Council Meeting

Good evening and uh welcome to the council meeting for Tuesday, February 7th, uh 2023.

Um I'm going to skip the normal territorial acknowledgement tonight, but do a little brief on uh joining us by phone, and then I'm going to welcome a very special guest up to read the territorial acknowledgement.

Um the council meeting is called to order this evening.

We will hear from the public who telephone in during the public participation and question period portions of the agenda.

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

And when you prompted, enter conference ID uh 495-798-803 pound.

You'll be immediately muted.

Uh once admitted to the meeting, please do not unmute until asked.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will then announce your last four digits, your phone number, ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback.

Ask you to not use your speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and ask you to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

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

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

And you'll be timed for this speakers at the podium.

You'll notice a light there.

Green means good, yellow means you're getting close to the end, and red means you're over time.

And so I don't want to call you out on that.

So when you see a flashing light, that's uh time to sum up and let the next person in line uh ask.

So we'll go uh when it comes to the time, the person folks in the room first, and then the people online during that.

But before that, I wanted to introduce a special guest this evening, who we've had the opportunity to meet on several occasions so far for the opening of the Scottish Heritage Center.

Um, I could think of no better time and no better person to read a territorial acknowledgement than our own chief Thomas from Esquinwalk Nation.

So, Chief, could you uh provide us with some words of wisdom?

You can take as long as you like, Chief.

First of all, congratulations on your election to each and every one of you.

Second, I'd like to thank Mayor Tobias for uh inviting me here.

I'm Chief Rob Thomas from the Esquamalt Nation.

I am one of the first elected chiefs in our history.

I've been uh this is my fourth year as as chief, and I've been on council since 2013.

Since the beginning of time, as Co-Sapson people, which is a squamalt, we have been welcoming, sharing, and caring people.

From the time Captain Cook came over to the time when we were the biggest traders in or on the island, we had guest villages.

We always welcomed in them in.

From whether it be down at the the Highland Center, we're still sharing our land.

And and we love it.

Since I've been on the council, it's been a very fragile relationship between View Royal and Squamalt Nation.

For whatever reasons, we don't need to get into.

But thanks to Mayor Tobias and myself, we are working towards a working relationship, a great relationship.

We are neighbors and we're neighbors for life.

So I raise my hands to you.

To get this relationship back on track, the three things I think we need is communication, consultation, and collaboration.

And I and I know we can achieve great things.

The things View Royal does, the things a Squamalt Nation does, affects both of us, whether it be directly or indirectly.

So that's why I say we need those three C's.

So thank you for bringing me here.

And I know we can go a long ways with it.

With that being said, I'd like to acknowledge the fact that we're all gathered here today on the unceded ancestral traditional territories of the Lakwangan speaking people, Songhis and Esquimalt, where we all love to work, play, live, and learn.

Aichka.

Thank you, Chief, for that uh wonderful, uh wonderful speech.

So I'd like to uh move us down in the agenda.

We've been called to order, so I'd like to get a motion to approve the agenda.

And we have a motion for that.

So moved.

All in favor.

None opposed.

Motion carries.

Uh minutes and receipt uh and adoption of minutes.

And for councillor Rogers, there was some comments in there that you made that are are reflected in the minutes, but they're not exactly spelled out on your notes last time.

So I invite you to review them to ensure their inclusion, but they're in there.

So uh can I have a motion to adopt the minutes and receipt second or is uh councillor Rogers all in favor?

Just a question your worship.

Yes Councillor Rogers just point point of clarification with staff um right at the very beginning sorry the end of the uh notice of motions I just want to be sure that we had to pass the the motion um for a uh resolution to A V I C C and OK.

Yep, thank you.

So we've uh approved the minutes and adoption of motion.

Now we're uh uh down to a mayor's report, and I'll be very brief because I think we we have an exciting and uh fulsome agenda.

Uh I am scheduled to meet with uh Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this Friday at Metsy Dean's office, and it looks like they're bringing out a significant entourage from there to discuss both um uh sound highway noise at both um uh the handy dart uh and at Thetis uh Vale.

So uh hope that those discussions are fruitful and that we can get um some quiet in Thetis Vale, uh at least a plan to work there.

Uh if uh members of the public are recalled, there's some challenges there with the noise and development, and it's it was getting and is bad.

Uh so hopefully that will provide it out.

I've been asked by the CRD to co-chair the Environmental Services Committee with Barb Desjardin from Esquimalt, um and uh also sitting on their governance committee to enhance uh engagement with the CRD.

Um and those are things that I'm looking forward to do.

I'm learning much every day, uh every step I take with CRD.

So that's a a positive approach.

Um and uh uh lastly, for uh the week uh following, I think that we've got um our our work cut out for us for the financial plan that's forthcoming.

We've got uh a significant item on the agenda that I know has brought many of you out is the official community plan for this evening.

I know from receiving significant correspondence and discussion uh about it, that it's uh a topic that has uh evoked some public passion over the past while.

Um, just uh encourage everybody to be respectful of both staff, council, and each other when they're making their comments.

Um council really wants to benefit from your opinions and your experience, um, but just to be respectful of everybody's interest that we're all trying to do what's right for the town.

Uh having said that, petitions and delegations, I do believe there are none staff.

And we can move to public participation period, which we will start for first in uh in the room and then move to on the phone.

Just a reminder that you have five minutes to uh address council.

Um please keep it crispy at five minutes to allow others the opportunity to talk.

Now the big conversation is who's gonna go first.

So please approach the microphone and uh make sure it's on.

You'll note it uh turned red and state your name clearly and your address.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chief Thomas.

Oh.

Thank you for coming.

I appreciated hearing you speak.

Good evening, Chief Thomas.

Mayor Tobias, Counselors, and staff.

My name is Claire McDougald of 291 View Royal Avenue.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening.

My topic is the agenda item about restarting the OCP update.

I also sent a letter, which I hope you will take the time to consider.

Council, I hope that you do not accept staff's recommendation that you restart the OCP update and move forward with the final phase.

I don't believe it's ready for the final phase.

I would hope that we would step back and ensure that we are making use of accurate, up-to-date information and public consultation that is respectful and unbiased.

I attended five walkshops over a four day period in September 2021.

It was interesting to be out and about and learn something about different areas of town.

But I became disillusioned when I observed that the facilitators didn't really want to hear the residents' views and aspirations for our town.

And one person in particular didn't want to answer sensitive questions.

For example, are you planning on doing a transition zone from Island Highway south into the harbor neighborhood?

I asked this but got no answer, and so undeterred, I asked again, and she still wouldn't give me an answer.

Of course, the answer was yes, which I realized when I finally saw it proposed on a map months later.

It gives me no pleasure to speak negatively, but that was my experience.

And I think we can do better.

The C and OCP stands for community.

I hope that we can achieve an update of our official community plan by listening to the residents in our community and working together using accurate, up-to-date information to build a useful plan for a community that we all want to live in.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Claire.

Is there another person that would like to speak?

Thank you.

Is it?

Is it on?

Okay.

My name is Volker Damman of 285 Palisia, Chief Thomas, Mayor Tobias, members of the council, members of the staff.

The point here is that I deplore the staff proposal and urge council to exercise their best judgment in rejecting staff proposal.

The OCP in its current draft is not even worth the name draft.

It is flawed with hundreds and hundreds of inaccuracies, mistakes, starting at a very basic level, and having worked as a consultant for many years and a project manager in management consulting.

This is a boilerplate document that can be customized to any community through global change and whatever within an hour or day's time, hours or days' time.

It is not specific to uh not specific enough to view royal, has not had certain, definitely when I look at the last municipal elections, community input was the biggest thing and actually led to the change of mayors and election of certain councils and reelections.

And it didn't incorporate those.

And the some of the meetings that were held were absolute fares with foregone conclusions and it's the tail wagging the dog.

Or they were had they had the solution and it was just looking for a problem.

And if you read this and we spent many hours like some neighbors and concerned neighbors and that all resulted in these many emails and the the speakers that come up today.

So please do ourselves a favor.

This is the first big decision that the new council has to make and it sets it up if staff approval is if staff's motion is approved, sets us up for failure in the future, and we basically throw out the life and view royal as we know it.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Mr.

Bachman.

Are there any others that would like to address uh council?

Thanks.

Hello, I'm Angela Haynes, 1969 Ridge Review Rise.

I have a long history with council and volunteering.

I have a long history with uh supporting our environment.

The Handy Dart project started out as a fight and came out to be a collaboration in protecting our watershed, is the first salmon safe certification from the Phaser Basin on the island.

And that became that started from me, and I'm not gloating.

It took a lot of work.

Our future, climate change, everything has to start there.

The amount of work that it took me and a lot of other people in our community to do to get everybody involved, this needs to be a municipal concern.

So admittedly, I did not go through the huge document that this lovely fellow just talked about.

But that has to be a part of our everyday.

When we're looking at development, we can't be knocking down trees.

We have to the handy dart project is an epic success.

And I never thought it would be.

This is almost five years of fighting.

Almost five years.

And the restoration that's going on, the creek, there is a new water channel where they're actually seeing salmon and cutthroat trout.

It is has been a fantastic collaboration.

It took a lot of people with the same moral compass to get this done.

And in my wildest dreams, I never thought that would happen.

But I need this to happen with our municipality, with the OCP.

I don't have anything left in me to have another fight like this again.

Right?

Our OCP needs to be taking care of our community, our watershed.

Our watershed, our watershed is what gives us everything.

I have been in contact with your community too over the years.

And thank you.

So I'll shut up now.

Thanks for listening.

Thank you, Angela.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak?

Doug Wilson, pardon me.

Doug Wilson, 291 View Royal Avenue.

Um, I've never met Angela before.

Thanks very much.

Um Chief Thomas, thank you for being here.

Mayor Tobias Counsel.

Um Yeah, that that made me think, you know, because she she said we have to collaborate, and and we we really have to get onto that that footing.

Um thanks for the opportunity to speak.

I took some time earlier to jot down a few thoughts in a letter that's attached to the agenda.

I don't think I need to add much more to those topics now.

I hope you'll read it.

I participated in the public consultations, and because reading the supporting documents was recommended for participants, I did that too.

To summarize my letter a little bit, I do not believe that the public consultation was valid, and it needs to be redone.

I'm confident that the housing needs report has no value and must be replaced with an accurate document.

The land economic study drives an agenda of accelerating growth through increased densification, but there's been no effort to explain to the public why we need that.

Why is it necessary?

The OCP project had the responsibility to consult in good faith with the public.

That required the ability to present information in context and hard and answer hard questions about it.

That didn't happen.

It's that simple.

Unfinished studies don't belong inside a pub a project.

It's that simple.

Easily identifiable error in baseline data does not belong inside a project.

It's that simple.

Setbacks in projects are normal.

They're normal.

If your project has not experienced a setback, it probably means it's about to.

And that's normal.

So we need to learn to identify challenges and have the courage to address them.

If you delay, you'll just make the remedy cost more.

We need to be able to discuss this without conflict and be able to move ahead together.

We have to take, each party has to take the other seriously when they have concerns.

There's a clear risk of project failure.

And there's some risk to consider.

And it's not just money that's at risk.

There's the risk of the loss of public confidence.

There's the risk of turning the lack of public confidence in this project into a lack of confidence in the council.

And that's a reputational risk for the council, for the town.

And we can avoid that by taking corrective action before restarting the project.

On the other hand, there's also huge opportunity here, and that's the good news in this.

We can we can step back, correct the errors, and then move forward.

The opportunities here to undertake the best OCP possible.

To come up with an OCP that planners, developers, council, and the public all agree on.

But I think we need to take some steps to make sure that there can be uh equal respect and dialogue while we're doing it.

And um thanks everybody and thanks everybody for caring about this because it's important to all of us.

Thanks a lot.

Thank you, Doug.

Is there any other folks in the audience that want to speak?

Donna.

Donna Frewing, 286 Few Rall Avenue.

I have um page written out here, but I think I'm going to forgo a lot of it because I think it's been already stated in the letters and in what has said tonight.

Um I just felt I participated in the walk about workshops and um it became immediately apparent to me that the this was not a consultation process at all.

It was contrived to generate a predetermined point of view that did not represent the community, and so I would therefore ask that you not go ahead with this draft, that you revisit um the process and involve greater community participation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Donna.

Is there anybody else that would like to uh address?

Judy.

Judy Estran, 2422 London Road.

Chief Thomas, it's an honor.

And I think you have said our new mantra for what View Royal needs to be about.

Council, Mayor, happy to be, happy to see you.

Glad not to be sitting with you.

For a lot of reasons, but glad that you're sitting up there.

Communication, consultation, cooperation.

I I couldn't have said it better.

I couldn't have thought it better than you did.

So thank you very much.

I do think those are the words to lead us forward.

I think we do have an opportunity as a city and as a council to be leaders.

We don't have it with this projected document.

All of you should have received the letter that I wrote to you, that a number of people in this room have written to you, so I'm not going to reiterate everything that was in those letters.

But there's some things that I think are missing.

There doesn't seem to be a clear project manager anywhere.

There doesn't seem to be any accountability from what I could see, and I've read all of those pages over and over.

I started reading them several months ago.

Believe me, that's not exciting reading.

I participated in the process.

I'm a management consultant, and I know when I'm being led by the nose, because I've done it to others.

And that was a solution looking for a problem, and you didn't find it.

So, what do we need?

We have an opportunity, and we have an opportunity for all of us to lead, you and us, cooperatively, to be the leaders and the example to the rest of the province of what can a community do together when leaders, when citizens get together, think about what has to be done for the future of their community, and they work together to make it happen with the support of staff not being driven by the staff, and certainly not being driven by an external consultant who answered an RFP in whatever way they thought was the right thing to do so that they would get paid.

So I think that what has to happen now is the proper engagement of the community, and that is not a two off, let's have a little meeting somewhere off to the side.

It means community meeting engagements.

It meets small meetings, it means large meetings, it means more than one meeting or two meetings or three meetings.

And this is a lengthy process to get it right.

Why are we being urged to accept a flawed process?

Why are we being urged to accept a flawed document?

And why are residents being ignored?

I think we have a chance instead to actively lead, not just V Royal, but to lead the province on how to do it right.

And our community in five and ten years will be the one that everyone looks to and says, gee, I wish I could live there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Judy.

Is there anybody else in?

Yes, Susan.

Good evening.

My name is Susan Prescho.

I live at 285 Palisere Avenue.

Thank you, Chief Thomas.

Mayor Sabaya Tobias and all of the council, counselors and staff.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.

I think the thing that we need to keep in our mind, it's not the who, it's the what.

I've sent a letter.

I'm not going to go back and reread what I wrote.

I'm hoping that each of you have read it and taken into my concern into thought my concerns, my sorry.

Um, especially on this important issue.

Also, those of all of the people that have written in today, the past days, and the people that you've spoken to.

Today I read each of these letters sent by all of the residents that are concerned about the OCP program.

There are consistent points and messages coming clear from them all.

During this said process, the residents did not feel they were involved.

The residents do and did not feel that they were heard.

The residents do not want this OCP draft, but are open and want one which is transparent, driven by their needs and their input and for the community.

The residents do not want an OCP which is driven by developers.

The residents did not get an accurate, informed, adequate, and realistic data and information to make an informed decision on the points that were asked.

This information was flawed.

These people delivered a clear message on October 22nd during the elections.

We had change.

Time.

We have time.

We have an OCP that we can work with.

We have to take the time to step back, engage the residents, assess and reassess what has already been done and what is going on within our community, what is being built, and many other factors.

Make it right, do it right for the right reasons.

Let's not become another Langford.

And it hurt my heart to see all those trees ripped down.

I implore you not to vote, or excuse me, vote to not restart this plan, but start with one that finds the true needs of the residents of View Royal.

Chief Thomas, you said something really important.

You said there's three C's.

I think there's a fourth C.

And the fourth C is community.

And we need to do this right for the community and the View Royal residents.

Thank you.

Thank you, Susan.

Is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak?

Seeing none, we can go to the phone.

Is there anybody online that would like to address counsel?

Mayor Tobias, we have more than one caller.

The first one, last four digits, zero one two three.

Caller 0123, can you please uh unmute yourself by pressing star six?

I am here.

It is Drew Coleman from 136 Conard Street.

Hello, Mayor.

Hello, Council.

Hello to everyone in the room.

Uh that was faster than I anticipated, but that's good.

We're here.

Where to start?

Um I engaged in the public participation process as often as I could.

I think I did the walkshops, as they were called, as well as a couple of online sessions.

And um in those, as it's been stated, I became very aware that our engagement in this process was uh was not truly what was being requested.

Um it was it seemed to me at the time, and it seems apparent to everyone else uh who has spoken as well that this was um to check a box that the community had been engaged.

Um they had done the work that was required, um, even though that work was was not truly done in the uh in the walk shop that I was a part of.

Um I was expressing uh in my neighborhood my hopes and dreams for what this would develop into over time while my family and I lived in our home and played on the streets.

And this one of two staff members that was there said to me, Well, that's not going to happen.

And he said, you better get prepared for what's coming.

To me, that doesn't seem like community engagement.

That doesn't seem like the purpose of that walkshop.

That seems like the opposite thing.

That sentiment carried on to the online workshops where we were presented with a series of answers to their questions, all of which could be read exactly the way that the staff leading the project seemed to want it to go, and as well the developers who happened to be engaged in those public uh walks walkabouts as well.

I was disappointed to see that it uh it seemed to be a predetermined outcome.

Um, it seemed like a directed test or a closed choice test, and that has been reflected in everything I worried it would be in this draft.

Uh I'm hopeful, Mayor and Council, that you can all see how important this is to the community.

You can see that the community is not being heard.

We uh we have not felt heard in this process, and we feel very passionate about this process.

Um during the election, I made a point of meeting with each of you to express the importance that I feel that my community around me feels for there.

The importance that I feel in community engagement.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to say that again.

I felt through the process that there was no community engagement, and I wanted to express to each and every one of you how important community engagement is.

I think we need to do more than we're currently doing.

I think there are a few options that we can have, but the first and foremost is to recognize that the community wants to be engaged in what our community is going to look like in the future.

I'm hopeful that you will hear that and you will look at the investment that we've made in this current draft as an investment in our future when we vote no to accepting this draft.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, caller.

Um are there other callers on the line, Carl?

Mayor Tobias, our next caller has last four digits 6671.

Caller 6671.

Can you unmute yourself by pressing uh star six, indicate your name and your address, please?

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

It's Kim Saladena and I live at 120 Meadow Park Own.

Um can you hear me all right?

Can I could never tell what that thought.

We can hear you, thank you, Kim.

Fabulous, thanks.

So I too, like Drew, um attended two of the walkshops and two of the online surveys, and I think uh through all of the letters and the callers this evening and the speakers, enough has been said about uh lack of engagement.

I did find them to be fascinating.

Um I learned a lot about um the views of the planners with regards to the densification along the major corridors, a move away from the vision of having a town center at Port Victoria toward neighborhood hubs, um, talked about how um View Oil had been ahead of the curve in developing a bylaw for secondary suites, but now we were a little bit behind the curve with regard to um gentle infill housings with um carriage homes.

So um I did find them to be fascinating and uh interesting, but I did not find them to be robust forums that actively sought our feedback and uh as to what we were thinking our community should look like, uh what our hopes and dreams were.

Um one thing, and not to get too granular, but in reading the draft OCP, which I do really hope that we can revisit, I know almost $136,000 of invested have been invested into this exercise, and I don't think it's uh all needs to be scrapped.

I think there's a lot of good stuff that can be salvaged, um, but uh I think the foundational documents that build an OCP need to be done and done well.

Um professionals don't always get it right.

Um aspect of the OCP that I was um really looking at were these carriage houses, which I actually fully support on large residential lots, but the current draft of the OCP has them going down to 350 square meters.

Even though I should be familiar with square meters being raised and educated in the metric system, I still think it's square feet.

So that's just under 3,800 square feet lot.

And I don't didn't really have a good visual representation of how big a lot that was.

So I went into the DC assessments and I looked up some of the lot sizes in a neighborhood adjacent to mine, Stone Ridge, and one I go by every day going to Fetus Lake, which is Fetus Fail.

And some of those lots are would qualify to have a carriage house.

Now perhaps they it wouldn't work because of setback requirements and the need for parking, but technically some of those lots are large enough to house a carriage house.

And I don't think we could possibly support that kind of density from an infrastructure perspective, roadways, parking, that kind of thing.

But I certainly would be 100% in support of that kind of gentle infill housing in um on my street for example, which is all large residential lots or in the harbor precinct.

But again I I hope that you do vote no for this draft of the OCP.

I hope that we can go back to the drawing board, salvage what is good, and um and uh bolster up that which needs to be bolstered up.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Kim.

Carl, is there any other callers on?

Mayor Tobias, we have no other callers at this time.

Thank you.

Uh that concludes the um public participation period for the agenda.

You'll note that we don't immediately bounce to the issue about the uh OCP, just the way the flow of the agenda is.

And we have uh the next item up is business arising from previous minutes.

Uh Council Rogers.

Thank you, Patricia.

Sorry, thank you.

Um, I thought this was going to be the uh staffs uh are making a presentation here, and so we have the staff report.

Um, do you want to speak to it, uh staff?

Sure, your worship.

This information is provided as background or information in in um to to help council further understand uh the points that I felt may be discussed, um falling out from the a January 17th notice of motion from Councillor Rogers.

Should Council had wanted uh information around past budget and the proposed budget numbers for 2023 with respect to council attendance um at conferences so it talks about um what has been allocated and what has been used and and provides a bit of information about that as well as information around checking with the um providers of conventions and conferences that council uh members have gone to in the past and what their plans are for 2023 and that is that um none of them will be doing any virtual uh this year and some discussion as to the UBCM's experience with costs for that in the recent past.

Thank you.

Just a question staff uh do we have policy with respect to um um council attendance at conferences?

The policies that we have speak to reporting out afterwards at attendance.

We also have policy around mileage rates, any kind of you know, meal allocation allowance, that type of thing.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, members of council, the um the reason I asked for for this and and appreciate the information staff.

Um I think it's really great.

Um, you know, I was concerned, and we've just had our budget discussions.

Um these staff projections at this point is 14%.

And um, and I see that um the amount budgeted for this uh 2023 uh council is um um not 27,000 but 39,000.

And I think it is time for uh for this council, now that we're gone from five to seven, to review uh that policy.

Um I you know, for example, I don't think that um uh we should have uh more than one attendance of the FCM conference, which is uh obviously mostly out of BC, uh huge costs of uh uh transposition and so forth.

So I think we need to limit uh the attendance, if any, attendance of FCM.

I think we should be limiting the attendance of ABICC to uh the mayor in three counselors and limit the attendance of UPCM to the mayor in four.

Um and that um uh I think with the um the the level of inflation and and uh the costs of accommodation meals transportation mileage et cetera um we we need to be really justified in in um uh what we're spending of taxpayers monies in this fiscal year so um I I know this is going to be a budget line item and um I hope that the first thing we do is reduce that amount to um and take it pull it back to the 2022 level thank you counselor rogers there's no motion on the table now but uh could I uh recommend that council we consider this to carry on some discussion uh during our our budget planning uh session for the next week but i'll move receipt of staff report yes second second all in favor and opposed uh so this brings us to uh agenda item eight one draft official community plan uh update restart plan uh this is over to staff i i just have one question i'm just wondering if we actually need staff to go through a presentation uh i don't we've already received it we could just move receipt um is there i think we should actually you want like the presentation?

Okay.

Let's move forward with the presentation.

I don't think we need a vote on that unless you want to make a motion to have staff uh just move receipt or do you want to have staff is that a motion or is that a suggestion?

Given where I think this is going, I'd just like to move receipt of staff.

Report.

I have a motion.

Yeah.

I'd just like to move that sorry, council receive the receive the staff report and council refer this matter to the committee of the whole to review the OCP process and set a direction for updating the 2011 OCP.

Second.

Okay, now that I'm now that a motion's on the table, do we want discussion?

Sure.

Yes, I'll start.

And seeing how you uh over the case.

The um yeah, obviously there's a lot of concern, and and I've certainly heard it multiple multiple times, but the 2011 OCP is better for one.

Um I think we can work on that and build on that.

And I think we have to go back and take a look at it um and probably multiple times, but I think referring it back to the committee of the whole is a start.

And I think we'd have to review and go back because the way it is now is not good.

The 2011 OCP, much better.

So I think we could build on that and make it a really nice document.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

The seconder for the motion, please.

Yeah, I just in terms of just receiving it rather than staff doing a presentation.

I I don't think staff needs to actually expend the time and energy to present a document that I think all of us, or at least the majority of us, don't feel are is worthy of actually uh going forward to the public.

So that's why I've I recommend we just sort of uh well that's why I support the motion, put it onto committee of the whole for discussion.

Counselor McKenzie.

Um, I would appreciate the presentation um from staff because I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume a w uh the direction we're going.

I also have some questions about the proposed next steps.

Any other discussion, Councilor Qual.

Given the high level of public interest and staff counsel and public time spent on this topic, it only makes sense to let staff present tonight.

Thank you, Qualit.

And it if you have your microphone on, the camera is gonna go to you.

So, Councillor Lemon, you have your microphone on, so the camera's probably confused.

So if you're speaking, have your microphone on.

If you're not, please turn it on.

Let the red light guide you.

Counselor Lemonsley.

Oh, that was then.

I I agree.

There are there are members of council who aren't familiar with probably aren't familiar with the original um OCP.

So I I think a presentation from staff is called for.

Sure.

So I think we've got a motion on the floor right now.

The motion on the floor is to, well, there's two motions there, and let's break them apart.

So we've got a motion to receive the staff report, which is done, but we now have to backtrack a little bit and have a motion on the floor whether we want staff to present this here and now.

So I will come up with a motion that says all in favor of having staff do the uh in-person presentation um uh with an affirmative and then we can go ahead with that.

We've already voted uh uh we've moved to receive it, and then we can go in to move to receive it after the presentation.

So what I'm gonna put on the floor is can we get a motion to have staff present their um their presentation on the OCP?

So moved.

Second, all in favor, and any opposed councilor Mattson's opposed motion carries staff.

Go ahead, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Good evening, Mayor Tobias and members of council.

This evening staff will be presenting on the official community plan update project.

The purpose of this presentation is to share with council where the project is to date, what has been accomplished so far, and the tasks that would need to be completed to conclude the project as originally directed by council when the project was initiated in 2021.

This evening, staff are seeking direction from council on how to move forward with this project.

Firstly, I will provide some background on where we are at, then my colleague, Mr.

Sterling Scorey, will walk you through the major changes to the OCP.

Also on the on the call this evening, we have our consultant, Odette Pignot of EcoPlan, who will be available to answer any questions at the end of our presentation.

Here's the presentation overview.

So firstly, we'll give a quick update to Council on the status of the draft OCP and the legislative requirements, an overview of the community engagement, discuss the key project milestones, review of the major changes, and then discuss the outstanding tasks.

The town's current OCP was adopted in 2011 and has not had a review or update since its adoption 12 years ago.

An OCP review is a priority project in the 2019 2022 Council Strategic Plan.

As acknowledged back in 2021, when the project began, there are areas where the OCP is working very well for the town, but there are also areas that needed to be reviewed and updated to ensure the plan is consistent with the adopted Parks Master Plan, the Community Climate Action Strategy, the Housing Needs Assessment Report, and the Land Economic Study, which do respond to the current climate and housing crisis that we are facing today and into the future.

Council's direction in 2021 was not to undertake a wholesale review of the OCP, restating that the current plan is still relevant and it was reviewed to be unnecessary at that time.

The most recent draft plan was completed in June 2022, and it is a draft.

It's the first draft, it's a working draft, and there is opportunity for further engagement and changes and feedback.

In June, council directed staff to place the project on hold until after the election.

And so staff are back today to bring it back for council's guide for council's consideration, direction, and staff really do need some guidance.

And the current draft is not a done deal.

Changes to this working draft.

We are bringing it back to initiate the conversation and to seek guidance.

The Local Government Act lays out the requirements for every municipal government when adopting an OCP.

It first and foremost identifies the purpose of an OCP, which is a statement of objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management within the area covered by the plan respecting the purposes of local government.

The OCP sets a course of what Veroil will be like in 10 years and beyond, and the steps that will be taken to get there.

The OCP also sets the stage for the continued evolution of Veroil as the community transitions from a suburban community to a more urban future that adapts to change and protects what is cherished.

It provides guidance on decisions such as where to locate housing and businesses, transportation priorities, and how the community will respond to climate change.

Our community planner, Mr.

Scorey, will walk you through the community engagement that has taken place so far and the major proposed changes to the OCP, specifically related to the development framework, land use designations, and the development permit areas section of the OCP.

Staff did prepare a comprehensive summary of the changes, which Mr.

Scorey will speak to you shortly.

However, I would like to take an opportunity to acknowledge some correspondence that was received pertaining to the removal of an implement of the implementation section in the current draft OCP, which was missed in the summary of changes.

Glad this was caught, and staff will update the summary following this council meeting.

And also to clarify, removing the implementation section was proposed because the town's strategic plan, which is based on ongoing public input and lays out a long term strategy and work plan for the town that reflects what citizens said is important to them and helps guide the decision making of council and the work of staff, provides that implementation implementation piece.

But that said, there is still opportunity to review this proposed approach, and we can always add back in an implementation section, or if that is desired, or something that would be a better fit for the document.

Now, this is a good segue to pass the mic over to Mr.

Scory to walk you through the proposed changes.

Thanks, Leanne, and thank you, Mayor Tobias and members of council.

I'm gonna flip to my notes.

So an overview of the uh the engagement.

Staff had many numerous uh touch points, methods of communication, and opportunities to engage with the members of the public, highlighted through two rounds of engagement that were captured in two uh what we heard reports that are available online.

In the first round of consultation that was conducted between September and November of 2021, staff completed several workshops, uh on uh walkshops and an online survey.

In phase two, staff also completed an uh online survey and additional online workshops.

Some of the uh summaries of the uh participation are shown on screen.

In our 10 workshops, or sorry, in our six online workshops, we had 80 participants, and in our 10 walkshops, 75 participants, and in our online survey number one, 169 participants, in our second online survey, 307 participants.

Can I ask a question?

Yes.

Is would you consider those numbers as being adequate for conducting public consultation in total?

Because when my brain, when I backtrack on our population that's less than 0.5% yes it it it is less than 0.5 percent uh I I can't check the math right now um I think given the time this was given uh during the uh pandemic uh council was also informed of the engagement plan and council was uh able to provide input on this process um and uh there was opportunity throughout that that period to uh provide in input.

Was there a go or no go point where we said we didn't receive enough input for engagement?

We're gonna stop until or increase the advertisement to increase the engagement.

Was there, and I realize that you guys weren't on there, so I don't want to put this on you.

It was a different step, right?

But I'm just thinking in our project planning, was there a point that we asked ourselves, did we achieve significant input and feedback from the public?

And if there's a there should have been a clear line in the sand that we can't proceed because we don't have enough public input.

So thank you for the question.

And we'll answer this wannabe.

Um we have our consultant on the line who may be able to provide a bit of more insight on that.

My preference would be to if we can get through the presentation um and then um perhaps you can go back and and talk about that piece.

Um but to to answer your question it's um i i've i don't know if we've we've put a land in the a line in the sand in terms of what is adequate participation um from from experience is i I find is that um people who are happy we don't hear about we don't often hear from it's people who are have concerns often come out or people who want to learn more.

The we I think the important piece here is that this is the engagement that took place um during a tricky time and um I know it was touch and go for a while in terms of the walkshops because of the um the provincial requirements um and um and so I think but given that we were able to adjust and able to um to uh follow through I'm now that we're I mean we're still in a pandemic however things have opened up I really hope as part of this next phase more people will come out and be engaged and provide input on this draft document so um that is I hope that happens and hopefully um people tell their friends and hopefully we can um yeah be more one question Leanne that I've got in the process here is that um the current 2011 OCP that's in place there's no legislative requirement right now meaning rush to update that we have an ocp in place that is our official community plan so i'm just wondering like does it expire is there an expiry date on it that goes bad that we that council could just uh if that was the case rubber stamp it and say we're gonna go with this until we get a good OCP in place so is there an expiry date on the OCP there uh there's no expiry on it expiry date on an OCP however the the there is um uh encouragement to look at it at every five years.

There's no because there's a lot of time and cost and resources associated with an OCP review.

I don't know any municipality that's able to do that every five years.

Um we are now at year 12.

Um a lot has happened.

There's been some study, you know, master plans that have been completed at the town.

We do need to, we do need to sort of update the OCP to to reflect those and reflect the some of the policy changes that are within those plans.

And um, and that's also an opportunity for um to see if there's any other any other opportunities to make some tweaks.

And one uh last question on the top of my mind.

Once we set an OCP, that means that all of our zoning and all of our other bylaws have to be conformant with the new OCP.

Am I correct in saying that?

No.

Um that that's that's not correct.

So it um provides um uh direction on uh provides like land use policies and um designations.

So an OCP is a policy document, right?

And so it it's it even though an OCP says oh um this property for this property is designated mixed use um trying to think mixed research mixed mixed neighborhood mixed use neighborhood mixed use neighborhood mixed use thank you um and it which supports uh a density of let's just say, I think it's two um floor space uh two FSR floor space ratio and and uh it doesn't necessarily mean that it's an outright, like it's a right, right?

It's it the the OCP you know supports up to this amount of density, up to this amount of height, but you also have to look at context and and other things.

So it's just it's it's one piece, and um and properties would still have to go through a rezoning.

So if we have a property that is currently uh has a current zone, like a residential zone, um however it's located within um the mixed neighborhood mixed use land use designation, which supports you know more more height, more density, um we would reevaluate a proposal against those that those those land use policies to see if it's to see if it would be if the proposal would be supportive.

I'm sort of rambling on here, and I'm not sure if this is um making any sense just my understanding that when you set the OCP you're required by legislation to have your all of your bylaws align with the OCP because that's your official community plan but if you're telling me that that's not the case then I'll understand that.

Yeah so not for um no that's not correct yeah can I get you to turn your microphone on?

Thank you.

In the first phase of the uh engagement, there were six uh themes that were emerged.

This is pedestrian cyclist focused streets, affordable housing, walkability, multimodal transportation, placemaking, and parks.

In the second phase, we heard that there was a focus on neighborhood nodes, growth uh that was gradual in transition areas, connectivity, green space, uh, there was concerns over over traffic congestion, and that adequate access to amenities be provided.

Through the process, council had uh opportunities to hear from staff uh through different council meetings, committee meetings.

There was opportunity for staff to provide updates on the uh legislation requirements, the engagement plan, the what we heard reports, and there was two uh updates given on the draft OCP.

Um, that timeline is from June of 2021 to June of 2022, and as Leanne said, in uh in June uh or thereabouts, uh there was a decision from council to put the project on on pause until uh after the election period, and uh that's where we are now.

So the scope of the OCP uh strategic review is the changes made has have been done with this this the strategic pro approach.

The updates to the plan were not intended to be a re-rate of the document, but rather a view of what was working well, what needs changing, and what opportunities could be implemented.

Understanding that since 2011, 12 years, there has been quite a bit of change in the community and the world.

And the as Leanne said, uh, there is still much to be done in terms of uh draft.

It is a draft.

There's there's lots of opportunity for feedback, and this is not a finalized document.

The the focus that we heard from uh council and through the uh the public participation were summarized through housing, uh, urban design, climate action and environment, uh focuses on transportation and the economy, and first national first nest First Nations reconciliation.

The update of the uh OCP uh as proposed also incorporated new data from professional studies and looked at revising existing development framework, the existing land use designations, and the existing development permit areas.

The changes that were incorporated have been summarized here on this on this page as some of the major things that were done to our land use and urban design section of the OCP.

There was updates to the land use objectives, which regulate our land use designations and speak to the permitted uses and the permitted uh floor space ratio or or density.

The uh updates also saw opportunities for new infill opportunities.

One of the biggest ones was the consideration of garden suites, which are not currently permitted in our OCP and are now being proposed as a new permitted use, recognizing that that meets uh a missing middle in housing and provides opportunity to provide uh varied housing in the community that is is not existing.

And as I said, the the other change is largely to our community development framework, which includes our land use designation uh mapping uh and our community development framework.

The big change there is the addition of these transition areas, which I'll get into uh shortly.

Before I do uh jump into the community development framework and the mapping, I just want to take a brief minute to go over our land use designations and what that actually means.

So in our OCP, we have many land use designations.

These range from large lot residential to commercial, uh neighborhood mixed use.

What this all means is these are land uses that provide or land use designations that speak to a form and character of use and a density.

There's three major changes that happen to our land use designations in terms of content.

The first is that across the spectrum, all land use designations, there is a removal of story.

In terms of the actual land use designations themselves, residential, the residential land use designation received a change.

And the proposed change is that the maximum FSR be increased from 0.6 to 1.25 with the condition that it be appropriate infill.

What this is targeting is the ability to use the new permission of secondary suites and uh or sorry, uh garden suites and identify properties that may benefit from increased density.

The next change is to our mixed residential land use designation, which is an increase to the small lot attached houses and townhouses that may increase the FSR from 1.25 to 1.4, so 0.15 FSR.

And finally, for apartments in the mixed residential land use designation, there's an opportunity to go up to 1.6 FSR from 1.5.

The final change that was done to the land use designation content in terms of density was for the neighborhood mixed use land use designation.

And the change was increasing the maximum permitted FSR from 1.5 up to 2.0.

And again, this is to recognize that there's opportunities for infill with commercial townhouse and low-rise apartments in uh areas of the community.

The remainder of the land use designations have not changed, but they do include neighborhood center, which accommodates commercial and apartments, intensive mixed use, commercial parks and open space, community facilities, rural lands, and that's the remainder.

The next slide is an overview of our community growth framework.

In this slide, you'll see a mix of neighborhood centers, community corridors, and a town center.

There is one town center, there's four neighborhood centers, and four community corridors.

Neighborhood centers are recognized for their mixed use development and are intended to be walkable activity hubs in the community.

Community corridors are characterized for their long linear areas located along major transportation routes and are focused at access and exit points in the community and are intended to be destinations.

These areas function like neighborhood centers, but they differ in that they are linear and they are places that can be actually accessed from outside the community as well, whereas the neighborhood centers are focused largely on intercommunity travel.

The town center identified would be specific to future civic uh civic center and and civic uh civic kind of clustering area of the of the community.

One change that had to been identified in the draft was the addition of transition area the transition area is recognized an area where the land use and design character change between the neighborhood care uh center or community corridors that were adjacent have uh a transition between these spaces um it was also to recognize that these areas were uh encouraged to be uh developed through um future applications and the the consideration there was to understand that through development uh there needed to be proper design and uh proper design considerations taken to account for those applications, understanding that having higher densities next to existing neighborhoods, we want to see uh appropriate transition between those spaces.

And can I ask the question like where did the high density zones come from?

Did that come from community consultation?

I would have to defer to our consultant on that.

Um I I believe so, uh based on the the feedback that was reported in the the what we heard reports.

Okay.

So the first uh the first growth or uh first community growth framework um image that I'm going to show is the future town center.

This is as proposed, it's unchanged from the existing community plan.

It's uh as is, is not been changed.

The second is the Lakes uh side neighborhood center.

As you can see, it's shifted slightly in that the area uh that has expanded is the transition area.

The base area for future uh development consideration has not changed.

And at this point, this area is uh uh serving I'll make note of is some of the changes that are seen as shown through these images are things that have been updated since 2011 through through applications that have already been processed and the the buildings have already been built.

The next image shows the uh six-mile neighborhood center.

This is expanded to uh the Parsons Bridge and has also added a transition area, recognizing that this space would be a transit-oriented neighborhood and is envisioned to maximize the benefit of the rabbit transportation infrastructure and enable accessibility to other areas in and outside of the town.

The next uh neighborhood center is the the existing Burnside uh Watkiss neighborhood center in the OCP.

This has been removed.

Uh the reason being is that this area was uh uh developed over the the course of the uh the period from 2011 to now and uh I believe uh the reason it was moved removed was that uh consideration of this uh this area being a a mixed use uh neighborhood center is not really long uh viable given that there is um existing uh uh low density and mid uh and high density residential there with no with no commercial space and there's also a a a park.

The next neighborhood center is the hospital neighborhood neighborhood center.

This is also expanded uh as you can see though, the area that it's expanded to uh has actually had development permits on them already and some of those are in the process of being approved and that includes the Ninerskin Lane.

That's that makes up a large majority of the new added area for this this site.

And it was identified as being a neighborhood center in that it could further benefit the close proximity to the hospital with additional residences and some potential for for mixed use.

As you can see, it hasn't changed from the existing draft OCP.

It remains an area that is considered to be a site for future housing and commercial uses, and is also made note of in the OCP that in the future it is likely to return to a squadmalt uh nation.

But we don't even own that land right now, is that correct?

That's the province that owns that land.

So why would we even have a development plan for it?

That's I'll I'll have to uh get back to you on that.

Thank you.

The next images show our uh community corridors.

So the first community corridor is the Western Gateway Community Corridor.

Further expansion of the gateway is shifted towards Rodfruit, and the addition of transition area has been expanded around the community corridor.

It's recognized as an intensive commercial area and activity hub for high tech research and development and potential for offices in the OCP.

It's a small uh sorry, it's recognized as a place for residential info and higher density housing and commercial development.

It is anticipated that this area will be a redevelopment area and will continue to bring more diverse housing closer to the hospital and bring more mixed-use projects to the uh the proximity of the Trans Canada Highway.

The Helmkin Harbor Community Corridor is expanded further along Helmkin and has uh added a transition area as well.

The area is identified as being uh one that understands that there's a historic uh uh existence of small commercial in the area and a mix of housing, but recognizes that there is opportunity for a potential to develop some type of mixed uh commercial uh center on the corner of Island Highway in Helpkin and add additional mixed residential in the in the community or in the in the center.

The Eastern Gateway is recognizes an activity hub and will continue to be one in the future.

The OCP speaks the opportunity for this site to redevelop in the future and see the existing surface level parking put underground and higher density and higher commercial uses be placed in this area to make better utilization of the large uh large commercial sites.

Um, this is the underlying layer of the community growth framework.

Transitioning now to the land use designations.

So the community growth framework really sets the uh the stage in terms of uh what is expected for areas of of growth and development.

Um the land use designation is what is actually applied in terms of what is actually permitted as a use.

As we take a look back at the uh the table that we went through, there was only three changes uh to the actual content and one one blanket change removing the uh the the inclusion of story.

In terms of mapping, there are a total of uh seven changes shown on the screen.

I will go into them in detail just so we can we can take a look.

There hasn't been any new land use designations added, and the existing land use designations, like I said, and want to reiterate, have not changed with the exception of those three.

So the first change that was done was to Six Mile Road.

So the change was from neighborhood mixed use to the land use designation of mixed residential and residential.

This site has already been developed and was done so uh quite a while ago.

The reason for the change is to uh keep consistent with the OCP and what is there uh on the land, and I'll get into a bit more clarification why that matters when we talk about our development permit areas.

The next change was identified uh as a proposal for the end of Heart Road from residential to mixed residential.

The Wilford area saw the existing neighborhood mixed use and park land use extinctions both transition to commercial.

In the harbor neighborhood, the existing large lot residential land use extension was changed to residential.

Admirals Road area, the existing commercial was changed to neighborhood mixed use.

On Watkiss, the existing mixed use was changed to neighborhood mixed use.

On Erskine Lane, the two properties that were categorized as intensive mixed use were changed to mixed residential.

So that's a summary of the changes that were done to the land use designations.

With respect to development permit areas.

When we look at an application that comes in, development permit area controls the regulations that apply when planners look at how that land is to be reviewed.

There's different guidelines in the OCP that speak to very often for form and character and then also environmental considerations.

When looking at the land use designation, there will be different development permit areas that apply to different land use designations.

Commercial land use designation will have a commercial development permit area.

A residential land use designation will have a residential development permit area.

They also change with the different intensities a uh a residential uh land use designation um that it speaks to permitting uh multifamily and departments will have a uh development permit area that also understands that that density and that um that former character is being uh built on that that that property one of the big changes was uh creating a new uh section for development permit area guidelines that took existing guidelines from all of the former character uh uh sections and simplified it by adding it to just a simple uh two or three page summary this was things uh concerning uh guidelines for landscaping, for guidelines for uh lighting safety, that really should be applicable to all uh former character applications.

Having them in every single uh designator or development permit area was considered to be a got a great use of space in the USCP and was just redundant.

So by transitioning and making a new section, staff thought that that was a kind of a housekeeping change.

There was also changes to the existing guidelines, and there was additions that informed new sighting and masking considerations, urban design, and sustainability guidelines.

We have commercial, um, so I'll go through them that in our development permit areas for a former character.

We have commercial, intensive mixed use, neighborhood mixed use, mixed residential, and residential.

The areas shown in color are those um areas that have been identified as development permit area.

What's changed with the new uh uh draft OCP and what is being proposed is that a new development permit area called intensive residential be applied to the area that was previously identified as just residential.

So a new development permit area is being proposed to uh be added to all areas of the community.

Can I can I just ask why?

Can I can I ask like why are we moving?

Like we're exceeding our expectations for growth rate with the CRD right now?

We've exceeded our own expectations for growth rate.

Can I ask why we are um fixed on cracking 15,000 people in View Royal as fast as humanly possible?

Do you want to speak?

Um, so I might just uh answer that question.

So I think so.

I uh just to clarify, so development permit areas as um um uh Sterling has mentioned um allows a municipality established design guidelines and guidelines for development.

So by establishing a new intensive residential development permit area means that there will be some um design criteria that new development would have to meet, I guess.

So for example, if there is a desire to have um small lots, um, then there would be design guidelines associated for small lots.

And so by establishing this new intensive residential development permit area, we'll capture that.

It doesn't have anything to do with the density and number of units and things like that.

It's just strictly how guiding um what the development the that is going to look like on the site.

Do you know it's already driving investors to buy based on the draft OCP?

On our corridors right now that we've identified, they've spent probably, in my estimation, $45 million already on the outcome of this OCP.

So it does drive investment and it gets there, it's getting us there faster than we ever thought it was, is my concern.

So by doing this intensive rezoning, we are now opening up the door to even more rapid densification than we could ever expect.

So this is my concern area, and I think the concern area for residents is like, I want to know why this is a thing.

Did we ask for it?

Did the residents ask for it?

We're exceeding government expectations right now.

So why are we doing this?

Is my point.

So I may have to, um, because I I wasn't um a part of the earlier conversations um surround around that.

So I may have to ask um Adette to uh chime in on that that piece of it.

Um but just so you know, like this is not this is not rezoning land.

This is providing policy land use and policy direction.

Um this is a draft plan, and if developers want to go out and pick up buy pieces of land, um even though you know this this draft plan, we don't have an updated OCP that's reflecting these changes.

Like I it's that's something that staff doesn't really have a lot of control over, what the what the developers decide to do out there, but um right now um this is a draft.

Um there's still there's there's this is a working draft, there's opportunity to make changes, there's that you know there's opportunity to provide more feedback.

Um so and that's sort of what this is all about, and this is the conversation that we would like to have.

Um, to and and and to seek direction from council.

Like, did does council want staff to continue along with this final phase?

Um, maybe that final phase looks slightly different, but these are the conversations that we're gonna have.

Um, and so that's why staff is bringing it back now.

I just want to be clear that the public is really concerned that it was nothing they asked for.

The first OCP essentially took the zoning they had in place at the time and codified it.

That was required at the time that we needed uh uh uh in OCP by legislation.

This OCP without consultation, particularly around density, now it it wholeheartedly changes every aspect of View Royal and everybody living in it, right?

Um, because you're actually chaining changing the terms and conditions, they made a million dollar investment to buy their house.

Right?

And we've done that without consultation.

That's why there's sensitivities here.

And I I'm still digging into why we need to do this.

Like I it's not clear to me why we need to make these wholehearted changes and not make a concentrated plan and involve public in it.

Like we, if we're going to go back to the public on this, we need justification about why we are doing it.

And I'm not hearing, I'm seeing a plan, and that's wonderful.

I'm seeing that we're exceeding our expectations for growth, but I'm not seeing why.

Councilman McKenna.

Um, thank you, and apologies because I know you said questions at the end and comments, but I I just think it's relevant to this.

Um if my understanding is correct, the OCP is not prescriptive.

We're not saying we're encouraging development in this area, we're promoting it in this area.

We're the OCP is just saying if there is a developer that or a proposal that comes forward, these are the limitations within which.

So I think that's like it's it's not promoting it, it's just putting the box around what they can do.

I think there's practice and reality.

I don't think any investor would buy something that didn't already have that condition on it that they were able to do it.

So I think in in in in practice and definition, when you look at the OCP, I couldn't agree with you more.

In reality, that's certainly not what we're seeing with uh new proposals coming up.

Certainly.

Sorry.

Uh to answer one of your questions to you, Mayor Tobias, on on the need for an intensive mixed use or intensive uh residential development permit area, this would be a tool for staff to review carriage homes or garden homes.

Without this, uh, there is no uh application that comes forward.

Otherwise, if if sorry, if we don't have a development permit area, that means that a person can go straight to building permit and that and they can build that that carriage home without any design considerations having a development permit area has uh the ability for staff to implement tools and and review the regulations in the OCP to regulate that type of development that's why we have development permit areas so I I can't speak to uh other other reasons why it was added but that is one of the main reasons that to have an intense residential development permit area was largely to uh understand that there needed to be a method for reviewing uh garden suites uh as a new use in the in the community.

The other thing to consider is with any application, uh, particularly development permits, they would be subject to council review and and decision.

And just because a development permit area recognizes that area as a uh potential for development, there are lot considerations or consideration of the lot size, consideration of setbacks, um, and and everything else that goes along with an application.

So I just wanted to just clarify that.

Um with respect to changes, there were a total of seven changes in the uh in the community, other than the the intensive residential.

These are again, largely to do with updates uh that have exit uh that have changed on the ground, so new developments that have occurred.

The reason that we want to change the development permit area, um, and just like land use designation, is that if there's further changes to those lots, we want to make sure that they're uh following the appropriate development permit area guidelines.

If a lot is not changed uh with respect to the development permit area, uh let's say a property is currently residential, it gets a new multifamily building on it, but it's still considered a single-family lot with respect to residential development permit area guidelines.

Staff have no way to take that applicant through a development permit, and they could go through with any changes to the site without a permit uh and and approval process through council um the so we talked to a former character uh development permit permit areas the town also has environmental protection and natural hazard development permit areas there was an addition of one new uh development permit area uh natural hazards uh wild interfild fire interface this was excuse me added in uh a select few locations in the community there was also additional guidelines generally to uh the development permit areas for environmental protection uh with respect to fire for uh prevention additional guidelines regarding federal provincial uh regulations for docks and their and their sighting as well as further environmental protections and preservation uh guidelines uh again throughout throughout the different uh development uh permit areas in summary these are the the changes that were done to the development permit areas uh for environmental uh protection as i said there was one new development permit area that's shown uh as the uh the block hash marked areas uh over the uh the yellow areas um there were three uh I believe or four uh areas that were changed uh as being uh uh recognized as uh wildfire uh interface areas uh all are coincidentally next to uh park uh or green spaces.

The other uh uh development permit areas were were unchanged um the reason that they're shown to be changed is that there was a reclassification of the development permit areas just to ensure that the change that was made with the new development permit area did not cause any confusion in terms of labeling.

I'll turn it over to Leanne.

So we just have a couple more slides.

This next slide just speaks to what is planned for in terms of moving forward with the final phase of the OCP update in accordance with the direction in the original work plan that was put forth back in 2021.

And so in this last phase of the OCCP review includes and it's been budgeted for two staff-driven public open houses, further consultation with the Esquimalt and Song East Nations, further policy edits and refinements following external agency, community and legal review and feedback, and then updates to the development permit areas and associated design guidelines.

However, it is important to note that this final phase, there's opportunities for modifications, and if you know if council is you know looking for more for more public engagement, that is something that we can definitely look into.

We will have to go back to the budget, look at the budget, and do a cost analysis for council's consideration and break and bring something forward.

However, it again, this is what is in the these list of tasks is what in is what is in the final phase to finish this project.

Is that the council has to consider the proposed OCP in conjunction in conjunction with the town's financial plan as well as the CRD's waste management plan.

The there will there would also be another a public um hearing.

So there will be public engagement as part of the final phase, but then there'll be additional public engagement or opportunities for the public to provide comment at the public hearing as well.

So there's always opportunities to provide last minute tweaks to the document.

I just wanted to share with council um just the the project cost to date.

Um so so far it um the project has um we've spent $135,227.45 cents.

Um there has you know that there's you know you we just wanted to include this um um note to to also for council to consider is that um should we um proceed with a wholesale rewrite of the OCP um we are looking at um close to $200,000 and that's in addition to the funds that have already spent on this project.

It's a big project, it's a big project.

Um and um the expected time for completion is a minimum of two to three years.

And so um that's you know that's if we start from scratch again.

So the recommendation um for council is um um the recommendation for council is the is to receive the report and also that and it is staff's recommendation to move forward with the final phase of the project.

And we are recommending this because it will include further community engagement on the draft plan and the opportunity for the public to provide comments and feedback and make changes to help shape this plan.

There's still a lot of work to be done on this plan, and we can um and we also make adjustments as we go along.

So to conclude, staff and the consultants are happy to answer any questions that you may have, and we look forward to receiving some direction from council.

Thank you.

Thanks, Leanne, and thanks for your work on this and and staff's work on helping you uh present it.

It's a difficult situation to be because I realize you weren't here when this actually came up.

But I think now's the prime time to open some discussion and debate.

What I'm going to propose is that we move to receive this report and then we stop there.

There is no and because I think there's a lot of discussion to do after that.

So can I get a motion that we receive the report?

Sorry, I have questions for staff, if possible first.

Okay.

Sorry.

So I yes, first of all, I'd like to say I really do appreciate the presentation, especially the comparison to the 2011 OCP and noticing that it's not a well, it's not a huge departure from what has been in place for the past 12 years.

So my first one, I just wanted to confirm something I think I heard.

If a proposal for development comes to us and it's within the parameters of the OCP, we as council can still decline it or reject it based on a number of reasons, including us not wanting to increase density.

Or let's say we think the town is good in terms of its number of developments going on right now.

We don't want to approve this uh proposed development.

Is I don't know if you can answer that, but through the mayor the um so council I mean count it's yeah I mean at the end of the day it's it's a a council um decision to adopt the bylaw to um um to uh endorse the OCP um you know there's there's opportunities for council council to to make changes I mean if there's if there's a concern regarding um the a land use designation for a certain property um there's that you know we that change council could direct staff to make it make a change to to that particular land use designation um there's I mean I think it's important to note that the OCP is is more than just like land use designations and um and uh and densities and and it it also encompasses like housing and transportation and parks and open spaces and community well being and sustainability there's it encompasses all a lot of different policies and objectives that help guide um decision making it helps guide the um the the strategic plan so it's sort of our overarching document and so that is that is one piece of it, and that is one piece that gets a lot of attention, obviously.

Um, but uh we uh you know staff would will work with council and in terms of how you know to to bring forward the you know the the best possible plan that meets the needs of the community.

Okay, thank you.

Um my other question this might be for the consultant, I'm not sure, but how are the floor space ratios determined?

Um, that are how is it determined to be appropriate per for the designation?

Um so for instance, mixed residential, how is that determined the floor space ratio?

Um good evening, uh Mayor Tobias and councils.

Um I'll attempt to answer that question.

My name is Odette Pinol from EcoPlan, the consultant team that worked on this project.

And the question about uh floor space ratio was that it came directly from the recommendations of the uh land economic studies that have been done recently by Coriolis, and they had recommended increasing um densities, and so it reflected those, and that's that how they came up in the different designated areas.

Okay, perfect, thank you.

And um if there is further engagement um as proposed by staff, is it possible that those uh floor space ratios are something that are reviewed and revised as well?

Um I'll uh uh through the mayor.

Um just maybe I think it might be best for anything can be adjusted, as I think the senior planner Leanne has presented, and well, that anything can be adjusted going forward, but maybe it's best for Lianne to speak to that.

Thank you.

So through the mayor, the the economic, the land economics study provides the town information to help inform sort of how you know to how what type of densities that will make um development viable and um and this work is is often done um by municipalities when they're looking at their OCPs because it helps inform what would be appropriate appropriate densities um for for a neighbor for the for an area um again um this report was completed by Coriolis and our our consult the consultant and um we can we can always go back to our consultant um for um if should council have some questions on that um but again that is something that we would have to look into and there's there's always um uh so some financial implications associated with that as well.

So we would need some sort of some firm guidance from council on that piece.

Counselor McKenzie, can I get you to turn off and somebody else to speak in too?

Um when you upzone, it's very difficult to downzone.

Because if somebody's bought that property to invest in building it to a higher density, and then you go back to them and say, No, no, we've changed our plan, that's when towns get sued.

Yes, but we're setting a precedent if we say this is what in broad spoke strokes we want in these areas.

Um, investment comes because that's part of what it is, and we've seen it happen now with opening up the door.

Even without opening up the door, somebody can go in and put in a request for rezoning.

But once we say these areas are that's what we'd like them to be, then sometimes it's a matter of 20 years before somebody comes along.

But what we're seeing now, it's a matter of minutes before somebody comes along with investment opportunities.

I would like to dig in a little bit, staff, and Kim, maybe this goes to you for the land economic study.

From what I understand, because I wasn't here at the time, that was to look at promoting commercial enterprise within uh View Royal.

Uh, it started off on that.

Yet when I found the RFP for it, the RFP specifically stated that we would like, the town would like to develop corridors for high density development in the RFP that went to Corellis that we're basing the OCP on.

So we asked a company that's on BC bid, you can pull the RFP off it, to give us justification for high densification on the corridors, and that's exactly what they gave us because you're not very good consultant if you don't deliver what your client asked for.

And they gave us a land economic study that was less to do with commercial and more about densification.

And then we use that study as a foundational document to provide to another consultant to provide an OCP to develop what was in the land economic study.

So why did we ask for greater densification along our corridors?

Where did that come from?

Thank you.

I can speak to the land economics study.

The background behind that study was a concern by council that we wanted to see more development along certain corridors.

The hospital precinct, the uh precinct in the Fort Victoria area, and the um precinct that involved the um the area where the car lots are council was really interested in seeing development in those specific regions.

And so the fundamental question was what are the economics required to facilitate that development?

Like what do we need to do?

And so, really, the RFP was intended to generate a consultant that could answer that question, and the result was intended to be a document that would facilitate decisions by council in future.

Thank you, Kim.

And so my concern is we asked a question to a consultant to provide us with a plan.

We adopted that plan because that's what we've asked for, and then we put this plan in motion with an OCP.

I'm just trying to follow the dots of where things come from because that's where my brain works, unfortunately.

I'd like to find out the genesis and the reason why, because I think that's what residents would like to know as well.

And so, from what I'm understanding, we asked for the foundations of a justification of a study.

We use that justification of a study to influence our OCP.

And then we took the OCP instead of doing what we did in 2011 and spread newspaper on the floor in the elementary school and actually started with kids and the community building the community that we wanted.

We actually hired a consultant to develop a plan to then market to our people.

Because like, why was there a difference between the repeatable pattern we followed in 2011 and doing an OCP and then you know coming to the current state where we've got a draft OCP that seemed more consultant driven and less community driven?

Just a question for Kevin.

But the uh the current the feeling at the time was um we want to see redevelopment along the corridor around the Fort Victoria and we wanted to I think we perceived that there were some advantages to the hospital precinct.

There could be more development along that corridor, particularly uh development that um focused on hospital oriented type development, be it residential development or um perhaps medical offices the and the like and the uh the corridor along the um island highway where all of the uh the car lots are I think council was looking for different development than what existed and I can't I can't uh explain further the thinking of council but I think those were the directions that were expressed and that was the assignment to the uh the consultant thank you Kim I appreciate that counselor Brown do you had a question yeah I had a motion on the floor I guess we divided it into two parts and my point was I like personally I like the 2011 OCP that was well written uh when you're revising something I don't know why you would need 238 page document unless your last name's Tolstoy uh wow I mean we have to take a look at it.

So, all I'm asking is us to accept the document or the presentation, uh, approve that, and then refer it back to committee of the whole.

And it's it's gonna take more than one meeting, obviously, but we have to go through it.

I would like to go through it, each counselor going through it and see what they don't like or what they like to see in this document.

This is an entirely different document than 2011.

It's like 238 pages.

You got to be kidding me for a revision?

Wow.

Thank you, counselor Brown.

Is there any other comments?

Second the motion.

Motion was to read it again.

I move council received the staff report and council referred to the pattern to the OCP process set of direction for updating 2011 OCP process.

So I could go on and reiterate many of the things the public said in terms of their perspective on sort of how we got to where we are.

I you know, I certainly won't.

Um and I just think we have to have a good look at this, and you know, there are some things we can keep out of the current plan, current draft, but there's big chunks of it that have to just have to go from my perspective, and we need more public input in terms of those those areas.

So that's why I think we should have that discussion at the one or more discussion or a number of discussions at the uh committee of the whole to determine how we sort of move forward.

Thank you.

Uh Councillor Matheson was uh councillor Lemon.

Sure, thank you um i agree with i you know if if what we have um as a uh resident response to a document is protest then it's wrong and we we we definitely need to press pause and uh and consider at an oc at at a um committee of the whole meeting just how we've moved forward i i don't know that it's moving forward as is or or if it's moving forward with a different kind of approach, different semblance of of um of different approach.

So yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Lemon.

Counselor qualit, you have been unusually silent uh on this one.

Do you care to have an opportunity to uh voice any concerns or Lapon?

Thank you for uh noticing me uh taking it all in.

Obviously this is uh a big deal for our residents lots happening here uh dating back to when um when this new OCP was being created there's certainly um an election issue here at hand with uh they the mayoralship and certain members uh council candidates made it uh very strong for their platform, and and now here we are receiving uh a level of interest from a percentage of uh our residents and a large percentage of apathy, unfortunately.

So we're faced with looking at uh a group of people who would like uh a closer look at it.

I'm hearing from staff that that is the plan.

Um is it perfect?

No.

Um I'm hearing actually more consensus tonight from uh the seven of us than I thought we may get, because it sounds like a lot of us want the same things, which is to look at certain sections and and maybe look at them closer.

Maybe some sections don't need as much love.

So I mean, I'm I'm in the spirit so far of what everyone's saying.

I'm I'm in pretty pretty good agreement with everybody.

Council Rogers.

Okay, so um I said in May and I said in June that I do not like this draft OCP.

This draft OCP was a tweak, and it has really quite considerable, I would say, disastrous ramifications for uh for the density of this town where we have not proven the viability of that density.

We haven't proven it.

We haven't done the litmus test of a transportation master plan, which is 2008.

It had a technical update of 2016, and that was just technical.

It gave no, and and you we know how much development has occurred since 2018.

Incredible amount.

And we have to look at ground zero, Erskine Lane, and what the ramifications of that.

The ramifications of developers, what five developers giving five different transportation traffic studies about just their lot.

And none of them, because it wasn't in the DCC, none of them were going to come forward and not say, guess, you know, we guess what?

We need a roundabout.

So that is just one example.

And we did that through the 2011 OCP and aspired through the 2011.

And we know that what that looks like at 1.5 FSR.

So the incredible ramifications of uh you know traffic and uh we got a parks master plan that was done in 2016 that says we don't need any more parks, and that's what we told Urskan Lane, you're not gonna get a park.

That's what staff told them.

And but they still wanted one, they still need a playground because they couldn't put it on on number nine because that was a strata and that belonged to somebody else.

Goodness gracious, and that's the entire yellow zone.

I mean, uh you know, every every single lot.

And so even going through and and assuming that we can, then we're gonna double the population of the harbor.

And what's the ramifications of that when they only have two lights to get out?

What's the ramifications of um you know, if we do all those FSRs?

You know, you know, we say up to, that's a green light.

That's a green light to a developer for basic, you know.

Gosh, we did a uh three on on the corner of Helmican and Island Highway.

So, and that's what they want.

And well, we have four stories, we've done six.

So it seems to me that 2011 has pretty good flexibility.

And what worries me about this one is that we put every, you know, the designations up and down through every single corridor.

And here we have a provincial government that is willing to tell us and probably direct us, you got no CP, it's cast in stone.

That's what you got.

You don't need any more public hearings.

You just approved it.

So we um we probably should step back a lot.

We probably should do our homework, you know, because this is only a tweak, only a housing, but has no substance of confidence or proof that we are not going to be under our own creation creating a gridlock in every community, creating a rat run in our own community, never mind what uh our our Western and Eastern neighbors are doing.

So, no, I don't have any confidence in this.

I I and as there's a lot of concerns, you know, as we heard from the public.

I participated in those meetings and I felt the same way.

It was pre cons pre prescribed, and we were given some ideas of what it was, and very little ability to say what if, what if, what if.

So I agree with what the neighbors are saying, and we still haven't come to a reality on our population projections through this O CP.

How quick we'll get to 15,000, and and I agree.

We have to make sure that this OCP aligns with the fiscal plan.

How many officers?

When we get to 15, that's going to be 17 officers at 90% cost.

What will that do in our financial plan?

What will the financial plan do?

Because we won't, we realize that we haven't got, we've got an outdated DCC, that we don't have any any um teeth to go to for the developers to pay for you know the extensive amount of sidewalks.

18 million, my projection.

So yeah, I I think this is we've done ourselves um uh it's not a bad task.

And if we want to use these numbers and and really be confident that um uh we do the projections analysis, not a a div uh uh what a piecemeal developer driven um traffic study.

We do our own.

We have our confidence in our own.

Because if we can't do it, we shouldn't do it.

And I guess that's one of the problems I have with what we're saying in this um um the carriage houses.

I've looked at the definitions.

It should, should, should, not, shall.

So there again, you know, that's all negotiable terms, and we've seen what happens when in instances in in the harbor where the house staff negotiated, and there was considerable resentment of why that went in.

So I say, danger, danger.

Let's be careful.

I'm more than happy to have a look at this, but if we don't have the foundational documents, a decent transportation study, not 2008.

I mean, if we think we need to update a 2011 OCP, what do you think about a 2008 transportation master plan that already told us back then, without the projections, how bad it was going to be?

No confidence.

Let's regain the confidence of the citizens.

Let's make sure that we have a plan that says we can make this work, or we acknowledge it can't.

Thank you, Counselor Rhodes.

Bring it back.

Counselor McKenzie.

Um, so I completely agree that I as uh Counselor Colowitch said, I think we're all on the same page in terms of recognizing that we need more meaningful engagement on the draft OCP.

And but I believe there's an opportunity to do that and move forward instead of moving backwards.

So what I think it what I hear is at the heart of most of the concerns, um, both in the letters and here today, is the land use designations and the respective densities.

And yet, when I read through the OCP, 340 pages of it, it was far less than 50% of the report talked about that.

Um, so I and there's a lot of non-contentious stuff in that report as well.

So I don't think we should be starting from scratch and potentially finding ourselves in this exact same position a year from now.

Um, I think in modern approach to project management is being iterative and agile and making improvements through further engagement on the same product.

So that's my preferred approach, and I really do appreciate all the people who wrote in and spoke today.

Um, I will note though the majority come from the same area of U Royal, so I want to make sure that if we do do further engagement, we need to ask ourselves, staff, and the consultant, how do we get more representative engagement and not just the same participants each time.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

Any other comments?

Yeah.

Councilor Roger.

Again, this is not, I I significantly disagree that this, you know, we've got, we may have some good stuff if we're only going to do sections.

Admirals and the TCH, where the Rapid Bus Corridor is going to be.

That's the only two sections that's going to have enough support.

But if we try and do this internally, you know, then I will make certain that we will have many residents from many neighborhoods having a look at what the implications are of this document and how that rat running scenario is going to eat their heart out.

So Rogers, you're going to have to define rat running.

Oh, yeah, probably.

Because a lot of people don't understand your remote.

Good example is Eltham.

So when when we had a development application for two lots for, and I think it was 20, 24 townhouses, that was the proposal.

And Eltham went, they were very concerned.

Certainly the seniors were very concerned because Eltham was already chalk a block full of parking from someplace else.

So if we had 24 units and they couldn't get out because Helmaken was a mess, then all they could do is ride in and write out.

No.

And if they ride out and they want to go back, will they take the roundabout?

They'll go down Jedburg, they'll go down Georgia.

So they will rat run through other communities.

Same thing projected for the development proposals with Cambridge.

Will they will they run through the Helmican Harbor Precinct?

Every section has a rat run, but few people have a way out.

So I think if we're not, if we if we think we've got confidence in this report, test it.

Put it to the transportation master plan, update that and see if it's viable.

That's what the residents want us to do is prove staff to prove that it's viable.

Prove it.

Not just in theory, not just in hope.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

So I'm what I'm just gonna summarize is hearing that I'm concerned about sending it to Council of the Whole because I don't think we're given enough good direction to staff without a clear plan for the Council of the Whole and what we're going to do with it there.

If we intend to go through and debate 236 page document in the Council of the Hole, it's not going to happen.

So, from what I'm hearing right now from where we're at, we have unfortunately through COVID lost the trust of our engagement process.

Right?

The things that Councillor McKenzie brought up about you know getting precincts, I think we refer to them, engaged to create their own five-minute community and have them focused on that, potentially coming together with a series of workshops that would culminate on the bigger plan.

Um, I think is where we need to go, right?

We need to uh maybe there's there's pieces of that document that do make sound sense, but my concern is that the public and I myself have lost faith in it because it didn't go through an effective engagement process.

Right?

So so now everything is being questioned.

We also have a question about the foundational documents that proceed and really create the pillars for that document about what are our housing growth rates?

Are we all agreeing on how fast we've grown and how fast we are predicted to grow?

And we need to know operationally what we've approved for growth and when that's going to become available.

So I need that to make decisions about the future.

So what I'm going to suggest is that we've already received the staff information.

We've voted to receive it.

That does not have to be part of it.

But if we're going to go to council of the whole, it needs to delineate a very clear plan for staff about what the next phase could be.

From what I'm hearing from us right now and the public, is that the plan that was listed to restart the project is not the plan that council is endorsing because of many reasons, and all of our reasons may be different, and I'm willing to acknowledge that.

But to go just to a bit more of engagement, some First Nations engagement, and then make it a thing, I don't think anybody here is ready for.

So can I get some thoughts about a motion yeah in a way that we would send it to Council of the Whole council I don't think this evening we're ever gonna get to a motion.

I think we should just stop at this point and say, a motion for the council of the whole is what I was saying well I think we have to determine what we're gonna do and just have that discussion at Council the whole it might take a c take some time but we're not gonna do it tonight thank you counselor mason council lemon I agree I I I I picture us at committee of the whole um having the discussion about how to proceed and what you know with various ideas have a discussion about you know how to how to engage going forward and how to involve the community and where to go as a starting place.

But we can't we we won't get there tonight.

Thank you, Councillor Lovin.

Council Brown.

I might suggest uh uh a full-day retreat.

I mean, that's something that we certainly did as school trustees, and you you you devote the whole day to it.

And you could have a couple other items in there to make it more interesting day.

But at least you do it.

You know, rather than spending three days at UBCM, which may or may not have some educational uh uh appropriateness, uh maybe we take one of those days and have a retreat and deal with nothing but this specific item and maybe some other side items.

And not only that, retreats are good for working together and learning about each other because I don't think we've ever done that yet.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

So, what I'm hearing, because I'm trying to get staff an answer because they've been waiting for this for a while, is that we're not in a hurry to make a decision to finish this plan.

I think that we can all agree on.

We are willing to take some deliberate time.

We're not feeling rushed about the future, making a decision about the future of the town, and that everything currently with the 2011 uh OCP is still legitimately valid.

Um, that we're not in a hurry to make this a thing.

And I think after we discuss it at the committee the whole, it would also, you know, be one of those budget items that we're also going to discuss.

We've uh thank you, staff, for providing the information about what it would cost us to either continue on with the current um plan or or to to start fresh.

But um yeah, I support bringing it into the council a whole.

There's one thing that I'm going to learn from this, and that I encourage staff to go there because I know I'm going to do.

There's lessons learned to be made here.

The world's a different place than it was during COVID.

And I think one of those lessons that we're rapidly learning is our expectations of engagement, no matter how difficult that might be, and just fundamental communications theory.

We need to not just simply put out a what we've heard report, but if there is no open-ended question on each thing that we're asking the public, we've done ourselves a disservice.

In in my work, if you don't know, it's nine hours a day figuring out algorithms for public participation and figuring out what's valid and doing user testing.

And if we don't ask the right questions with allowing people to freely provide their response, they don't feel like their input has been honored at all.

And that's just digitally interacting with them.

It goes much deeper than that when we're walking with them and talking with them and answering questions, right?

So if we are committed as a council to really doing a better job in that fulsome engagement that starts with the committee, I'm on board definitely with referring this to the committee of the whole, because this was not only a miss for this one, but this needs to be a precedent for absolutely everything that we do that and that should involve uh community engagement.

There is there is some space that we need to step back and say this is not a waste of money.

This is happening during a crisis that many people died during COVID, that many people are still afraid to come out in public, even if they're masked at.

This is not a waste of money.

We've learned significantly from it.

And I think staff, if we provided you enough direction right now that we're going to refer this thing to the council of the whole, that I hope staff and council takes in that we need to do engagement a lot differently than we have been.

And that's what we need to inspire the confidence of both staff and of council to know that we want input and we're willing to be patient about that if it's not jumping out at us.

So can I get a motion to refer this to the committee of the whole?

We did, we signed, we did we got a motion on the floor.

We've got a second or second.

Okay.

Uh Councilor Mass, a second.

All in favor of referring the issue of the uh OCP to the committee of the whole.

So moved.

Um so the next thing on the agenda is active transportation plan uh update.

Uh we got a motion to receive.

Nope, we can just receive it right now.

We can just receive it right now.

That's all the the recommendation is.

Let's bring this up when we uh when we actually all get a chance to review it, which I have not done because I've spent much more time on the OCP.

So we've got a full agenda, Councillor Rogers.

Let's just motion to receive it for now so we can all take a look at it.

Cal.

I'll move to table it to the next committee call.

Got uh motion on the table to uh to so we can all study it and receive it.

And we got a mover and a second, or all in favor.

Motion passes uh other reports, motion to receive parks and recreation environmental advisory committee so moved uh as well as town endorsement for uh fossil fuel non proliferation to move second well hey let's move the other let's let's approve the uh well look let's uh let's move a and c and do that because we got to discuss the non proliferation uh can I get a motion to receive a and c i know no.

Can we just move?

Sorry, can we move uh a dimension of the Yeah?

Let's uh move that secondary.

And all in favor.

And uh non-proliferation, Council Rogers, you want to talk to that?

I would move that, please.

I'll second.