expense.

It shouldn't be one of those things.

There is no doubt that this group does enormous good and is under increasing pressure within with uh with new folks um so yeah I'd love to hear thoughts on it council register I was wondering what do we give now that wasn't anywhere along the lines so we have what's our the the involvement with the RCMP then I mean this um this is the mobile youth services that's uh downtown so it's a basical worker and an officer so it's not a uh in school program it's the mobile program correct and then they do uh they do special at risk and then they do handle the west shore as well it's not just downtown.

You wish up can you uh uh uh inform us about CRD because I understand that that the this it has come there is CRD reluctant to to support this program no and I thought the support was there I think what has happened is the the matching dollars from the province has somehow slid or not been committed so and though though the uh there's been an increase of demand there's still just two people running it and the there's been been no operational increase in the services and everything that they they need to be able to to maintain themselves.

So I think that's where uh it's coming from and almost to a point that it's untenable now to continue on.

But I can inquire at the CRD before.

What I'd recommend is I'll inquire with the CRD before we commit money for it.

And if CRD seems to be the place where our funds are best exercised, then do it from their vice council.

If that sounds reasonable with folks, basically move the table.

Yeah, yeah, move this one to table and then I'll I'll bring back a report from CRD.

Yeah, just I have no problems with my my only other concern is like we have a lot of good or organizations are really worthy that come to us and every year we drop them down to you know a small amount just because so we can say we've contributed something.

So I don't want to lose this one in comparison, you know, with all the rest of them.

Understand.

Um and uh would council also like a little bit of an update and I'll I'll I'll do something up about exactly what the service provides, how long it's been providing it.

Um actually I was when I read it, because I've seen it before uh come into our email.

So I was actually wondering if it would be worth them coming to present to us um if we had questions, but uh just noting that these folks are very operational and very busy.

Like they're they're the they're not out, they're not a charity, they're a service, right?

They're not out to get money, they're they're they're they're staff delivering a need.

So I I'd say we start with maybe uh some some words around it, and if we want uh greater, I'm sure they could use the real time to uh to come in and talk with us, but as a starting point, I'd be happy with that.

Okay.

Uh so I think does that sound reasonable, Sarah?

Did that interpret well so that we're gonna uh uh table this, but we'd like to see it come back and hopefully come back with a a bit of uh a report from myself uh from CRD about the status of funding.

Yeah, let's move it.

Uh seconded.

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries, and that brings us down to scheme lane uh construction noise.

Um and the recommendation from staff is to receive receive in the contractors working within the noise town's noise by bylaw.

Um I think that was a little bit more.

Uh Scott or Ivan, do you want to elaborate a little bit on that?

Um, Mary Tobias, not much more to comment on that.

Um staff haven't exactly received a many complaints if one, if any.

This is probably one of the first ones that uh Chief Hurst and I have seen.

So best if they were to contact uh protective services bylaw enforcement, and then we could provide more information at that time.

Okay, council loan.

Yeah, staff.

Do we know where um where crews are at now?

Have they got down to uh number 14 Erskine Lane with this project?

I'll probably have to refer back to staff as to the exact location.

Um I don't go inside as much as uh as as much as my staff, but uh they are working in on undergrounds.

I know they're working on sewer and water, which are the ones that um require some rock removal, but those are the deepest utilities, and after that it should be fine.

So it's not for the entire entire construction window, it's just for the underground.

Okay, yeah, yeah, understood.

Um, if if I may.

Uh these people and and you know, Ms.

Um Ms.

Gilbert has been before us often.

I, you know, her her patio backs on to Erskine Lane.

So, you know, she's she's right there.

She's living it.

And it's uh it's doesn't seem fair.

It just none of it really seems fair to those that are really fronted on on Erskine Lane.

Um, so if it is there any way of uh managing the noise until this is over?

But I guess first you need to check and see if it's over.

Uh yeah, I mean Mayor Tobias is it's not over per se.

I mean, um the last time we checked, I think they're they're close.

I know that there's one big deep trench that's been done already.

Um we can we can certainly work with the contractor.

I always say this though, that by restricting the hours further for removal of rock, extends the project.

So if you're gonna have the time, you're gonna double the time of construction in total because they have to remove it anyway.

So that's that's the compromise.

We can certainly work with the contractor to see what can be done within the rights of the bylaw just to make sure we don't open ourselves up to risk.

But it might be some things here and there we may be able to provide accommodations for possible for the contractor to you know stay in contact with the the neighbors across the street and and you know knock on her door.

Her address is there and say, look, you know, we're we we know this has been rough.

And uh we we plan to be done in a week or two weeks.

And Bruce, where are you putting up with this?

Um you know we'll we'll do something nice for you.

Yeah, Mary Tobias, that's a typical process and we can certainly em re-emphasize that to the developer.

Yeah just uh cognizant as well uh Ivan and Scott for the fact that these residents have had a mountain blown off the other side of the road literally for the past couple of years.

So this is probably they thought it was all over and then here it comes again and this time they're they're doing so I think a little bit of going out and doing what we can well obviously we can't stop the noise but if there's anything we can do to to um be a bit proactive and I for me and you know I I don't want to bring this to a motion but the bylaw should be this should not be the litmus of being good citizens and i know that uh wurden did a lot with that community just almost on a daily basis whether they're uh you know just checking in and it just makes a a very very difficult situation seem a little bit better when you uh have a relationship we can have a conversation council rogers so how much longer is the uh work on going on for do we have an estimate uh mayor toias I'm not sure I can comment the exact date I don't have that top of mind right now, but I do know that they're trying to get contractors to do the work as soon as they can.

Yeah, it would be helpful to know um does this um work for water lines?

Um, will this they have to do the same thing all over again for number seven and number 10 and number five?

Uh Mary Tabasa, my understanding is that the water main upgrade is required as part of the seven-erskin development.

So seven is included in this work.

The water main works that was done was for seven erskin.

Uh could we give uh direction on that?

Um yeah, if staff could just give council an update on on uh how long this is going to go on for, uh so that we know we can help inform and support the uh the residents emotionally move a sheet.

Second.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries, and then I think we've got uh a number here that the recommendation is to receive.

Uh a lot of them stem from uh notice of motion, but there's one uh from Mr.

Sharma that I think staff has put a little bit on, and that was the status of Gary Oak Meadows Park amenities.

And he's um I'm not sure if did we get staff?

Do we get back to Mr.

Sharmer about the outcome of our deliberations?

And I think the deliberations at the time after Ivan's report was that the particular spot that he identified, if my memory serves me well, was not conducive to a part given a number of reasons.

One is an incline and danger and whatnot.

Did we get back to Mr.

Sharma on that or was he present during that?

I can't memory fails me.

I believe he was present um and also we would typically provide a summary of council's motions to people who participate um in the in that format.

I I can confirm with you later whether that occurred but I believe it didn't and i think one of the outcomes of that discussion was that staff was gonna look for another area for children's park and just wondering Ivan if you had more information I yes mayor toias uh a staff report was done with respect to ADAKIN's I believe um it was either a staff report or uh councilor Rogers may have raised a motion that was one of the two um and basically what happened was that it was referred to budgeting as part of the um parks and trails master plan that would be bringing forth as part of our our next budgeting deliberations thanks, sir.

I I move a sheet uh a through P.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And I think that uh brings us down to tree protection bylaw interim update.

Ivan, is this you?

Uh yes, Mary Tobias.

Uh with your permission, I'd like to sit in my desk in this one because there's 107 pages here and I haven't printed all of them out.

So um I hope not.

So uh the reports before you, no presentation.

Uh this is a quick um revision to the tree protection bylaw for council's direction to staff, finding ways to protect more trees.

Um it was uh the emphasis that council established to staff was quick, uh, in the sense that it's something that could be done through bylaw fairly quickly, uh and with um less need to rely on uh consulting.

We do have a consultant that is kind of in the periphery in October going to present be presenting something more thorough, but in the meantime, uh time was of the essence.

So uh staff managed to provide uh a a few quick changes.

Um the biggest win would be in the tree protection bylaw to uh reduce the protected tree size from 30 centimeters uh diameter at breast height to 20.

Um one municipality has done that out of uh the others in in Greater Victoria, I think it was the city of Langford had done it on a temporary basis as they're updating their urban forest strategy.

So the uh recommendation is to um to basically provide these changes for one year period, kind of the same same idea.

Uh there were two other changes in the tree protection bylaw.

There are two additional schedules that was put in, and those schedules are to provide better leadership to uh applicants uh for development or for more um complex tree removals to provide better reporting for staff for council so that uh we as a whole have a better idea of what impacts can it would be happening as a result of the development.

So, what we've uh staff have noticed through some of these larger developments is that uh the requirements have been um they differ, or the the amount of information put in there have differed.

So we'll uh we basically just uh did a few copy paste from nearby municipalities to make that more formal, make it more unified so that uh we can provide the the correct and uh more meaningful uh comments to to council.

So overall there's been three changes, three bylaw changes.

One is the tree protection bylaw for the schedules and for the uh the diameter changes.

And then there were also um changes to the fees and charges bylaw to increase the fees, uh the cash and lose from $500 to $700, which is indicative of most municipalities.

Uh and then there's the municipal ticketing uh bylaw changes, which is to bring the um the penalties up to $700, which is indicative of tree replacements.

Um, but the staff reports before you, the recommendation is that any changes to the tree protection bylaw as recommended as a report be reviewed in one year and anticipation that additional changes may be recommended.

Um, and then subsequent to uh this staff report, we have quite a few bylaws.

But in the meantime, this is just for um what you have before you is the staff recommendation.

Thanks, Ivan.

And just to be clear, like uh when we get the urban foreign strategy presented, these may change again.

This is kind of an interim action.

Uh yes, Mayor Tobias.

This is actually an interim interim action.

Uh staff or uh council did direct staff to um provide a broader range of uh solutions.

So in about October, November, uh with council's direction, staff approved an extra for Diamond Head Consulting to do additional uh to provide more development related um kind of ideas and recommendations and uh director um taylor would be uh a a heavy presence in that as well um so this is interim interim probably in the next month or two is interim and then urban forest strategy would be the final so yes there will be some more changes in the future thanks Ivan uh questions for Ivan on this because there's a number and seeing no questions Councilor Rodney Yes uh thank you very much for for this and and I think um the whole um focus is um uh I guess part of our our um our climate action strategy is to uh uh protect the uh the tree canopy and what it says in the OCP as well, protect tree canopies and and uh um heat domes and and all the other things.

And I understand that um the last time the CRD did a a canopy study was 2019, and that's a long time ago.

And I think that we've we probably will have seen a significant loss of of tree canopy as as uh you know significant trees, large diameter mark may um mature trees um have been uh sacrificed in the name of housing crisis.

Um I certainly do like the the approaches and and recommendations.

Um uh I think there was a point here where uh covenants, great idea.

Um and I think we should be considering where, because we are now seeing land assemblies, and I would suggest that anytime there is a land assembly of three or more lots, that there would be a um uh a plan of restricted covenant, much like we did for the uh Cambridge Motel, 18%.

So when now we've got these lands assemblies, you can imagine all the trees that would be coming down uh as a result of that.

And um I think that's where we can be very proactive in in uh in protecting significant green areas.

Um the uh I also think there's there was something in here you said about where trees are on adjacent properties and that there's gonna be some element of protection.

I think I'm caught that in the bylaw somewhere.

It was the definition of protected tree.

Am I right?

Mayor Tobias, uh Councilor Rogers is correct.

Um that uh there is already a clause in there saying any municipal tree is considered protected tree.

And in this case, uh what was added in there is that any neighboring trees, so from a neighboring property, would also be protected.

Uh generally speaking, staff already consider those protected, even though in the tree bylaw it doesn't specifically stipulate that, but through all developments we do require um the the applicants to engage with their neighbors and make sure that there is a joint agreement, which is the spirit of uh protected tree.

Yeah.

During the uh the summer, um we were uh Ron Matsen and I were invited to um uh the Lions Cove uh because now that um the the uh the large commercial residential building is near completion, um a significant amount of uh uh treed area uh was um negotiated uh f with um the strata council and uh now it's uh time to replace those trees.

Unfortunately, what we have is a temporary uh retaining wall uh that would impede the ability for large trees, large replacement trees to um uh be planted.

So either they're gonna have to be small trees or they're gonna have to be placed too close to either of the buildings.

So um I I gather the uh there will be a petitions and delegations of representatives from Lions Cove, and I think that's one of the things that we need to think about is how we're going to uh proactively um, or maybe reactively, uh try and figure out the best option and and making sure that um uh the trees are as valuable and as important as the housing crisis.

Um yeah, I think I I look forward to the urban forest strategy, and I hope we all start thinking about um uh methods and and techniques.

Uh one of the curious things is Sanit said once promised a million trees.

And I guess my question to staff is if we are gonna get a lot of cash and loo trees, where are we gonna put them?

Uh Mayor Tobias, for the purpose of the um what's on the floor right now, I can't, I'm not going to comment on that.

However, the urban forest strategy will likely provide some guidance on that.

Yeah.

I know.

And it would be interesting perhaps to uh look at the parks master plan when we revisit that.

And we also look at the OCP and we also look at uh the DCCs and start assessing um how we're going to acquire more parkland to put the trees that have been lost through uh restore and um uh what level off, neutralize uh the devastation that's gonna go on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

I think uh we're down to uh moving the staff recommendation up with that.

There's another question.

So I have a neighbor who has a tree that was sort of rotting and it looked so being out of concern for his neighbor that this tree could have fallen into his yard and crushed something, he got a permit to cut the tree this tree down.

That was if he would have left it a couple of years, it would have just fallen over and he wouldn't have had to do anything with.

But now he's stuck having to put in two trees in an area that doesn't need two trees, or give five hundred dollars per tree to the town.

So I know we need a bylaw to prevent people who are abusing the system to make sure that's in place.

But do we have an accommodation for people who you know like in this case he should have just let for his own benefit just let the tree fall down but now he's gonna spend have to spend hundreds of dollars on a either replacement trees or give the town a thousand dollars.

So I'm just wondering how do we accommodate this through the bylaw because there are certain situations it just makes no sense.

Scott um through the mayor to to be fair staff were asked to come up with a a quick and dirty improvement to the tree protection bylaw.

This is not the end all be all um perfect bylaw so um please, these this is an important question.

Um, but let's keep it for the the final stage of the tree amendment.

Um maybe it's already accommodated in our bylaw, our staff have that latitude.

I I I don't know.

That's part of the question I'm asking.

Right.

But but again, that's not pertinent to the bylaw amendment.

That's the looking at the overall bylaw, which is not the purpose of tonight's uh consideration of this amendment.

But it was sort of an ancillary question based on what our current practice is.

I think the recommendation is that we hone in, even counselor rogers, where you were kind of uh hovering around the urban forest strategy, and we need to really focus on this because we're gonna hit that in due course.

Um, and then that might be an exception, but let's just focus on what's in front of us and and and what staff has.

If there's another question, maybe um a council meeting isn't the place for it.

Maybe an email to Scott would be the best place for it.

So, any other comments or questions for staff specifically on the amendments?

Since it was my motion, I just wanted to thank staff for doing this extra work over the summer.

Um, I really found the report uh useful and I like the comparison for to other jurisdictions, and I'm really happy with the recommendations that we have.

And uh yeah, we'll wait for the future um analysis and strategy for further recommendations.

Thank you move reside or that you say uh moustache recommendation sorry yeah moose recommendation seconded by counselor crawlich and uh all of those in favor any opposed and uh we've got to go through these uh one by one don't we um uh so number two is tree protection bylaw number uh 1069 uh 2022 amendment bylaw number 114 file uh 2024 a bylaw to amend the tree protection bylaw in relation to the protection of trees as part of development and building permits uh first to third reading.

So move first to three third.

Uh moved by counselor uh rogers, second by counselor Matson.

Uh any questions, comments?

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

None opposed.

Motion carries fees and church uh and charges bylaw number 958 2016, amendment bylaw number 1146, 2024, a bylaw to amend fees and charges uh bylaw pertaining to replacement tree fees, first to third reading.

Can I get a mover?

So we've for the third.

Uh moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by counselor uh Rogers.

Just in terms of uh a comment related to this.

Again, I still have the same concern I raised earlier is that if we increase, keep increasing the cost, people aren't going to remove the trees, they'll just let them fall down.

So on the basis of this, I'm not going to be supporting the increase.

Understand.

Um we got a mover and a seconder for uh nine five eight.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

So I note counselor's lemon and counselor mattson are opposed.

Um motion carries.

And municipal ticket information bylaw number six four three, two thousand and seven, amendment bylaw number one one four seven, a bylaw to amend municipal ticket information bylaw pertaining to replacement trees first to third reading.

Can I get a mover and a seconder please?

Second.

Moved by counselor Brown, seconded by Counselor Rogers.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

Seeing Councilor Mattson's opposed, motion carries.

And I think this is the last one, and that's uh zoning bylaw nine hundred.

Uh no, this is a completely different one.

This is uh zoning bylaw nine hundred twenty fourteen.

Uh the Leanne, did you want to introduce this or is this Sterling's uh nope?

Nope.

There's nothing to say.

This bylaw uh to create the new CD 29 zone for to facilitate the Altham Road Townhouse project at 294 and 296 Altham Road and 242 Elk Helmkin Road is on for final adoption.

I mean an opportunity to demotivate.

We're at adoption.

I think you can you can make your your comments, but uh uh there are any questions for staff on it.

There shouldn't be at this point because uh council Lemon.

Just just a um reminder, it's been a long time since we've had this before us.

Is it 22 units that they're asking for on these three lots?

I believe it's approximately 22 units.

Uh we will be coming back with uh development permit application.

Okay.

Council Lemon, Leanne, uh Councillor Matson, Councillor McKenzie, did you have uh Councilor Matson first?

Yeah, just just a reminder that just because it's fourth reading doesn't mean we have to vote in favor of it.

But my other comments are it's still way too dense, too many units, there's gonna be too much traffic coming on there off the road.

Um my perspective, my feeling is we should, you know, the SMU, the Schmoo zoning is more than sufficient for those properties.

And so again, I'm gonna continue to vote in against this motion.

Councilor McKenzie.

Thank you.

Yeah, this um this is actually a bit of an issue.

Um legally, we cannot be opening up the public hearing.

So this bylaw is on for final adoption.

It's no discussion at this point.

So move adoption.

So we got a mover for adoption.

Seconded, councillor Brown.

Um all those in favor.

All those in favor of the motion that uh for adoption.

Uh we've got one, counselor Mattson, Counselor Brown, Councilor Qualish.

So that's four.

All those opposed.

That motion does not carry, so it's not adopted.

So I'm not sure where that leaves us, Leanne.

Um it doesn't the property hasn't been rezoned.

It's um nothing that the the property is not being rezoned.

Um and now we're down to motions and notices of motion.

Um counselor Rogers.

So just to remind everybody before I turn it over, Councillor Uh Roger.

Notice of motion is to let us know that this will be added to the agenda at a future date.

That's what a notice of motion is.

The only difference from that in the CRD is noticeable with the same day consideration.

So all uh Councilor Rogers is going to do is read this in.

All our vote is going to do is to add it to a future agenda.

That may have deviated from your practice, but I can assure you that is policy as well as Robert's rule of order.

And the reason behind that is this it allows staff to do their homework and allows us to do the research and ask the questions we need to do.

That's why the difference.

Scott.

Just a procedural issue, we missed question period preceding this.

You're right.

Let's go to question period first.

Thanks, Scott.

Donna, have you got any questions?

No?

I just want to go home.

You may not be alone in that.

Carl, anybody online with a question for council?

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

It's a slow beginning for a action-packed fall, I can tell.

They're just waiting for the next one.

So let's pick up where we were at.

And and Scott, just to be clear, was I wrong in stating that uh both policy and Robert rule our order for a notice of motion.

We introduce it at a meeting.

It's at the next meeting that we would pick up that that actual discussion.

Yeah, true traditionally uh it's just placed on the agenda, but um certainly having counselor Rogers read it uh is an option, but it's not really up for debate.

Um it's just to give fair warning to everyone, uh including uh the letter writers this evening, that it will be coming to a future agenda.

I think uh the work's been done and the hay is in the barn.

The the motion is on the agenda.

So um just to make sure that is for the record.

Uh I think I should read it because it is different from um what I submitted.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you.

So it's with respect to VWOL's participation in the CRD arts that VWO reviews the um there sorry council reviews VWOL's group level participation in the CRD arts with consideration to also funding a West Shore Arts Center.

Uh further that we ask all West Shore municipalities to do likewise joining or modifying your CRD contributions towards a truly regional funded arts programming and infrastructure.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

So that will be uh on the next council meeting.

And Sarah, correct me if I'm wrong, that's October now, because we're just down our our next because of UBCM.

Uh we just have a council of the whole meeting in September, and then we'll pick up the normal rotation in October.

Uh we have no closed meeting resolution, no reports uh rising.

Can I get a move to terminate?

We do have a closed.

Move by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councilor McKenzie.

Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

We'll see everybody at the next council of the whole meeting.