Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal.

I'll call the meet Council meeting of uh Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 to order.

And we'll begin with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize Laquanguin speaking people known today as the Cassapson and the Songhees Nation and their historic connections to this land continue to this day.

Can I get an approval of the agenda?

And that includes the late items, the blue sheet that we have in front of us, please.

Yeah, you should have.

Let me know if you do not.

Move by Councillor Brown.

Seconded by Councillor Lemon.

And we'll see if we can get you a blue sheet, uh, Councilor Matson.

Your worship.

Yes, Councilor Rogerson.

Yes, uh, is this an opportunity to uh pull items out of the consent agenda?

Absolutely.

Thanks for the reminder, Councilor Rogers.

Which item would you like remove?

Uh number C, please.

So 10C is a letter from the UBCM president, and I think that will become.

I have a few pages tonight.

It's a half the agenda.

Uh we'll become 11A.

Thank you.

Uh anybody else want to remove an item.

Counselor Lemon.

No, we'll uh well They are?

They are all right.

Um I'd like to pull pull pull pull uh number four under the um committee of the whole agenda.

Okay, that will become 11B.

Just make some notes here so I remember.

All right.

Any other changes or amendments to the agenda?

Is that a mover and a seconder?

All those in favor?

And if there's uh just speak up or wave your arms around if uh Elna is going to be paying attention for Council McKenzie and Council Rogers online if I don't catch your hand.

Um having to switch between my normal eyes and distance glasses.

I haven't progressed to progressives yet.

Uh I guess that's my next trick.

Um but yeah, uh just I I don't want to miss anybody, so it's going to require a bit of participation.

So that motion uh to approve the agenda passed unanimously.

And I think that brings us right down to public participation period.

I'm not really looking at you, but maybe because you're the only person here I am.

Uh uh Carl, we got anybody online that would like to participate publicly.

Mayor Tobias, we've had no uh messages so far this evening.

Thank you, sir.

Uh so that brings us down to street bylaws.

Uh Ivan, I think you're up.

You've already tested out your point here.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Ivan Leung, Director of Engineering.

We'll just wait for the presentation to load.

I think it's uh you're on slide three, so let's just go to slide one.

Thank you.

It's gonna test the pointer.

So the laser point doesn't work on the screen, so uh we'll make sure to invest in a pointy stick that we can uh point to the TV.

But I'll do my best to explain and point verbally so that Council Rogers can have a better um given that he is uh online.

I'll try to explain the best of my ability.

So this is uh the purpose of this report is to provide an outline on um council's direction to reduce speed limits within a town of URL.

So council provide direction to staff to uh create a new speed bylaw that restricts speed limits on all residential roads to 30 kilometers an hour, and to restrict the speed limit on the island highway from Admiral's Road to the Island Highway Burnside Road intersection to 40 kilometers an hour.

So on this map, essentially anything that is green is a residential class road.

And though, as part of this bylaw, should it be enacted, those would all be 30 kilometers an hour.

And uh for the island highway, you'll notice um there is this magenta line uh that kind of is on the like on the lower like the lowermost magenta line, it goes east west.

That is the section of the island highway that would be reduced to 40 kilometers an hour.

So the Motor Vehicle Act state states that the speed limit shall be 50 kilometers an hour on municipal roadways.

Um it also states that through bylaw, municipalities can reduce speed limits.

So that's what we're doing right here.

The proposed bylaw will have uh impacts to levels of service, uh, given that uh it is expected that more additional enforcement would uh be requested of residents.

Um, in addition to that, uh we do have this traffic calming bylaw.

Uh so Carl, just next slide, please.

Next slide, Carl.

We do have this traffic calling bylaw that basically stipulates that uh if five percent of the vehicles that go through go 10 kilometers an hour over the speed limit, then uh traffic calling measures can or will be enacted.

So that would mean that the threshold for traffic calming measures to be made on residential streets would be 40 kilometers an hour, which uh from a staffing point of view is is quite uh unreasonable.

Um based on the data of other municipalities, that speed limit would be hit for five percent of the volume.

So that could be onerous for staff to administer.

So, should council wish to uh enact this speed bylaw, uh staff recommend that the current traffic calling policy be deferred until staff bring forward an updated traffic calling policy.

That update is happening, it's in progress right now.

We have a consultant looking at uh many municipalities.

Sanjay has a a great one.

Um we're also looking at smaller municipalities to make sure that we can align with levels of service.

But that said, the community impact is positive because uh there has been a desire to reduce speed limits on residential roadways.

Uh reducing speed limits in View Royal does align with neighboring municipalities.

Uh uh Craigflower Road is 40 kilometers an hour in Esquimalt, so um it it can be it can make sense to reduce the speed limit on Island Highway.

It's just an extension of that.

Uh could I go to the next slide?

So should first, second, and third readings be passed, uh staff would start beginning to install some signage on the town roadways.

These three you see before you are um examples of speed limits that you may see.

And so they will be bagged and only it will be only until adoption when the signs will be revealed, and that'll be when the speed um the speed limits will be enacted.

That said, the recommendation is that the streets bylaw nine eighty twenty nineteen amendment number one five nine twenty twenty-five be given first, second and third reading, and that upon adoption of amendment number one one five nine twenty twenty-five, that the administration of the existing traffic calming policy be deferred until an update to the policy is approved by council.

I will note that the first, second, third readings will be as part of the next yeah for this presentation.

Uh thank you, Ivan.

Um that said, thank you for your time.

Happy to take questions.

Thank you for uh the report.

Let's go to questions first and save the comments.

Councilor Lemon?

Yeah, um Ivan, along uh it says Burnside Road West, but I I think is that not actually Watkasway by Eagle View Elementary School?

And it's uh 50 there.

And I'm wondering about I I'm wondering why we have a fifth would would maintain a 50 uh zone there when it goes by a school as as opposed to 40.

Yes, uh, thank you, and to the mayor, um actually Carl, maybe if you can just go back to slide one, please.

Uh so Mayor Tobias, um what Councillor Lemon is speaking to is the blue section that is running north-south.

I'll just point.

And and and below it.

No, no, yeah.

The the the what looks like what could there, there, yeah.

So, Mayor Tobias, what Councillor LeBernan is referring to is the the roads that basically surround Eagle View Elementary School.

So that would be Burnside Road West and Waukis Way.

Um the reason why is because the staff direction was specifically to reduce speed limits on residential class roads and the island highway between Admirals Road and Burnside Road Culver Interchange, as they call it.

So staff did no more, no less.

Should council wish to enact changes in that area, staff can certainly look at that.

The recommendation and report is to probably wait until the transportation master plan is completed before doing that, because there can be infrastructure and safety related or density related impacts that we should be looked at.

So if it's going to be difficult to administer without the traffic calming policy a wrap, should we not wait?

Uh no, that's not a question for you.

Would it would would it be would it make sense?

I don't I don't know.

You're you you know what I'm trying to ask without putting you on the spot.

Oh yeah, sure.

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, it's a is a is a very valid question.

Um the reason why staff are recommending putting this bylaw first is because um this action item has been on the list for a while and it's taken a bit of time to understand what other municipalities do.

And so that's half the battle.

The next half of the battle is to understand traffic calming, and that could take a little bit longer.

So the idea here is to provide this bylaw now so that vehicles shall reduce their speed limits now.

And it allows RCMP to provide or enact ticketing now.

And that at the same time, staff can still provide traffic calling measures or assess traffic calling measures, but it's be done on a case-by-case basis.

As I mentioned before, the we do have a consultant looking at recommendations on what policy changes should be done.

So it's not like we're gonna wait a year from now until uh next policy is being or until we bring forward every updated policy.

I would say it'd be on the next, probably in the early new year, January or so.

So the idea is to at least start the first steps of reducing speed limits.

Councilor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um yeah, Councilor Lemon raised a good point, and and I certainly understand uh um staff's uh um suggestion that we proceed uh as is right now and um have a look at uh Watkins Way and its merits of uh also being uh 40.

Um I think one of the things about Watkins Way that we have to check is of course they go through Sanach.

And uh we obviously want to uh communicate with our Sanish neighbors and see what speed limits uh they have um and and would be agreeable to or whatever in Watkins Way.

So that probably can wait.

Um my question is similar to Sanich is the portion of Helmaken that is from Watkins Way to Burnside.

It's a blue.

Um why I can't remember traffic, yeah, I can't remember when it gets uh get up that speed anymore.

But um so my question to staff is um what Sanich, does Sanich have Wilkinson at uh 40, 50 or what?

Mayor Tobias, I'm not too sure, uh which is ironic because I drive that twice a day.

Um but that said, um it's during rush hours, so we rarely go over 40.

Um so uh I don't know per se.

I believe it is 50 uh on Wilkinson Road.

Certainly get back to you on that though.

Yes, uh so you know as we're contemplating the the merits of Watkinsway and and again with uh Sanich, um also finding out from Sanich uh what their plans are maybe with Wilkinson.

Um and and that particular stretch, obviously in V Wall is um um merits um you know a a 40.

Is this a question, Counselor Rogers?

No, it's uh it's just a thought.

Okay, so my next question is Atkins Road from six mile to the um CRD parking lot.

Galloping Goose parking lot.

Is that blue?

Uh Mayor Tobias, yes, correct, that is blue.

Um there has been there's no science there to designate it as a lower speed limit.

And um per council direction, we were not directed to reduce the speed limit on Atkins Road.

May I suggest then um uh uh is it possible to amend uh make any amendment motions um to bring that into effect?

It is a very narrow um uh road with no sidewalks and a lot of vehicles going backwards and forwards from the uh uh CRD parking lot.

Is that possible to make an amendment uh staff for the work?

We can we can do an amendment, counselor rogers.

Um I I don't know.

We don't have a mover on the floor for the original motion.

So if you're happy to move the original motion, then we can look at an amendment.

So it's first and second for the original motion.

So council Rogers, you moved.

Yes, Councilor Brown seconds.

Um I I as well would be in favor of really um the only ones that like to leave as a 50 kilometer would be Old Island Highway past the uh on ramp, off ramp.

I'm not sure how to quite put that, but the exchange.

Um and uh and upper, well, gosh, you know, even upper Helmkin, I would say that I I would say that's the only exception where the law where uh Old Island doubles because we've got concerns about View Royal Um or Eagle uh View Elementary, got concerns about Atkins uh and and Watkiss way as well as North Helmkin.

And there's uh I will note there's been uh death and several injuries there.

And I was quite um interested to see by lowering at 10 kilometers what the survivability rate is uh for for folks that are struck.

It's quite significant uh below 50.

I think believe it's 20 kilometers an hour when it's significant, but that said it it only makes sense that the lower you speed you go, the higher the survivability rate.

Yeah, if If I could make a recommendation um because um as part of this transportation master plan project, we expect we're going to hear a lot more from the community and opportunities from council to reduce speed limits.

So in the spirit of not getting not letting perfect get in the way of good, it'd be a recommendation to at least get three readings for this case so that we can utilize the budget this year for installation of signs to put that in now because by delaying it then we'd have to go into the next year, which we don't have we don't currently have a budget for signing.

I'd I'd make that deal, Ivan, as long as we included the eagle the stretch by Eagle View Elementary School.

I don't think my conscience would survive uh the fact that if we didn't do this now that we couldn't do it.

Even if the signage waits till later, if we at least with the bylaw can pull that uh stretch from where would you call it, Ivan, for just the Burnside Road West area that's on that segment of the map that's blue.

So is that what Councilor Levins uh requests that be uh Burnside Road west from Waukas to essentially the Sanich border?

Yes.

Um yeah uh staff can certainly put that in that will result in us shifting our program to next year which we don't have a budget to install signs.

Can we not have the bylaw amended and then uh and then amend the signage?

Uh yes, we can um based on the schedule, we'd uh we have to make the amendment and then and then at the next council do three readings and then adoption would be in January.

Can we not amend this on the fly right now?

I would suggest you give first reading to the bylaw and then you amend the bylaw, and then we can give it second reading as amended.

And then give it third reading at the next and and third reading, sorry.

So give it first reading, we're going to amend it, and then third reading.

Okay.

Second and third.

So we'll uh Elna correct me for procedure, but we'll read in the original motion, then amend it, uh, and then give that amended motion first second uh reading.

Okay, I'll move first of the Pardon me.

Well, I've already moved uh hang on, Councilor Rogers.

Hang on.

Go ahead, Elna.

We'll give it first reading, then we're going to amend the bylaw, and then we'll give it second and third reading.

There's a motion on the floor.

Yeah.

Okay.

Say that again in the microphone.

My understanding is John's motion was simply staff's motion for the item or on now, not first, second, and third yet.

So we can pass John's motion anyway, and then is that correct, Ellena?

So if I may suggest that um the staff recommendation that's in the report, that we can just say um that that be that upon adoption of streets bylaw and continue on with that second part, that would be the motion we could pass.

Then once we get to the bylaw, we can give it first reading, amend it, and then give it second and third reading.

Did you follow all that, Councilor Rogers?

Like uh make you happy for now?

Yeah, that's that's just uh vote on the motion.

Okay.

Uh so uh so uh the staff recommendation that's what we're adopting, uh street bylaw number nine uh eight zero uh twenty nineteen, amendment number one one five nine twenty twenty-five be given for second and third reading, but that on the adoption uh of amendment 1159 2025 that the administration of existing traffic calming policy be deferred to um uh until an update uh to the policy is approved by council.

So we got a mover and a seconder for that.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, now comes the amendment.

Or so we're gonna now we move uh the bylaw to amend the streets bylaw number nine eight zero twenty nineteen twenty twenty-five update.

Do I have a mover and seconder for that?

I'm moved by councilor yeah.

So first reading, just a first reading.

So I'll move first.

Move first.

Councilor Brown moved.

Uh Councilor Matson seconded.

All those in favor.

And now what we're going to do is amend first reading.

To include that side.

To include uh to include Westburn's side in the area by Eagle View School.

Um, and we need a mover and a seconder for that.

Moved by Councillor Matson, seconded by Councilor Lemon.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, that motion carries.

And now can we do yeah, uh second and third reading for the bylaw as amended?

Moved by counselor Rogers.

No, nope.

I want to make a further amendment.

No.

Well, we're we haven't voted on second yet.

So we've we've made you made the first motion and and then I'd like to make a second motion on on uh to amendment.

We've got it amended now, so we're amending them amended motion.

Go ahead, uh counselor Rogers, if you have a second.

Thank you.

Yes, um, I would like to include Atkins Road, that uh portion um west of uh six mile to the uh CRD parking lot is very narrow.

And we do have a a woman um on uh um a motorized scooter that goes along that road.

Um she lives nearby there, and um there's no sidewalks, it's very dangerous.

She's trapped between the ENN and the Gallican Goose.

So it's warranted um to have uh the lower 40 there.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Do you have a second or councilor Brown seconds?

Um motivation.

I think you just included that in your discussion, Councilor Rogers.

Counselor Brown, do you have motivation?

Yeah, I'm just a little confused on the map because I lived in Atkins Road since two thousand and five.

And as far as I can recall, it's always been thirty all the way up.

And even when you get into Langford at Savory School, it's thirty K.

So I don't know, hit this blue section shows fifty K.

No wonder my wife says I drive too slow.

But no, I think it does not posted and it's a default.

My air to bias, the blue section is east of the roundabout.

So not towards Langford.

Thank you.

So we've got a move or a second to uh amend the amended motion to include Atkins between six mile and Biden Road.

Uh uh we've had motivation.

All those in favor of including that in the amendment.

All those in favor.

All those opposed to including that in the amendment.

Anybody opposed to it?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Um so now yeah.

Second and third.

And uh so amended amended.

You're moving second to the third for the amended amended motion.

Yeah, second seconding.

Anyone lost yet?

Uh councillor Brown, you seconding?

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Thanks for keeping your eye on the ball.

Uh that motion passes unanimously.

Uh so that's second and third reading for the amended amended motion.

Ivan, any questions?

No questions.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Uh official community plan amendment by law 1156.

I think that's over for Leanne or somebody.

Good evening, Mayor.

Mayor Tobias.

Could be better.

Can everyone hear me in the gallery?

We can, Leanne.

How are you doing?

I'm okay.

Um, Carl, can you please show the presentation?

Thank you.

So this presentation is on the official community plan amendment bylaw number 1156 uh 2025.

Next slide.

On November 4th, 2025, Council passed a motion to refer the official community plan amendment bylaw back to staff to address the following concerns related to certain parcels being added to a new small-scale multi-unit housing and land use designation that are currently not zoned for small-scale multi-unit housing in the zoning bylaw, and where small-scale multi-unit housing is not permitted in accordance with the zoning bylaw, the current land use designations remain as residential or large lot residential in the official community plan.

Next slide, please.

So on this slide, you'll see the previous map that was attached to the bylaw on November 4th and with some circles that show I will identify the properties that have been updated in accordance with council's motion.

Earlier today, um we it we were um uh notified um that um through this work, there's just there are a couple of properties um that we we did miss.

Well I wouldn't say miss, but um we just need to to do a further update, which I will uh well I can discuss that right now.

So they're currently on the amended map um there's a property at uh 278 Plowright um which has a lot area that's greater than 4,050 square meters which is actually exempt from the small scale multi-unit housing.

On the updated map it shows that it's in the small scale multi-unit housing land use designation, but uh it should be in the large residential land use designation.

So we'll make that change um you know, provided uh council gives uh second reading to the bylaw this evening.

Um the other the other property that's brought to our attention was 2220 Tilco Road, um which is actually currently zoned park, but um, and it's owned by the um Town of View Royal, uh, but it's um and it's currently in the residential land use designation in the 2011 OCP.

My recommendation is not to make a change on the fly for the um for that particular parcel, and council may wish to consider that when we bring forward the updated OCP um next year if council wants to make a change um to that particular the land use designation to that for that particular property because in the 2011 OCP is currently designated residential and but it is zone for park.

But if um but it's something that we can look at in as part of the the the fulsom review.

It is technically a small parcel, but it is designated community facility in our OCP.

This 80 Atkins Road, it's the parcel adjacent to the roundabout on the six mile, and it's currently in the community facility uh land use designation.

Again, this is one that I think um uh should just remain as is um not um and uh council can consider it um when we bring forward the new draft in um twin in next spring if there is a desire to to change that um to a different land use designation um and then lastly there is a uh parcels on this these two slivers on the corner of helmkin road and um vicory and um they are not zoned for uh for for small you can't even build on them actually they're too small um the um but they're they're adjacent to a parcel that is um zoned for SMA and um it is also being you know within the small scale multi unit multi-unit housing land use designation and staff recommends that we keep these two slivers um at the corner um within the small scale multi-unit housing um they're currently designated residential in the OCP but um if you have a look at them you can't develop them on their on their own they'd have to consolidate with the larger parcel so staff does not recommend making changes there is a there is a reason for that uh next slide so the uh recommendation um before council this evening it's um it's three parts actually so the first part is that council rescind second reading of the official community plan bylaw number 811, um amendment bylaw number 1156.

That is a mouthful.

And then further that council give a new second reading um to the official community planned amendment bylaw.

Um that basically and I'm going to read out the the full motion.

I do understand that you have a copy of that on in your notes.

Um so to amend the bylaw to address the following changes.

Retain the residential and large lot residential land use designations for all parcels not currently zoned for small scale multi-unit housing in the zoning bylaw.

Amend the land use designations from residential large lot residential to the new SMA land use.

Sorry, this is um pardon me.

Amend the uh land use designations from residential and large lot residential to the new SMA land use designation for those parcels with the SMA zoning and update the existing land use designation uh table and map in the OCP to reflect uh the proposed changes.

Um I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thanks, Leanne.

Uh Jerry, go ahead.

Leanne, um one of the um areas that came up in the meeting at at the um public hearing portion of the meeting last week um was Lund Road, the concerns from the residents of Londro Lund Road, Lund Road Londro that there are the uh end of the road or the area nearest the TCH is is um projected to be mixed residential.

I see that's not changed or am I seeing it wrong um uh Carl can you please flip back to the slide that shows the two maps thank you um uh through through the mayor the um Lund parcels have um have gone back to their residential land use designation which is the current land use designation in the OCP yeah that orange color is the is the is the existing residential land use designation so there there's no so there's no changes so there's no changes from the updated map exist exit from the existing OCP or there's no changes from the updated OCP no no changes from the exist um the existing OCP so on the previous map that was shown on uh on November 4th shows those parcels as um it's actually the large circle on the left side of the map um by Chilco there and uh it's um those parcels are are yellow in the previous map which is the small scale multi unit housing and land use designation and then if you flip to the updated map um um and look at that big circle you can see that they've gone back to orange which is the existing residential line use designation.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Counselor brown uh questions the first staff recommendation.

Okay, and that is uh that second reading of the official community plan bylaw uh be rescinded.

So first we're rescinding.

You're good with that?

So um Councilor Brown and Councillor Mattson seconded.

Uh your worship, I'm yeah, I had a question.

I didn't get my hand up in time.

Go ahead, Councilor Roger.

Yes, thank you.

Um staff, thank you very much.

Uh the um uh I'm just wanting to double check on Biden Bryden Road.

There's three properties that's right adjacent to um uh the park.

Um, those uh it they're brown right now, so they are do they remain uh in uh that brown?

I don't know what it is, what that brown is.

Uh that's correct, mixed residential.

Okay, great.

And um so uh it's just a procedural question either the mayor or or uh staff we're gonna move second if anybody sees any changes that um we may have missed or whatever what happens can we make any more changes once we made second um uh before can we make the changes before the public hearing or what do we do uh with the public hearing that's a good question what if we have input in the public hearing that may require an am an amendment and I'll put that to Elna, Leanne or Scott.

Um I'm happy to dump in Elizabethan I would like to.

Um once the public hearing has um concluded, should there be more amendments?

We'd have to follow this same process where we go back and represent again.

Yeah so if there's anything that that's really significant, Counselor Rogers, we can always uh check it in reverse.

Well I thank you and and I guess my question was up until the public hearing um could uh are are we able to make any of those changes from from public uh input we haven't had the public hearing but maybe uh one of us sees something and and staff agree it's it's worthy of an an amendment.

Yeah, I think uh where we're we would be into a a cycle where we'd never get it passed, Councilor Rogers.

If it was something large then then uh or significant, then council would have to weigh in on it at that point.

Um uh with with full information from uh planning, but I think we would just be delaying things because we'd have to go that through that procedure and wait for the next meeting to then put it into final.

Um thank you.

Um I'm just uh and I'm happy to to move what we got, but I'm just wondering about that procedural aspect just in case.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Um, hopefully that answered your question.

So we got a mover and a seconder for the rescind bylaw.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

That motion carries.

I'll move second.

The next motion uh is uh is the that the official community plan amended bylaw be amended as follows, and that is retain all residential large lot designations, amend the land use designation from residential and large lot residential to the new SMA, and update the existing land designation table and map in the OCP to reflect the proposed changes.

So we need that motion moved.

Moved by Councilor Mattson, seconded by Councilor Brown.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, and then we need to bring that to second.

Let the official community plan amendment bylaw 1156 2025 be given a second reading as amended.

Moved by Councilor Lemon, seconded by Councilor Mattson.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

And then finally, that a public hearing for official community plan bylaw 811 2011.

Amendment bylaw 1156 be scheduled for the 2nd of December 2025.

So moved.

Moved by Councilor Mattson, seconded by Councilor Lemon.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, that motion carries.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you, Leanne, for the amendment.

And I think that brings us down to amendments to zoning bylaw and development procedures bylaw.

Yeah.

Did I cover everything, Elna?

All right.

Uh Carl, can you please put show my pen?

Oh, can you go back to the first slide?

Great.

Thank you, Carl.

Yeah, so this presentation is on um amendments to zoning bylaw and the development procedures bylaw um for um regarding landscape security and application procedures.

Uh next slide.

Um so uh recently um staff came um uh well, became aware of, I would say, kind of a problematic zoning provision related to landscape security deposits and our zoning bylaw.

And excuse me.

And I'll just give a bit of background first on what landscape security deposits are and then I'll sort of get into the more finer details.

So the town currently collects, pardon me, I just need to grab a glass of water.

Thank you.

The town collects 120% refundable security of a landscape cost estimate for on-site landscaping pertaining to development permits prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The town's fees and charges bylaw requires that the full security deposit is held for a minimum of three-year maintenance period.

And so what this means that for the larger projects, where you know we can get landscape security deposits in the form of cash or a letter of credit up to that $500,000.

And what our current bylaw requires is that we hold on to this amount for a minimum of three-year maintenance period.

While this town is occurring interest on it, which we have to pay the developer, this requirement is actually inconsistent with other town bylaws and current practices in the capital region.

And not only that, the current requirements for land use security deposits are embedded in our zoning bylaw, which is technically a development procedures requirement.

Next slide, please.

situations where we have applications that um you know council staff or council provide comments to but the applicant doesn't get back um to us in some cases like for over a year um sometimes longer and staff is constantly you know reaching out um you know asking okay have you you know when do we when will we expect a resubmission are you hoping are you want are is the applicant wanting to continue with the application so there's just a lot of a lot of staff time spent on um applications that become stalled or just sit there um and then the other thing too is that uh we have um we need to enhance our our procedures on reapplication uh we do in our current development procedures by law we do have um procedures for reapplication, but um staff feel like they're there it just requires it a bit more um clarity on that so um staff is also proposing uh some changes um to cancellation of applications and reapplication, given that we may be opening up the development procedures bylaw to address landscape security deposits.

Next slide, please.

So the proposed changes for the landscape security deposits are as follows.

So remove the landscape security requirements in the zoning bylaw and insert into the development procedures bylaw.

This is really the correct location for this type of provision.

It is a procedure.

Allow for the security deposit for landscaping and screening to be reduced proportionately as the areas of the site are completed and accepted by the director.

So what that means is for some of the larger projects and phased projects, as the landscaping is completed, the town can release the landscape security deposit that is attributed to that particular work.

Upon completion of the landscape construction, planting and screening, the town it is recommended that the town withhold 10% of the security for one year to ensure plantings become established and remain healthy.

And this is consistent with the town's subdivision and development servicing bylaw for off site landscaping.

And in many municipalities, there's no specific maintenance period.

Some bylaws I've noticed that there's mention of it, but there's no percentage at the discretion of the director.

However, for consistency with our subdivision and development servicing bylaw, staff is recommending 10% for one year, which is sufficient time to ensure that the landscaping has been established.

And then if there are any concerns with the landscaping, for example, the applicant doesn't undertake the work within one year of an occupancy permit, the site is left in an unsafe condition or damaged to the natural environment.

We include a provision in the development procedures bylaw that would allow the town staff to draw upon the landscape security.

We currently do, well, we I should say we we use have that I guess procedure that is common practice.

However, it's not particularly clear in the development procedures bylaws.

So that is a piece where we just want to add some clarity.

Next slide.

You know, stalled and not really going anywhere and just sitting there and for you know a year, two years, and we don't have any procedures to actually cancel the application.

So staff is recommending that if there is no action on an application within six months from the date that staff or council request information, staff sends final written notifications stating that the application will be closed if the requested information is not provided within three months.

This is sufficient amount of time for the applicant to get what we you know we would need with these deadlines, especially with you know with their consultants who may need to be making updates to their plans.

Um if an application is to buy declined by council resolution, the file will be closed.

Uh, this is actually not um currently in our development preceders by law, but that is in fact the case, and it just adds again some clarity.

And then um reapplication and new application feeds would be required for the above two scenarios.

So if an application is cancelled and someone would like to make a reapply, there would be a new application and new fees because as you know, it takes a lot of staff time and resources to process these applications.

And again, if council um declines the application by resolution, it's the same thing.

Um, it would be a new application and new new fees.

Next slide.

So the recommendation before you this evening is to amend the zoning bylaw and development procedures bylaw to address the proposed changes.

And that council consider giving for a second and third reading of the zoning bylaw, um, the zoning amendment bylaw, as well as the development procedures amendment bylaw.

Thank you.

Thank you, Leanne.

Yeah.

Uh any questions for Leanne?

Council Matson?

Um so based on what you said, we currently have, say, for example, uh somebody could provide us uh $500,000 to the town to ensure that the landscaping is done and we would keep that for three years.

Um so at the end of three years, you'd have to give back the the $500,000 in interest.

But what I the change would be after a year, we would give all the money back except for 10%, which is five hundred dollars or five thousand dollars and so is that enough protection is that gonna protect the town I'm I'm a little iffy on that is in terms of being able to ensure that we get the development or get the landscaping that we had approved.

Leanne did you hear all that I did I did yes thank you Mayor Tobias um and thank you Counselor Matson for your question.

So it actually we would retain for 500,000 would be $5000.

I think it's important for council to n to know is that um when staff we staff goes out and um conducts landscape inspections and um we identify any deficiencies or any um any issues um that um are not consistent with the development permit and uh you know council I don't um has recently considered an application where staff went out and uh noticed inconsistencies with the DP and the application had to come back for variances.

So staff are very diligent to make sure that um these applications these the the planting and the screening um and the construction is is uh consistent with the plans.

Um we um would not uh the new the new um the the the recommended um provision would be that the that the landscaping is completed within a year of occupancy and then um and then but in some cases uh and which is which is um you know pretty quite reasonable as well and um and then once it's the landscaping is completed staff they would notify us we go out and do an inspection and anything any and we would not release any landscape security deposit until those is those deficiencies are are dealt with um that where that landscape security deposit is held for um and then um if um everything looks good then we would hold back 10% so it would be fifty thousand dollars in case um you know a tree dies or um they take out some some plantings or something i something like that um but usually it's it usually we know we've um I've been notified from by um my team is that we've actually never tapped into the maintenance um um deposit in the past uh and we've always released we have yeah there hasn't really been any issues uh but uh we still feel that it would be uh prudent for us to keep uh 10% we don't we don't give any money back until it's completed.

Absolutely and yeah and the money we hold is just to ensure that it's things haven't died at the end of the year.

So got it thank you.

Any other questions?

Councilor Rogers.

Yeah um I I remember why we um um had made it three years because um we wanted to make sure that those trees um were actually going to survive um, you know, the summer, the winter, the droughts.

And um we we uh you can look on I think it's Choco Roads uh phase seven where um the road has a nice display of dead trees, all of our trees dead.

And it's because they were lack of they simply weren't watered and maintained.

Um so um the motivation and the rationale of the previous council to say three years, because it took that long to make sure that the mature trees were were going to survive.

A good example is in V Royal Park, the trees that we planted in the middle.

Yeah, after three years, we failed.

They died.

You know, a few of them died.

So it takes that long sometimes, um, and it may be again with the extreme stresses of drought, that um uh unless staff are going to monitor um that one year may and I would actually amend it to say that um trees over a certain size be two years.

They should be the requirement for two years.

And then I think we could have confidence that um because trees are usually the most expensive portion that um to replace then why the uh the warranty.

So that's point number one.

Point number two is that um my concern is that when council uh votes down a um a development proposal, that's it.

The end, the matter's closed, the file's closed, and now that the um and it may be for for some small reasons, but I'll give you an example.

The 20 townhouses on uh Eltham were defeated.

Eltham.

And so technically the file was closed.

Now, fortunately the mayor brought it back.

But you know, the um uh sometimes things get closed, the matters get closed, and they might be height, it might be setbacks, and it might, but I think that's an unreasonable burden to say that um the developer has to uh set back to ground zero and uh put out thousands of dollars for um to redo the process.

Not thousands of dollars, but it's also um months, six months to start back and go back to the end of the line.

So I'm really concerned about that um recommendation.

I wonder if stats can make comments.

Um through through the mayor through the mayor, um yeah so just with with respect to um trees uh within the boulevard those are those are tied to tree permits not on-site landscape security deposits um and secondly the um with respect to um applications i mean if council we can always i yeah I mean um if council closes like the thing is is that if council declines an application it's it's closed like the application it's it's it's done um it is a reapplication and and there is new there are new fees it's it's um and a new application um with respect to app um with respect to um counsel like count the cancellation applications the staff would work with you know work with the applicant um the the um and you know if if the applicant gets back to us within three months and says oh you know what like we are working towards this but we just you know need a bit more more time and um and they respond to our comments and that's in that sense then we would keep it open like staff will be reasonable with um with those types of applications i mean we have a couple applications here that sit for two for two years and not doing not doing anything and it's we're reaching out and we don't hear back so um it's just it's it's um it's it's you know it's it takes time and resources for staff to be doing that so adds a little bit of clarity in terms of the process uh if i may your worship the the boulevard trees is an interesting point um aren't those when when a developer creates a development and he's including the boulevard trees you know so where does the um the warranty got a question so so hold on there and ask your question council rogers let's give leanne uh an opportunity to respond so your question was about the boulevard trees and and i think the question is are those town trees um who's responsible to maintain them is that your question, Councilor Roger?

My question is that the developer created the development.

There were no trees, there are no boulevard trees, but part of their requirements was the uh the landscaping, the grass, and all that kind of stuff, the sidewalks, including the boulevard trees.

And uh we're only going to give those boulevard trees uh, you know, one year.

That that hardly seems consistent with our tree canopy, urban forestry guaranteeing protection.

Okay, so hold on.

You asked your question.

Let's get you an answer.

So is that the responsibility, Ivan, of the town or uh to maintain the trees that are planted on the boulevard, or is it the developer?

Uh Mary Tobias, it depends, but generally speaking, uh boulevard trees that are kind of like in those separated sidewalks, so between a sidewalk and roadway, those are 100% um ownership by the town.

And if you're behind the sidewalk on private property, because we don't want to um burden taxpayers of additional taxation.

So quite oftentimes those trees will enact to have the developer or the property owner uh maintain those trees.

All of this is in accordance with our subdivision development servicing bylaw, which states uh one-year warranty period.

Thank you, Ivan.

Uh uh Council Rogers, did you get all that?

So the stuff on the boulevard directly between the sidewalk and the road is the town's responsibility and not that of the applicant.

Fine.

And what about the trees that are required to be planted on the properties on the uh you know the the individual houses?

The developer plants those trees.

Of course, those are the applicants, yeah.

That that would be the applicants, yeah.

So, but still the the applicant's uh responsibility, but we're only giving one year guarantee that those trees are going to be and you know it takes a lot of work to keep those trees going look at the town having to put you know drought protection whatever no i i think one year is far too short thank you councilor rogers uh ivan uh yeah mayor to bias um you know a great observation there and uh just for council's benefit um the reason why the the tree maintenance period is not higher is because um the town doesn't have the staffing capacity to assess trees longer than one year.

Give an example if we plant a hundred trees a year, then by year three, we have to still assess 300 trees.

Where if it's with the existing bylaw where it's one year period, if you plot 100 trees a year, you're only inspecting 100 trees.

So it's three times the effort to do a three-year period.

Thank you.

Um the only comment I'm gonna make, folks, is that could we come up with something separate if that isn't linked to the applicant's uh thing?

If you if that tree was planted by covenant or whatever and it needs to be there, can we not go back to them, you know, over a period of time?

We're also approaching a drought level.

We're hearing some fo some from some folks it's difficult to grow a type of tree there that's of size.

Uh where I'm going with this is that I I I want the trees to grow and be there as much as possible as part of our plan.

But 120% of a deposit that could be up to $500,000, where we've had an entire condo building go bankrupt, that's excessive.

Right?

You know, there needs to be some balance there that is in line with uh other municipalities and amount of reasonableness.

I mean, I think we could look at something extra per tree vice withholding a great sum of money from somebody who's developing something, you know, and it could go by a tree.

But I mean, with that amount of money being in reserve, um, it's not fallen under trees lately, this money to develop stuff.

Um, and uh, and yeah, we got to be cognizant of this isn't just um uh this is something that council approved, including the landscaping.

The place looks great now, but it it went into a court-ordered sale because it ran out of cash.

Um so by holding 500,000, the the town sees no benefit to that.

As a matter of fact, it's probably a a deficit in in trying to pay it back and whatnot.

We're not receiving anything from the interest.

It is a security deposit, but um it's just not seeming to match with the planting or the landscape, if it's not consistent with other municipalities as well.

Uh I've thank you, Mary Tobias.

Just quickly, um, council recall that uh they provide direction to staff as part of their urban forestry, urban forest strategy project for staff to come forward to council with a memo to find solutions to protect mature trees and protect trees and to preserve trees within developments.

So just hearing from what um council speaking and deliberating today more information on that will be brought forth fairly soon.

Further questions or comments uh councilor Matson.

Yeah, in terms of a comment.

So I have no problem with the re reduction to 10% and and the one year.

But uh, you know, John has a good point in terms of if if we required larger trees to go on a property, then we should probably have longer than just one year.

And so I don't know if it needs to be included in this bylaw or staff can come up with something else specifically to do with you know trees of a certain caliber need need a longer time that there's funds there to replace them if necessary.

Yeah, no, I agree.

So maybe that's my question to staff is can we pass this now and then do something that would be part of the urban forest strategy and and uh and and whatnot uh separate from this, right?

That's your question, Ivan.

I think Liam was uh has something to say okay lian thanks thanks ivan um yeah we can definitely look into that for sure um specifically related to trees because uh the 10 that we would hold on is not just trees it's all landscaping and screening so like that would include fences it would include like um shrubs and um like small plantings small and large plantings trees so it's it's it's everything so council is concerned about the longevity of trees specifically, then um it's better that we have a sort of a separate conversation on that, as um Ivan uh mentioned.

And um perhaps we may update our development service uh procedures by law in the future, but um it's a bit challenging for I think for staff to make a change like that on the fly with without uh more information, especially information than that Director Lung would be bringing forward.

Thank you, uh Leanne.

Councilor Rogers, would it be acceptable for you?

And I think we're all concerned, everybody uh in council is that retention of uh of trees, particularly larger trees.

Um knowing that it's a difficult situation, would you be happy that that be included in the urban forest strategy and not be part uh necessarily of this, that this remain as stands?

No.

Um, you know, we've uh uh this this is where the um the rubber actually hits a road in terms of enforcement with the um with the developers and and uh security deposits on landscaping I fully appreciate and it's a really valid point that holding back a full amount for the one you know sequoia is is obviously uh uh not appropriate however um I think the um uh it's an easy adjustment to make in the uh the the text that we have here uh that um you know within one year with the exception that trees are two years it's really a simple amendment and we've taken care of it right now um the um and and that can also be enshrined in the urban forest uh uh report that comes along.

But I think it's you're so I'm just uh stop you there.

You you're recommending an amendment.

Yep let's not add more words and confuse things.

Let's just you're you want to amend um uh all but trees, and trees would be two years.

Right.

Do you want to submit that as an amendment?

I would.

Okay.

Do you have a seconder?

Councilor Brown seconds yours.

Now uh it's your turn to motivate Councillor Rogers.

Yeah.

I I think it's going to be consistent with the urban forest um um report that we're gonna get.

Uh that clearly uh states that we've got to work hard and and even preserving 30% of our tree canopy.

And I think that's one of the uh the weakest points and developments.

Uh we've certainly seen Chioko get completely blasted to a moonscape, and then now we're trying to replant the trees on individual properties, which is incredibly challenging.

And these were obligations of the uh applicant.

So um by making it consistent and making everyone aware that um trees, tree canopy is important, it's embedded in this.

We got we're giving at least two years to make sure that they can get um you know through uh a couple of years of drought, which we're famous for now.

Okay.

Uh yeah, I I'm I'm happy with that.

The only thing I I will make the comment of is that it could be you know, four years.

We could be getting a big drought and something goes.

There's a point where you know we do our best, um, but the the there's a bit of a challenge there.

But Councilor Brown, you seconded it, you need to motivate as well.

Yeah, the uh I see a lot of dead trees, and I hate to pick on Chilco, but that's that's a really good example of dead trees on the boulevards.

And so I agree.

It's uh I know the town gives uh trees out as well.

People apply for the trees and send photos in of the tree.

And uh yeah, yeah.

Uh we need more trees.

That's as simple as that.

And uh the the longer the better.

Um go ahead, Councillor McKenzie, and then Councillor Matson.

Oh no, it wasn't me, it was Leanne.

Okay, uh Councilor Matson, go ahead.

Yeah, they uh if we're sorry.

Every we always have to plant a tree on the property, right?

And all properties.

So what we're basically doing is it's not having it one year, we're having it two years.

So we keep the ten percent for two years.

So forget about John's motion and just increase it from one year to two years because that was an amendment.

Well, I mean, John's amendment, rather than do that, just increase it from one year to two year because there's always a tree on the property.

So that's what we're doing.

I think.

Yeah, but then it's just confusing because you start bringing trees in it.

Rather just just make it to two years, we keep the money, the ten percent for two years.

If uh your worship, if uh if we can ask staff if that uh does the same thing.

I see uh where Councilor Matson is going.

Um then um it may be simpler in the wording so I'll let you speak to that thank you mayor toias um I think um I just one thing I just want to note um and just a point of clarification is that the law on state landscape security deposit cannot be used for boulevard trees it would only be for on-site under the local government act so we can't understood yeah um and yeah so I just wanted to make note of that um so would there be any problem of uh of amending this from one year to two years as opposed to specifying trees uh through the mayor, no, there's no problem.

It's it's up you know up to council what council feels comfortable with um uh you know um council just have to be aware that we will be accruing interest that we'll have to pay back to the developer on over a two year period, especially for large sums of money, like $50,000.

Understood.

So we got a mover and uh seconder.

Is there a friendly amendment there to uh move instead of trees?

Then we're gonna just just say two years, uh uh as opposed to specifying trees, counselor Rogers and Counselor Brown.

Councilor Rogers?

Yes, agreed.

That's that's reasonable.

So the amendment on the table is that we would uh accept uh staff's recommendation with the amendment that the uh period be not one year but two years.

All those in favor, all those opposed motion carries.

Um that was uh a bylaw to amend the zoning bylaw by deleting zoning regulations pertaining to landscape security as amended.

So can someone move first to third, please?

So moved, moved by councillor brown, seconded by counselor rogers.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

None opposed that carries.

And then uh somebody to move uh first to third for um uh bylaw to amend development procedures, bylaw to establish new procedures respecting uh landscape security, cancellation of applications and reapplication.

Moved by councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor.

None opposed.

Uh motion carries unanimously.

I think I'm down to a mayor's report.

Um I'll try to be brief.

Um I had the pleasure of being the judge at View Royal's Got Talent on Saturday night.

Um I was amazed by the talent that was there.

Didn't know we had that much talent in View Royal.

Um, and uh uh it was sold out.

Um so I had talked to the organizer who is probably the closest thing I've seen to magical being able to coordinate all of that on the fly in a small space with 12 acts, organize judges, do all of that.

So I had suggested she come before us with a grant and aid to host next year's View Royal's Gut Talent, potentially at another venue like the Scottish Community Center, give them more room in order to do that because uh it it was going on after after everything set up.

So I I thought it was an exceptional uh showing of View Royal's talent in the arts and creativity.

And if there's some place I I think our our money is best spent and invested uh it's probably in in in things like that so uh um there will be a couple of announcements coming out i just wanted to give a hint of over the next little while um that i will uh probably because it will be between meetings have to do that one by um email to you and and the public um uh mention that we do have a new um superintendent and he will be introduced at a coming meeting uh for the RCMP.

Um and yeah, so that's all I've got for a mayor's report, staff reports.

I think we can kick over to temporary use permit application for one bait road.

Uh we can do that.

We can absolutely do that.

Uh is that what you want to tell us?

Okay.

Uh so the uh the staff recommendation moved by councillor Mattson, seconded by Councilor Lemmon.

Uh is there any questions on this, or do you want to just go right to approval?

Uh Councilor Rogers, Councillor McKenzie, do you have any questions?

No.

Okay, seeing no questions, all those in favor?

Any opposed?

There you go.

Uh draft flag protocol.

Is this Elna, is this you?

Okay.

The only thing I would add for an amendment here, I like this uh a lot, and thank you, Elna, for putting it together.

The only suggestion I have is that we add that uh this be synchronized with uh our public safety building, right?

So that it doesn't have to be exactly consistent, but if we've got our flags at half mast, then we should be sharing the same information.

I will say that there may be instances where um the public safety building might go to half-mast that might not be appropriate for uh for uh the the the town hall.

So I don't want to get into the policy of when to raise flags and when to not.

They are uh exceptional.

My only real intervention is being able to say, hey, did you get that?

When are we at half mass?

But uh staff is doing an incredible job at at maintaining that.

Um but we didn't have policy for it.

Now we do have policy for it.

Um so would uh uh can I get a seconder for the movement that I don't want to say it's it has to be consistent, just synchronized.

Uh uh moved in by myself, seconded by counselor Matson, that uh uh the staff uh flag protocol policy be approved uh as amended in the simple amendment is synchronization with the public safety building.

Sure you can, Council.

Can I ask a question?

Um so I wasn't sure whether this also would pertain to um things like uh let's say uh pride and things like that.

Um I know my husband often deals with the flags uh and uh celebrating different um kind of holidays and things like that.

Um so would that be covered by this as well?

I think it could be in the future to uh be amended.

We can add anything we want.

It's not there now, I don't believe, Elna.

So the draft policy speaks to um we we can raise a flag, however, um whether that be a community flag or a sovereign flag.

However, that will be by council resolution and will it will also include a um end date when the flag will be lowered and taken down.

Okay, so there wouldn't be like um a standing like for this month, we would put up you we would have to raise a motion each time and say this flag is gonna go up and it's gonna come down.

Or or we could put that in by by motion that could be done every year, Councilor McKenzie, uh, until another council overrode it.

We could do something like that.

I will just warn folks that uh in order to put another flag up, we know that need another flag pull.

Uh or either that or we're taking something down.

Um, so it there there may be a cost incurred uh in here as well.

Um so yeah, just to put that.

So no, it doesn't go into detail, Council McKenzie.

That would be left uh for subsequent uh amendments to it.

Okay, all right.

Then I'll uh maybe in the future I'll I'll raise an amendment, but right now I'm okay with this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor McKenzie.

Any other comments, questions?

So we're just uh moving this as amended.

We got a first and a seconder.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

So we've got a consent agenda, uh, and we had uh two items moved out.

One was uh C and the other one was four.

Uh uh that's they're all on the consent agenda.

So we're either moving it as a block.

Uh so it's uh 9A or sorry 10A to uh to four, but not including four because we're pulling that out.

So the two that are being pulled out right now are C, which is now 11A, and four, which is 11B.

Uh so can we can I have a mover for A B D E F 2?

Move by Councillor Lemon, seconded by Counselor Matson.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed that carries.

Did we do 9A?

Did I miss that?

Yeah, that was part of it.

That was minutes of the public hearing.

That was part of the consent agenda.

So I've got it as correspondence wise.

It's correspondence 9A.

Yeah.

About arts funding.

Well, there's some there's some correspondence in there, but under 10.

Like right now there's none for correspondence, but on because that got okay if you look if you look on oh oh sorry on the blue.

No sorry I have don't have that on my hard copy.

Uh but I do have it online probably.

No, I don't have it online either.

I do.

Well I move it proceed anyway.

Sure.

Second.

So that that's what we do on the consent agenda.

So I'm not sure why.

Okay, so what you're saying is.

Anyways, I have it on this agenda.

Listed.

Okay, so.

So that is uh so for the consent agenda, and that is including by different numbers.

Uh the one on the blue sheet, which is 10 G and H.

That's where the challenge is.

It goes stops at F.

Okay.

So did you want to pull any of those out?

Because we're going to be discussing the art service at uh 11B.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um well they can discuss it at 11b then.

Um so 11A, I think this was you, Councilor Rogers.

Do you want to speak to it?

That's a letter from Councillor Ramsey, UBCM president regarding provincial response to 2024 resolutions.

Yes, indeed.

Um these are the resolutions that we all had uh had put in.

One with respect to um uh recommending that their um hospitals assume responsibility, a special counsel uh constable status uh to relieve um the police officers um in um in under the Mental Health Act.

And um it's interesting to note that uh there's no legal requirement, excuse me, as such, but uh they make mention of a toolkit that's available from the ministry of health so sorry um i asked that uh staff get the toolkit so we can have a look at it um my uh sorry it's just a second can't hear you, John.

Councilor Roger, you're muted.

Sorry.

Um it's with respect to glue traps, so I'm I'm hoping that um we can collaborate with the um uh in the uh and the grant to uh test this uh the uh traps the electronic traps and the snap traps to address the uh the rodent uh in rodent problem that we have in View Oil.

So um I'm hoping that um that's just a comment that we could uh coordinate and get some grant funding from the province.

That's it.

My voice is gone.

Yeah.

I would just like to again thank the province for nothing.

You're very kind.

I was going to be a little bit more assertive than that, but thank you, uh uh, Councilor Lemon.

Yeah, there was a time when I remember um that uh staff would be up all night writing staff reports for the mayors and the delegates at UBCM that would be uh hammering them with questions the next day, but um uh that that seems to have changed.

So really nothing that View Royal had put forth was uh approved or supported, uh unsurprisingly.

Okay, um Councilor Rogers, thank you for singling that one out and highlighting it for everybody how disappointed we all are.

Um I'm not sure the kind of a downer.

Um uh counselor um Lemon, you wanted to pull the arts funding uh tier change.

I do, and uh thank you.

The um this item appearing on the agenda last week, kind of for me as as the you know the carrier of that file, kind of came out of the blue.

And I think it's deserving of more consideration and discussion than it was given.

So I am asking um that we table this and invite uh the Mr.

Gilpin, the um manager of CRD Arts Service, and whomever would be leading the um the performing arts facilities service to come and speak to us before we make a final decision thank you um any other comments or questions oh uh counselor McKenzie I'll let you go first and then Councilor Rogers.

Uh just uh a comment um I'm not sure that it came out of the blue we have discussed this um at least a couple times before when counselor Rogers raised it in the past um and it's always been a thorough conversation um then so I just wanted to to stay say that thank you.

Councilor Rogers.

Thanks, Councillor McKenzie.

Yes, um uh when I made a notice of motion, we did have uh an extraordinary uh turnout of um and letters from uh the arts community.

Yes, we did have uh the arts commission and um and the mayor of Victoria coming uh the chair coming to council to speak to that matter.

And um so we've already had um information um and their positions uh very clearly.

So um I know all of council was aware of that and um we've already received the information.

I suggest we move ahead.

Uh my own take on this folks is is this we've there's a limited amount of money to go around for discretionary um parts out of our tax.

We're gonna pay a whole bunch for an RCMP building.

We've added on more than two percent a year for e com that we didn't ask for.

Uh and gosh knows what is gonna come down the pipe now with extra funding requirements for RCMP.

Even the body cams for administration is gonna cost us money.

Um I would much rather put the money we'd be saving here into our local arts by giving directly to the community center or or uh organizing a View Royal Guts Talent um than to give it to, I don't know where it's going.

I really do not get a sense of where I know where this money's going.

I do know that there was none given to the View Royal Community Center for View Royals Got Tal's Cut Down.

Um, so let me finish, please, Councilor Lemon and Councillor Brown.

I I am concerned with this because we as a region were always complaining about other areas not paying their fair share.

When the service passes AAP, everybody's paying their own fair share.

And I believe as a service, it will include enabling those other things, uh services that are required.

Um and uh I think when I scan through uh where the money was going, one was kind of located in View Royal, but not in View Royal.

So the region has a responsibility to give to the region and it has.

We have a responsibility for View Royal, and we haven't.

That is my perspective on it.

Counselor Levin.

A point of order when there's a request or motion to table um am I right in saying that discussion should not take place yes you are right so we need to vote on the motion to table but yeah it never it never occurred to me that you were moving to table council lemon so I apologize for that there was no seconder yeah that's because there was discussion okay is there a seconder to table the motion is there a second or to table the motion?

So there's no second or to table the motion.

So I know how passionate you are about uh this council lemon.

Um and uh uh I I think it's just uh uh a change in what we've got to uh diviote for taxes.

I'll move the staff recommendation or our recommendation from the Dow meeting.

Yeah, it was just uh we uh yes, okay.

Second discussion.

Yeah, certainly.

I guess first we'll go to motive motive first we'll go to motivation, councillor matts and then counselor Brown.

As has been discussed this evening, we did have people here to address this issue from was it is it the mayor of uh city of victoria and and and someone else from the arts community and we've seen the letters of we've certainly heard the other side's opinion and valid opinion but I think more importantly we should be spending money at home for things like view royal as talent and other things rather than spending it or it disappearing it somewhere into the ether and arts funding at a arts board's discretion rather than the town's.

Councilor brown.

Yeah, the motion is not to totally abandon it.

We're going to uh motion is to make it level two.

So we'd still be contributing, opposed to some of our neighboring municipalities, Langford and Colwood, I'll mention their names, that don't contribute anything to it.

Um I agree with Mayor Tobias.

Some local events.

I would like to see us increase some more money in grants and aids so some of the artists can come make presentations.

Who knows?

Maybe someone might have something like uh the Moss Street painting, something totally different.

And you could do it on, I don't know, Helmkin Road, for example, or something like that.

Close the road down and and do the art.

But yeah, we need to have more local.

And even uh most of that money, like again.

I don't know specifically what grants they've given, but I know it's Royal Theater, I know it's McPherson Theater, I know it's the Charlie White Theater.

How many people and how many times do they go to those theaters?

And how many times can you afford to go to those theaters and they're charging $344 for a ticket for some of the musicals there?

I mean, um, and not to mention that the travel time and the parking um and concessions and everything else.

It's um yeah, uh I'm a firm supporter of the earth.

I love music, I love dancing, I love the theater, I support it a hundred percent.

However, there there's only a certain amount of dollars to go around, and we need to support our locals as much as possible.

And I and if there is a savings in the in the end, it looks like there might be.

I know our CFO made a good presentation, how much the costs are gonna be.

Maybe we can look at moving some of that money into our grants and aid, and some of the local artists can come and make presentations and make an application.

Thank you.

Councilor Brown, Councillor Lemon.

Um, yeah, most of most of the money goes to the artists and performers.

They never get to the royal stage.

They don't get to the McPherson stage.

They um these are generally smaller groups.

Um, some of them, there's some idea grants.

There's these are people who, you know, groups that have come together, they're artistic and they have a great idea, and it gets them launched.

There's incubator grants that that do this the same kind of thing.

It gets people, their first audiences and gives them an opportunity to fulfill their own dreams.

And you know, I I'm I find this embarrassing that we're um going to be token token advocates of the arts on uh at the CRD.

Um the grants that and there are reams of them, there's dozens and dozens and dozens.

Um and they they're for all across the region.

You don't have to be from Uroyal, you don't have to, you know, they're for everywhere.

Um they they um they they they give people a chance and I I just think that this is really a sad show for Bure Oil Thank you Council Lemon anybody else want to talk to the issue?

Yes please Councilor Rogers Yes um I've had the privilege of being on the uh CRD arts commission and um uh a very dedicated group of folks and um they're um volunteer organizations that uh vet those um uh performers and and the applications are absolutely amazing um what we're doing here is um we've we've tested the waters for 17 years.

So we've been paying probably you know 100, 120 000 for 17 years.

And um we had in all those years um hoped that the chair was going to be able to go and lobby Callwood, Langford, and all the others that haven't participated.

And we always felt that we got close, but we never did.

So I think the the crux of this is that and in my original motion that was that uh you know, indeed we would start funding uh the arts in the West Shore, view all part of it, but in the West Shore, because then of course um uh it uh obviously the the arts seem to be so centralized, and and certainly the funding of the two major theaters are centralized.

So I also fully support uh the CRD and its approach here to um uh have a district arts and culture um you know for the for the infrastructure, the buildings.

Great, that's excellent.

And I really am pleased, and I know that Mayor Tobias, you made it, and uh Councillor Lemon seconded it, that the um CRD worked to include the arts and culture support services into that regional arts uh program so that indeed every single resident is going to be contributing to an extraordinary um arts um performance and and venue that is not only good for the region as a whole, but really will boost the tourism for our our region.

So but we all have to contribute, and I mean everybody.

So uh thank you for that motion, Mayor, that you made, and uh let's hope that we do get success.

Because we are, I don't think we're opposed to that.

I think that would be uh really wonderful.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Any other comments, questions?

And we've already moved uh the motion for it.

Uh everybody gets a chance to speak on it.

So I think that concludes um matters removed from the consent agenda.

I think that moves us to question period.

Oh, we uh you're right.

We just had a mover in a seconder.

Uh all those in favor of the motion put forward by councilor Mattson and Brown.

All those in favor, all those opposed.

Noting Councilor Lemon is opposed.

Uh, and I think that brings us down to question period.

Carl, we got any questions online?

Mayor Tobias, we have no questions this evening.

Okay.

So motions and no submotions.

We've got uh two from Councilor Rogers.

Uh Councilor Rogers, go ahead with the first one.

This is where the motion is in front of us, so you can motivate.

And it would go forward if we had a seconder.

I think you're muted.

Still can't hear you, Councilor Rogers.

Can you give us a check?

No, still muted.

Yeah.

Sorry, yes, I am.

My apologies.

So um so the motion hasn't been moved in second.

Uh uh, yeah.

I'm assuming you're moving it.

I'm moving it.

And Councillor Brown has seconded.

So you can go ahead and motivate.

Thank you very much.

So um members, I've uh provided you a um um uh a couple of sheets um uh giving the rationale um for removing the bidirectional shared pathways um both from um the um ATP active transportation plan from all capital projects and from the future act uh transportation management plan.

Um I've illustrated the the diagram, the um the kind of uh to to show that admirals as an example, um uh the proposal would be to have the ENN trail, the bi-directional ENN trail run along the V Royal side uh to um uh um the Admirals and and uh Island Highway.

Um the problem obviously with that is that it uh is terribly inconsistent with um um the bike lanes on both sides that uh in Sanity and Squamo and most of uh and the end in the uh squamo first nations and um portion of the songhees.

Um there's um and I I think the the the whole thing about the active transportation plan and these these aspects is that this was before bill 44 and 47, and we know now that um this is going to uh with that kind of density in our neighborhoods we're going to be having to plan and spend uh a lot more money on sidewalks um that um the active transportation plan never never really accounted for they had 11 million dollars in a special project but nothing about uh about uh the the uh the sidewalks this was before electric scooters came into being and and being another conflict uh aspect before the crd's uh regional transportation service and obviously um consistent regional consistency is is paramount um before the number 40 bus is is going to be going along admirals and and um and i think the one of the problems with these bidirectional shared lanes is that they um um you know create um uh transit islands and that are the uh a major problem so these create confusion conflicts are inconsistent um and i think uh puts the an aspect of liability on on view oil that um um uh you know I think we are very cons should be very concerned about and the act of transportation plan recommends that there be bi-directional um bike lanes or shared bike lanes on Helmican Chancellor, Glintana, Talcott, Six Mile, Island Highway, as well as Admirals and um we've already got major budget pressures um uh that are uh coming up uh Admirals budget has gone from what 3.4, 3.7 to 4.6.

And this, you know, we haven't even gotten to 20, 2027 or whatever the plans are.

And we hadn't uh staff recommendation that we go to UBCM funding, but quite frankly, we haven't even given the concept to our residences and to the businesses along Admirals and get them understanding what the implications are.

Because once we go down this the the stream and like that's the problem with all these reports um and and um capital projects, we're going down these roads without really exploring uh what the implications are to uh congestion um to taking out trees removing parking um and our streets are just too never slow you down a little bit counselor rogers because i think you're getting to a point where you might be demotivating people with all of the things that you're listing so if you don't mind uh if you if you would like to sum up but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors.

But we can't afford it.

It's um given the the the budgets and um these that we already have heard of the conflicts on the ENN um uh by being bi-directional uh we've had an instance of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian um in Up Island.

A um a pedestrian was hit and killed from a cyclist uh running into them.

So it's um it's it's it's it's a safety aspect.

It's uh um an a thing that we must consider for all users of um on our roads and it's uh quite uh I must make another point that um businesses that have to contend and people that are coming in and out of business busy areas and Nelson Square Canadian tire um uh admirals the whole aspect of having to cross traffic when you've got two directional bike lanes is is very challenging and and um and a deterrent to shoppers coming.

Thanks, Councillor Rogers.

Councillor Brown.

Yeah this we're in View Royal.

We're not in New York City.

We're not in Toronto.

We're not in Berlin.

We're not in Amsterdam.

Paris.

The congestion.

I I personally I can't even see picture it.

First of all, it's going to be extremely expensive.

The congestion is going to be bloody awful.

And you look around town now.

I mean, even the one-directional bike lanes.

You look at Man Road and Sanch is a good example where people have to park on their lawns now because they've got the bike lanes in both ways.

You can't even park at the side of the road.

And they're going to have multi-family housing going in with no parking.

Um I'm kind of getting off the topic of Admirals, but personally, I think it's yeah, I I like the motion and I've supported 100% for many of the reasons that uh that John has uh said stated already.

Which one?

Oh well I'll I'll take seven out of nine.

How's that?

But Counselor McKenzie.

Yeah, so I'm not uh in support of the motion.

I think uh bi-directional bike lanes, as as counselor Brown was saying, they we're not the first place to consider this.

They are popular around the world, and you see them in London, Amsterdam, Copenhagen.

They were the work around what are the repercussions of them have already been done and they are found to be the best um way forward, in particular for the safety of cyclists.

We have an issue around cyclist safety, especially on Admirals.

Um, but along Island Highway too, in that stretch where um like between that craigflower and um admirals there at and going forward so if we we're not making bike lanes for cars we're not making bike lanes for pedestrians we're trying to if we're gonna invest in bike lanes we better think about what is best for cyclists and um it's been proven that bidirectional lanes are safest um i know there is concerns that councillor rogers said around pedestrians and cyclists, um, like being hit, let's say, that is a much better survival rate than a cyclist being hit by a car.

Um, and cyclists are also view royal residents.

So um I think there's not evidence, I think it's based in fear.

This uh motion, um, what if this happened?

What if that happens?

But there's lots of actual evidence in other places that show that this is how we increase safety for cyclists.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilor Mackenzie.

Counselor Matson.

Yeah, I'm I I look at the motion, and what I have a problem with is like we're talking bi-directional bike lanes.

We're not talking about bidirectional bike lanes and pedestrian and sidewalk being in the same thing.

We're just talking about bidirectional bike lanes.

And if you look at gorge from Admirals to Tilicum, I mean that's how isn't that a great idea?

That bidirectional bike lane.

It's beautiful.

It looks really good.

And it's really safe, and there's a sidewalk for people to walk on.

So I I just don't understand what the concern is.

And you know, in Italy there were lots of these bidirectional bike lanes, and people were I didn't see, and it was a separate cycle lane.

And so that's what we're talking about here.

Uh and in terms of, yeah, I would agree in some time in some instances it they may not work.

But what this motion says, we're going to get rid of them all from any of our planning.

And that that makes just no sense if there were specific ones that you don't think work well then we should bring that up when we start looking at doing that project not throwing all of them out because you don't think they work and and the goose isn't a bidire directional bike lane it's it's both and pedestrians so I mean I would agree that for the goose we'd be far better off to also have a separate walking lane for pedestrians but this motion is to remove them from all our planning and that just makes no sense so I can't support this motion councillor I agree with counselor rogers and counselor brown that in many situations they're just a pain um there's areas where car drivers that's me that's us um want to park that you used to be able to park and you can't anymore because they're gone and they've been replaced by these very inconvenient um bike lanes however um as counselor McKenzie said cyclists are V royal residents too and and and I and I I don't think that a group of people who are largely um are largely our are our drivers um and not on cycled bicycles with the exception maybe of one or two um understand the full um the freedom that having a bike lane um means to their transportation needs.

And I think I would want to hear from before passing a motion like this, I would I would want to hear more from the people that would use the lanes.

Thank you, Councillor Lin.

Uh Ivan.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

I'd like to go over a few notes um to council.

It it may help with deliri deliri deliberation on on why the this motion doesn't necessarily change staff's presentation of designs to council.

So in the active transportation network plan, on the very first page, we do note that council has the power to direct staff on what option to pursue.

So there is a moving forward section in there that says staff will be relying on future councils to provide staff with direction on alternative options for consideration in specific projects, and we'll provide staff with direction on which design option to pursue.

So what that means is that all of recommendations are in the Active Transformation Active Transportation Network Plan are not recommendations, they are options.

Further to that, uh council did um provide a resolution to staff CE28 24, which is at the February 20th, 2024 meeting, that the active transportation network plan and the town's road designs that include options such as bidirectional bike lanes, multi use paths, and cycling barriers be brought forth to uh committee of the whole meetings for discussion.

So, what that means is that uh council has the ability to discuss the options and to make a decision similar to what uh councillor Mattson has stated.

The third thing, and this is the one thing that's kind of of utmost importance, is that there's there's there's a time and a place for all infrastructure.

Um there are times when uh separating completely cyclists and pedestrians will actually be a lot more costly uh in the spirit of space.

So for example, roundabouts.

Um by doing that, you would be going with a Dutch roundabout, which takes up a considerable amount of space.

At the same time, though, by looking at um multi-use paths and um these assets, the level service and maintenance has to also be considered because in order for these uh paths to remain safe, uh we do need to look at um whether or not our existing level of service can maintain it.

So there's a lot going on here, and I think the whole purpose and spirit of the Active Transportation Network plan and the loot resolution behind it is to provide council with the ability to discuss it and to determine which option to pursue.

Thanks, Ivan.

It was uh I think uh captured everything that was on my uh head.

Thanks.

I'm just gonna make a comment first, Councilor Rogers.

Um I understand where this motion comes from and where it's motivated and is focused on safety and a bunch of other reasons that Councilor Rogers and Councillor Brown put forth.

Um I'm not in favor of it because there may be some places that it's gonna work.

We as a council will likely never vote on one of those things.

Right?

This motion actually would kind of counsel out future uh councils from at least deliberating on it.

So there's there's probably nothing that's gonna come that we're gonna see a bi-directional bike lane in you know between now and uh the next election, right?

It's not gonna happen.

So I I'm concerned about the fact that we may be limiting others from considering it in due deliberation in the future.

Um of the things that uh I I I uh am uncertain, as I think Leanne and and Ivan both are, are the implications of this new parking or lack of on-site parking for small-scale multi-unit housing.

They they've got to go somewhere.

Uh I couldn't imagine them doing that on Burnside, West Burnside.

There's not enough room for like two lanes barely now because of cliffs and other things there.

And a bicyclist can't make it through there, even though they they try uh during rush hour and whatnot.

So to fully develop that as a two-lane plus parking plus bidirectional bike lane would be there will be there would be no trees left on that entire beautiful road.

The other thing that um Ivan brought up for me is uh is level of service.

And from what I'm seeing even with those concrete barriers that are in places in Saanich and and Victoria, from my perspective, nightmare to clean, nightmare to remove snow and and it would impact our level of service.

And we we even have uh cyclists now um uh asking CRD why there isn't a snow plow on the trail for a level of service.

That's just expectation.

Uh um uh the reality is some days in in Victoria you can't ride your bike, or if you do, you do uh it at extreme peril because of ice and freezing and whatnot.

Um so for all of these reasons about uncertainty, I'm not in favor of uh the motion, Councilor Rogers.

I get your concern with everything, but I'm not in favor uh of it just because it's not gonna affect us, but it will affect future councils.

Um uh councilor Brown, you had a point.

Yeah, sorry to belabor the point.

I'm glad I seconded the motion so we had a chance to discuss.

Then Councilor Roger.

And I apologize because with that motion, I'm really focusing in on Admiral's road, not the broader picture.

So um uh well said by my colleagues.

Um, I understand that uh certainly in other uh countries, different big cities and around the world, they they they can work.

So because it's so broad, even though I seconded the motion, um, I will no longer support the motion.

Okay, and I and I think uh councillor rogers, before we go to you, I think we can deliberate this each time something comes up before us, right?

Every time uh a plan comes up before us, we can run it through the gamut of uh in the future of whether it's a good idea whether it fits there or it doesn't fit there um so we got a mover in a second we're may I speak please yeah thank you um members um the Gallup the EN on Admirals is only because the first nations required that in order for the VNN to connect from West uh Western communities to downtown they were not going to permit it on the um the rail line, which is understandable, but that's the only reason it's there.

And um members, you've got to appreciate that um our little bit of Admirals is a big portion of McKenzie, a big portion, all the way to um you know the basin on Admirals and and uh Esquamble Road.

And tell me, where on that route is there any other bi directional bike lanes?

None.

This is inconsistent policy that we are trying to extend the NN that was a requirement to have the regional trail, but is not a requirement.

You have to think, you know, with the you know, on the First Nations side, all we're gonna build on their side is a sidewalk.

That's what the plan recommends.

No bike lanes, it's a sidewalk.

So the plan is suggesting that the First Nations that want to cycle first have to cross Admirals.

Is that reasonable?

Is that safe?

Will we have to put a light in Aldersmith to make sure that that is a safe egress?

So in and the mayor makes a good point.

As I said, bidirectional shared bike lanes, Helmican, Chancellor, Glintana, Talcox, Sixma, Island Highway.

We have had this project for Island Highway from uh four mile to the shoreline school, and that requires removing a whole bunch of trees and building a shared uh cycling and pedestrian access, which is completely unreasonable because it goes nowhere after that.

And so when you consider this is a uh six at this moment, 6.4 million, who is how much are we paying, you know for this and if we could only focus on what view royal side is but a standard width of a sh of a bidirectional bike lane is four meters that's this that's the the what we have in our active transportation master plan so we will have to remove a car lane the full length okay I think you're driving down way to details uh council rogers but yeah yeah yeah yeah you you are and so your your um your motion is about remove shared bi-directional bike lanes in total not just in one place so you're focusing on a certain order so i i'm gonna i'm going to speak to that okay to that so I I think your colleagues are saying we need to call the question call the question on it so we've got uh at this point even your seconders kind of changed their mind so i think what we should do right now is we've got to vote to call the question right so who wants to move that we call the question counselor mattson seconder for that counselor lemon all those in favor of calling the question all those opposed to calling the questions counselor rogers is opposed to calling the question everybody else is in agreement what of it now we'll call the question uh that we we voted to call the question.

Now we're going to vote on Councillor Rogers' motion, uh, which uh he moved and counselor brown seconded.

So all those in favor of counselor um uh Rogers' motion, all those in favor of counselor Rogers' motion, all those opposed to counselor Rogers' motion.

Um so that wins that um uh notice of motion is defeated.

Counselor Rogers, you have a second one for medical services proposal for 346 Island Highway.

Uh yes, your worship.

Um thank you.

Uh we did have a presentation from Mr.

Ford.

Uh he presented um uh various options um at the time we obviously wouldn't be making any motions.

Um, but uh now I think it's it's uh if we feel that uh there is merit in in and the proposal, but we do not have the facts and figures to uh uh see where we would go with this, um, I'd uh ask that there be a a uh staff report um and um we can understand the the implications whether we can um justify the cost and yeah that's that's really the motion in a nutshell.

Okay, and you're also putting in in a left in and left out traffic access for it as well.