Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal.

I'll call the council meeting to order for Tuesday, May 7th, 2024, and begin with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Conguin speaking people known today as the Esquamalt Nation and the Songhis Nation and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public who phone in uh by uh uh during the public participation and the question period portions of the agenda.

Uh if you wish to provide comments by telephone, call 778-402-9227 and when prompted, enter conference ID 621 845 900 uh pound.

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

Please do not unmute until you're asked.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will then announce the last four digits of your phone number, ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback, ask you not to use your speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and ask that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

To begin, please indicate your name and your street name.

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

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

Good evening.

This is the most folks we've had in here in quite a while.

I was rather impressed when we had a bit of a gathering at the Scottish Cultural Center earlier in the fall.

And that I just wanted to make the comment.

I know Sarah's briefed you, but it really gave me hope for democracy and public participation and trust when people were encouraging each other just to have the courage to get up and speak.

So even if your opinions may be different than those that are shared by the speaker, please give them the acknowledgement of the bravery they deserve for getting up.

And even those opinions may not be shared by you.

So uh with that, uh can I get a motion to approve the agenda if there's no errors or missions?

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

I could see because you're going for your microphone, Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor?

And I'll look to you, Councillor Rogers.

Okay.

And uh we'll go for a motion to adopt the meeting.

Uh the minutes of the meeting uh for the special council meeting, and the council meeting held on April 16th, please.

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councilor Lemon.

All those in favor.

See none opposed.

Motion carries.

Uh mayor's report.

Uh I'll be very brief.

Uh we had a uh visit um by the princess and uh for the battle of the Atlantic too.

Um uh that was uh fairly well attended at the uh legislature.

This evening we have a busy agenda, it's diverse.

Um, and uh and that's good because it will keep us um keep us entertained with a bunch of uh a variety of different um uh items on it.

And with that, I think we can start with petitions and delegations and move to uh development considerations for 200 to 206 Heart Road.

And before I go there, you're welcome to go up, please, sir.

Uh just reminding uh council that it's uh our practice if we want to raise a motion, we'll bring that up in a new business.

But you're free to answer questions, uh ask questions um uh during that time.

Welcome.

Whoops.

Sorry, Mr.

Mayor members of coun um members of council my name is dean strongetharm uh 821 verdette street i'm a uh consulting land use planner uh and with me is thron bestly who is one of the owners uh of some of the property and or has an interest in this property i i would also say and i know i've got limited time but oh actually 15 minutes wow um that i i i give presentations to councils um and i really do like the opportunity for to get to to give a presentation there's no application that's been submitted, and just to get sort of some initial kind of gut reaction in terms of kind of the thought process.

I've been here before and received feedback on other other projects.

So it really is something I I I think, and in terms of councils providing that feedback at an early stage, it's it's certainly good.

Um just you can see the property.

This is the uh the property on Heart Road.

There'll be the next slide actually is more of a context slide, but I I would just say that uh in terms of this property, the it's they're approximately 500 feet deep, and the lots individually are about 500 feet long, so it is over a two-acre site.

Uh, individually, they're kind of odd-shaped lots.

When you look at it collectively and look at some of the neat characteristics of it, the thought process was that maybe we should be looking at this a little different than simply a single detached lot subdivision, particularly in the context of uh what I guess all municipalities will be facing in the future by the end of June in terms of a new bylaw that will allow for up to up to potentially four uh units on a lot.

And is that necessarily through a kind of a typical subdivision the right approach?

Um one of the things you don't see on this, the the lot typically slopes from the north uh northwest of the south uh to the southeast, in other words, from the left-hand side, but also uh uh towards the um um on the the west of the northwest side or northeast side, I should say, there is actually a bowl there, so it has some fairly unusual site characteristics.

I guess if I hit one of these, it will go.

Oh, there we go.

Um, so once again, I I thought this was a good slide because it actually puts things in context.

As you can see, the size of the red circle or the red uh rectangle, I should say, it is quite a prominent site when you look at it collectively.

Um you can see it's uh it's about 160 meters to the island highway, in which there actually is a light at that corner.

Uh the property immediately to the uh call it the south, which is of course D and D lands.

And so there is there's kind of a buffer there.

You can see, of course, the um the uh uh island highway.

So in terms of either proximity from a trend from a transit point of view, uh proximity from a proximity to uh services and access, it is it it is a a prominent site and and and maybe deserving of of uh other considerations than kind of a standard approach to to development um let's see this happens okay key site characteristics uh as mentioned the site is just over two acres in size uh there is that significant stand of trees on the waterfront uh again the site slopes from northeast to uh northwest I should say to southeast and the current zoning is R1.

Um we've also just in terms of a little bit of due diligence looking at this we've had a civil engineer look at servicing and if you were looking at some different approaches you know are there any significant or or show stoppers in terms of size of sewer, water, and that sort of thing.

Yes, there would require to be pump stations, but that's all part of the.

And so there is no no significant uh um servicing issues.

The other thing is that along the waterfront, there are haven't identified on provincial archaeological grounds, and we've actually had an archaeology on site.

So there is uh the potential along the waterfront too for uh for potentially archaeological findings.

And so that also sort of take into account kind of how would you best approach from a land use point of view uh dealing with the land.

Uh if I go to the next slide, if I'm doing this right, uh just four slides which show you uh kind of a bit of the characteristic of the property.

The top left-hand slide is actually uh is Heart Road as it's basically stops from the last subdivision that probably took place looks like about 10 years ago, and this then slightly goes down the hill.

So as you're looking at the top left-hand slide, you're looking towards the DD lands.

Uh the two slides on the right hand side once again are taken from more or less the rear or the west side of the property, looking towards the water.

And so once again, you can see a fairly cleared site in front of you, sloping down towards the water, but you can see that prominent stand of trees uh behind towards the water.

And then the bottom left-hand slide shows that uh this was always taken relatively high tide because that area also is it's a tidal area where there's a uh at low tide uh the the um water recedes substantially, and you can see there's a bit of a of a uh a drop from what I'll call the main grade of the property down to the waterfront.

So there's some fairly significant characteristics there that should be taken into account.

And so um what we as I say, the the property zoned R1, um, although you will be going through because of Bill 44, the whole process in terms of even single family dwellings, but because of characteristic site, we really thought that maybe uh and and also kind of some of the provincial initiatives in terms of doing something for perhaps um what I would call not just increased increased density, but but meaningful density in a way that's sensitive to the to the to the site, uh, and concentrating away from the shoreline, and then also being mindful of the um the potential for community amenities.

So we just looked at like two options.

Um there was a townhouse option, which again I hopefully you can see it.

You certainly won't be able to see the won't be able to see the writing.

But looking at uh at that, that's represents 24 townhouse sites.

Um it allows for uh open sites, uh open space um of of 48%, and the site coverage of the buildings uh represent uh about 24% site coverage.

Uh the FSR, the floor space ratio for us planners folks uh is 0.39, which is which is very low.

When you think of even the R1 zone, you're allowed a 40% site coverage.

So effectively that's a that's a 0.4 FSR.

So it is consistent with that.

Um what you can see also is um trying to just maintain that entire well, I won't say half, but third at the waterfront.

That could be a combination of conservation areas, uh dedication at park.

You'll see in the next slide where it's a little clearer of the potential to actually have a park pathway going down to the waterfront that could actually be dedicated either through statutory rights away or actually dedication.

And and the other one that we looked at, which frankly I think it makes more sense from a planning point of view, and this was sort of a combination.

What this shows, I know, and again, I I it's a bit unclear, I realize on the screen, but this has shows there are six townhouses towards the front.

Um, and there is a four-story apartment towards the back towards Hart Road.

Again, you can see it's it's single loaded corridors.

So, in other words, all units face out towards the water, and you can see how it is um there's a curvature to the building.

That is just simply taking into account the actual grading uh of the site.

It kind of slopes from, as I say, that northwest to the southeast, and so it just takes that into account.

And and I guess the thing that that really struck me as why there was a looking at a more kind of innovative way or approach to dealing with this, the entire front is preserved uh and could be used as park.

Um this this particular plan um has a um 14% site coverage, so much less than the townhouse site, and it has 66% open space.

So in many respects, doing an approach like this, which yes, that's um this project shows um six townhouses and uh 32 apartments.

So there's a total of 38 units there.

So I'm it's not insignificant for sure.

Um, but it shows an approach, I think, where you are as a again using kind of more site adaptive planning in terms of looking at the site, preserving like that core, those kind of core features um as amenities, uh, allowing for higher density, but also doing it in a way that, as I say, with 14% site coverage and uh uh or 14% site coverage and and 60% open space, and still at a floor space ratio of 0.4, which you know, if you look at your the current, even your your current OCP and that's kind of mixed residential, it it will talk to densities of up to 1.25 to one.

So we're still back at kind of very, very modest residential densities, but think that it really has an approach that that merits consideration just because of all the benefits you can with higher density, but doing it in a way that's concentrated.

And so really that was just our presentation say we've not made an application to um to um View Royal.

We had the benefit of having a chat with a couple of the View Royal planners and just chatted to them about the options.

Um and uh so having not made an application, they can't say anything particular, but you know, saw the merits at least in in sort of considering this.

And and we thought before, you know, moving forward that we would just come to council, explain our thoughts and some of the kind of the background behind it and behind it, I should say, and just uh get any kind of you know, without prejudice, kind of gut reaction, sort of comments to the to the approach.

And that really is the end of the presentation.

Well, thank you, and thank you for coming, and I think it's a wise move to come to council.

Uh, regardless of the outcome of this, um recommend you come back for a council of the whole.

Uh just because we generally have a little bit more time.

We started earlier, and and it's an opportunity to go back and forth.

Um uh I uh I'll start questions off from colleagues, and then if you want to make a comment or or um uh have something to say uh directly about it for your opinion or your gut feeling, um then we can reserve that for a second round.

Um I like the second one, and I just wanted to confirm with staff if there are four that that comprises four lots, correct?

It's it's four, the yes, that's four lots, it's about two point three acres.

So it's it's roughly they're roughly a half an acre and bit, and of course the shoreline one lots a little smaller, but they're roughly half acre lots.

Okay.

And and uh question for you, Leanne, with the new legislation coming in that they would be allowed four units per uh lot on those anyway.

Is that correct?

Through the mayor, uh that is something that I would have to look into further.

I just this first time I've seen this.

So a couple of these properties might be in the transit orient uh pardon me, in the frequent transit uh what do you call it?

The frequent transit area, so up to six units for a couple of the properties, but I would have to double check.

I I don't have the number off the top of my head.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Council Lennon.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Strongham.

Uh the it's a it's a delicious site.

Um and and a good way of describing it.

I know the property and and uh and I you know I really respect that you're held that kind of nature reserve at the at at the Porsche.

Now is that being held because it's unbuildable or just because you're maintaining it as a nature preserve?

Um there are as I say, there was there the previous um well, the owner and before um Ron and his partner Sam that took an interest in the two lots show closest to um closest to uh uh the the D and D lands um they were look they had sa archaeological assessment and they've identified in that area some which is you can now see is uh the kind of the the park or the green space the cons conservation space they were still looking at being able to and the their uh archaeologists were looking at being able to build homes down um pretty much on well for the two lots that are closest to D and D land they were looking at building them right down uh on um within that within the area.

Now there's a process you have to go through for an AI archaeological impact assessment, and you get a and then you get a a permit to be able to disturb the, you know, so there's a process.

But I know I didn't attend, but Ron actually met with the archaeologist.

I've been through it.

And we know our approach was uh let's just stay out of there as a principle.

Uh so it's not not a not a not a requirement that you can go through a process to go in there and and in that case they were building uh houses.

But we said, well, and uh let's just stay out of there.

And and again, Ron spoke to them, not me, because I couldn't attend last Friday, but suggested that you know an approach like this probably would be preferred, well, understandably.

Oh, I thought it was getting sorry.

Um, I are you thinking strata or rentling?

Um these were looked at as strata, as as yeah.

Very good.

Thank you.

Other questions for the presenter?

Uh I think you might have your hand up, uh John, Councillor Rogers.

Yes, there, thank you.

Um and thank you for the presentation.

Um one of the interesting things you mentioned uh in all this is as a community amenity, um and I know we do have a park uh just uh in the middle of the block, but the problem with that park is it doesn't go down to the water.

There's a steep edge and um it goes over marshland.

Um and I I guess what I'm hoping to hear that there would be an interest to um have not only the trails down to the water and public access, but also construction of uh a paddling dock uh for public access.

Any thoughts to that um yes that is actually what we consider and again it's very hard to see on the the slide but on this slide in particular you can see the trail along the north side of the property and then and you can see the reason why it curves because it actually there is actually quite a depression as you go and then at that very end actually you the the level at kind of the main grade of the property uh to sea level is so you could do it the the only issue, of course is is that it is a mud flat coming up from the from the river and uh you know, if I guess if it was a and and I've done lots of work with DFO, so that may certainly it as a principle sounds great, um, but in terms of having the public dock, I I there's a there's environmental considerations, I guess.

But certainly the principle of actually having a public access, whether it's park or by SRW leading down to a dedicated park space uh towards the waterfront, that was that that was sort of the part of the thinking behind this.

Okay, thank you.

And and I'd like to explore that further because one of the problems with the you're right, um it's uh at the estuary of Millstream and uh the current park uh usually and typically has um low tides in the summer.

And I do know that uh the area that you you know certainly the south southmost portion has a greater chance of uh deep water more times of the year than not.

And um so I I really hope that um if we're gonna be looking at this that we give consider serious consideration of some kind of paddling access to uh not only the potential residents that are coming, but also to the community as a whole.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Uh any other comments or questions?

Councilor Brown.

It's nice to see some uh townhouse uh developments because I think that we are at the missing middle, so to say.

Um, because we don't we all see that kind of development and uh for smaller families or uh rather than either single family condo.

So I think it's a great uh the plan looks awesome, and that is that really nice piece of property, definitely uh beautiful.

And I like the fact that you got them staggered with the slope, so I assume uh people will get at least the water glimpse if you're gonna be able to do it.

Yes, and again if there's some depending some at least um trimming of some of the branches you would.

And then the way it's shaped, it kind of or or uh the two other thing or one thing I didn't mention, again because of the slope, you can see the access to uh underground parking for the for the what I'll call the apartment building, the forestry.

You know, it it's it's right uh it's under the building, so it's easy to get access at the lower level.

And then as I say, they do um the the they f facing towards the south uh east.

And that's just two things, and also having the driveway along there.

I I do I understand from talking with the planner that the property immediately across the street on the high side, I don't know exactly what size it is, but it is, you know, it's in the approaching an acre and it may be three quarters of an acre but as I understand it and I've had no no contact with them but they were looking at perhaps doing something a little different than um because of the size of the site and it's coming going up the hill.

So part of it by doing it the way we were doing it there uh in terms of kind of arching it it also um I think it's minimizing any kind of intrusion from folks across the street.

Council Mackenzie please thank you.

I I did visit the site earlier this week.

And I think it's a good location for development, given that there's surrounding infrastructure already there to support, such as the left-hand turn from Island Highway and the park, as Councillor Rogers said.

My originally when I heard about it, my concern was about preserving the trees, but I think these both drawings uh show that that will be addressed.

I think out of the two, uh to Councillor Brown's point, we do need more townhomes in View Royal.

So I think for that reason, preference towards the first option.

But uh but I like the layout of this one more.

So Yeah, and I'll be things to think about.

My own personal prejudice, I because I like this just simply because it's less site coverage and uh you know, it's one of those things that sort of work in progress.

I'll be quick.

Thanks.

Councilor Lennon.

But if you're asking for our druthers, uh I I thought the first one, you know, it for a unique piece of property.

I I thought it looked pretty ordinary, you know, uh 24 soldiers side by side.

And I think this this is it it it enhances the uh and the the site lines and the property and I prefer option too.

Okay.

Well, once again, I'm I'm well over my time.

So I'm very much we very much appreciate the feedback and the opportunity to to present to you this evening.

So thank you so much.

Yeah.

Thank you, sir.

Next up on the uh agenda is a presentation on items of interest for all municipalities and the CRD.

I'd invite uh Ms.

Swanson and company.

Isn't oh there we go it's red when it's on.

Great.

Hi my name is David Hilderman.

I live in Central Sanach on Primus De Place.

And here are facts that everyone in BC needs to be aware of.

Number one, the Victoria Harbor has the longest, most continuous sea level record in Canada.

Sea level measurements have been taken in our harbor every hour for the last 114 years.

The sea level is rising at the same rate today as it was 110 years ago, 0.75 millimeters per year.

That's three year three inches every century.

CO2 levels have increased rapidly since 1950, yet there is no upward curve in the sea level record.

Number two, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are dramatically greening the Earth.

Based on satellite data, the Earth gained 18 million square kilometers of leaf cover from 1982 until 2015.

That's the equivalent to taking all the plants in the continent of the United States, doubling it, and adding it to the Earth.

Number three, every year China and India together increase their carbon dioxide emissions more than all of Canada's total emissions.

We could stop all our emissions tomorrow, and in less than a year, China and India would have replaced them.

China brought 600 million people out of extreme poverty since 1990 by bringing them low cost energy and in the process increased their annual emissions by 15 times all of Canada's.

India and China have both have 1.4 billion people.

Today, India emits approximately the same amount of carbon dioxide as China did in 1990.

Today, India is increasing emissions at a faster rate than China did back in 1990.

India will most likely increase their emissions 15 times all of Canada's.

Number four, our governments and media want us to believe that no credible scientist disputes the idea that we are in a climate crisis.

This is false.

There are many extremely credible scientists that say there is no climate emergency.

I belong to the CO2 coalition, a group comprising close to 200 members, of which 70% hold PhDs.

This includes John Closser, the recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, who serves on the board of directors.

The purpose of the CO2 coalition is to share the science that shows that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are in fact making the world better and is not creating a climate crisis.

All the expensive and environmentally destructive net zero initiatives hinge on the premise that we are in a climate emergency.

The reality is that if Canada works towards net zero, all that will be accomplished is virtue signaling, poorer citizens, and environmental destruction.

Destruction from mining the minerals for electric vehicles, electricity grid expansion, wind turbines and solar panels.

Currently, there are over 5,000 wind turbines and 17,000 acres of solar panels in Canada.

Two-thirds of these were built since 2000.

Let's stop making more.

This is too important an issue to simply trust the experts that argue for the climate emergency.

These experts depend on the concept of a climate crisis for their funding.

It's like trusting a vacuum cleaner salesman that you need a new vacuum.

I suggest that this municipality bravely host a public debate on the matter.

I would gladly engage in a public discussion with anyone on this topic.

Thanks.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Joy Lafayette and I live on Scott Street.

Alarm bells are ringing across the CRD as residents see some puzzling changes, like sudden massive increase in allowable heights and reduced requirements for parking for new builds and $65 million bike lanes.

We ask, how did all of this come to be?

In 1990, the United Nations World Congress funded ICLE.

It was determined that society required restructuring.

As municipal governments are the closest to the people, the implementation of restructuring our way of life falls upon you.

In 1992, Canada agreed to UN Agenda 21.

It was voluntary.

Other countries also signed on and were incentivized and lured by the promise of big money to go green.

In 1994, the municipal primer was prepared for Canadian councils of ministers of the environment and federation of Canadian municipalities.

Councils who wished to move forward with the agenda were appointed a CAO who is here to implement a global agenda, not necessarily a local one.

The global agenda to change life as we know it in the 21st century has been in the works for over 40, 30 years.

The UN and WEF signed a strategic partnership framework in 2019 to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

According to the municipal primer, humans have caused global climate change and sustainable development should not be postponed due to a lack of scientific certainty.

We raised the question to Mayor and Council why should the citizens of this region bow to the governance of foreign NGOs and their unelected members, such as the UN and WEF, who are now on a hard push of Agenda 2030.

We are concerned that recent bills 44 and 47 will curtail public input into upcoming changes and take away power from a municipal councils to do what is best for the communities that they and we live in.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Katie Swanson.

I live on Pembroke Street in Victoria.

Part of the UN Agenda 2030 includes the creation of 15 minute cities, also referred to as complete communities, compact communities, healthy cities, C40 cities, and originally SMART cities.

SMART is an acronym for surveillance, monitoring, analysis, reporting, and technology.

I have perused the Rio Royal website, and I'm relieved to see that this municipal council does not appear to be associated with NGOs such as Partners for Climate Protection, ICLE, which is now known as Local Governments for Sustainability, C40 Cities, Global Covenant of Mayors, and a host of other alphabet organizations.

However, council members who currently sit on the Capitol Regional District Board may be familiar with these organizations.

As I make my way around the CRD, I notice a proliferation of new camera installations at intersections and busy corners.

I wonder what kind of data is being collected from us.

Technocracy News Editor Patrick Wood, with 50 years of experience and expertise on technocracy, wrote the 15 minute cities is a cover for a data collection bonanza for technocrats who design and operate them.

Cities designed for maximum efficiency always reveal the technocratic thinking that efficiency itself is the goal.

Maximum surveillance allows for maximum control to achieve even more efficiency.

At its very root, this mechanistic thinking is completely anti-human.

The 15-minute city narrative appears to be, appears to present as a plan to save the planet, keeping us safe and delivering convenience with zero regard to the cost of that convenience for the people that this government works for.

With Bill 31, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act receiving royal assent, all of the above will enable climate lockdowns to be implemented easily, arbitrarily, and indefinitely.

Again, the real agenda of these 15 minute cities is to monitor and control everyone and everything.

My concern is that 15 minute cities may actually be a gateway to digital IDs and central bank digital currencies.

These CBDCs pose the threat to violate our spending privacy and would allow banks and our governments to intrusive access to our personal information.

I am urging all mayors and counselors to ask themselves, who do you serve?

Because no one can serve two masters.

Thank you.

Kathy by James Bay.

Sustainable development goals are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Looking deep into this initiative, the future implications are concerning.

SDG documents show the goal is to reduce our consumption of clothing, ownership of private vehicles, property rights, personal meat consumption, mobility, farms and livestock, rural living, and older homes will require expensive environmental retrofits, a poverty policy for some.

15-minute smart cities will be 24-7 surveillance in real time through the Internet of Things and the loss of control of your data.

If smart cities are so great, then many fully informed citizens will take part or not voluntarily as is our choice.

OCP plans are upon us, and the people have some concerns read the 15-minute plans.

One, can council guarantee that citizens will remain free to move freely, as is our right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Two, can Council guarantee that surveillance tech, such as facial recognition and license plate reader technology will not be implemented in our city.

Most importantly, we are requesting that council exit their non-binding agreement surrounding the United Nations SDGs.

Incentives given may wrongfully drive key decisions made for our corner of the world.

Talking to citizens read 15 Minute City Plans, most have not the time to read the fine print and consider any future nefarious implications.

Anything can be misused and safeguards must be put in place.

There was a time when open, transparent municipal governments served citizens, not global entities.

Agenda 2030 SDG goals will affect the lives of good citizens and businesses of our town.

We should be given consideration over ideologies.

I also urge each and every one of you to examine your involvement and knowledge of 15 Minute City Plans, because this soft coup of our way of life has been a long-laid plan that people all over the world are waking up to.

And if it were me, I sure would not want to be left holding the bag on this one because we're not having it.

But on the flip side, imagine being the heroes of the day and putting an end to all this non-binding nonsense.

Please don't let your legacy be that you ruined our way of life by rubber stamping in a global agenda.

Thank you very much for your time.

Counselors.

Is there any books or publications we could look that you know of that we could uh I can Google it, but I just thought you might have something off the top of your head.

That's fine, I'll Google it.

I wouldn't use Google because then you get what they want you to see.

I would use I use a search engine called Brave, and I would suggest anything by Jeff Snyser.

He has uh many videos about it, he explains it quite clearly, you know, the future of it.

And his name is Jeff Snycer, but we can send you something too.

Snycer, S-N-I-C-E-R.

Yeah, he's quite knowledgeable.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Well, thank you.

All of you who spoke this evening.

Uh certainly it's quite obvious you've been probably traveling around to different councils and sharing your thoughts and opinions.

Thank you.

Is that correct?

Can I get some head nods?

Great.

Pardon?

Okay.

Okay.

It is always interesting to hear views from people from all walks of life.

And uh obviously your opinions differ from those that uh are uh are sometimes before us at council here.

So I guess what I'm asking you is uh what are you asking of us tonight specifically?

So, from my perspective, um we're just people living our lives day to day, and we're seeing things changing.

Like, I believe that there's isn't there a solar farm going up in Souk.

So I I just think that there's things that you are in positions that you have some some power.

You can make your your your views known to the upper levels of government because really the as far as the agendas regarding climate and things like that, so much of that's coming from right at the top in the federal government.

But it's really destroying people, it's costing money and it's it's destroying environments.

So for me, from my perspective, that's what I'm hoping that you'll do.

And also that you know these this is so I'm not about saying views.

The sea level record in Victoria, I discovered it in 2020, and I was shocked because my whole life I drove here in a vault, and the reason I own a vault is because I totally believed all this stuff.

But when I saw that, saw that sea level isn't in changing its rate of rise.

My I totally thought it must be.

I thought I must have been looking at the data wrong.

I end up going to the Patricia Bay um research facility and talk to people there.

Like, am I understanding this wrong?

No.

Hourly measurements every day, like hourly measurements.

I downloaded like something like 900,000 data points.

I actually downloaded the all this data just to really see it myself.

That's really what's happening.

There's no acceleration in rise.

And yet, UBC created the coastal adaptation lab to deal with half a meter of sea level rise by 2050 and 1.2 meters of sea level rise by 2100.

They say that it's time to accept we can't change sea level rise.

And like I said, it's like vacuum cleaner salesmen.

It's it's madness.

The financing towards green energy, towards um like in the US, $16.5 billion just for climate research.

And it's like, I believe it's one and a half trillion dollars right now is spent globally every year on renewable energy.

And it's destroying, it's destroying the environment.

Any other questions?

I think uh the presentation part's uh over now, so I'll let you have a brief.

He asked a question though, and I was just gonna answer the question is that I did ask two questions in my speech, and we're hoping to have those two questions answered, and our our wish is actually to exit the SDG goals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Uh I think that brings us in our agenda to public participation period, and we'll go first in the room.

Is there anybody in the room that would like to address counsel?

Doug Wilson, View Royal Avenue.

I just wanted to comment quickly on the Gibraltar Bay gazebo options.

It's pretty unfortunate that a nice little spot like that's been vandalized.

Um tucked away you wouldn't expect it.

Um there's four options that have been put forward.

I just want to comment on option four that the statutory right-of-way registered over Gibraltar Bay's common property.

Um specifically though the the part over the lot where the gazebo is would be released.

You know, for the last year and a half, people have been knocking on my door and dropping off old uh OCPs and old documents and maps.

And um Gibraltar Bay was originally P3 marked for a park, the whole thing and then a while later that kind of got winnowed down and there was a broad band along the the waterfront uh straight out from View Royal Avenue and that was going to be park and the rest could be developed the development came along it's a lovely development they have um uh statutory right away not only over that lot but also on another piece of common property up at the top of the hill that is uh treat it as a private park um another small piece of common property, an access trail through to Prince Robert Drive.

I just I I don't think that that is reasonable to even even think about removing that statutory right away from that piece of property.

When the development was made there was a water access, not a very good one, but there was one uh immediately east at the east side of the development.

It has been closed permanently for a long time.

I think that that it's just got to that that piece of property needs to stay uh public access.

I'd be ashamed to it it's a lovely spot and there are are good options in here for creating a little viewpoint that is less prone to having difficulties.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Anybody else in the chamber want to address counsel on an issue?

Seeing nobody, Carl, we'll go to you on the phone.

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

Thanks, Carl.

And then we'll go to uh business arising from previous minutes.

And uh Counselor Qualwage, while you weren't here and there was an item on the agenda that you had represented so we decided to table it until now.

Uh thank you, your worship.

And uh thank you for uh letting this uh come back here now after some delay.

And this is uh a topic that uh had been discussed a couple of years ago, uh, that I brought up.

And I was reminded and bumped by Councillor McKenzie to make sure that this continue and carry on.

So this is something that uh I'm putting forward and counselor McKenzie has uh provided her support already in principle to it.

Uh everyone's had a chance to certainly review it, and I think it's important to go through it tonight because it's something that is it is really important right now in Canada and in View Royal.

And as uh one of our earlier speakers and petitions and delegations put it, is that municipal government are c is closest to the people.

And I thought that was a great line, actually.

Uh so I will read out my my uh my motion so that we're all very clear on it.

It's long, we can certainly uh wean it down as needed and have discussion about it and what it'll look like.

But in the spirit of promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, I'm putting forth a motion which encourages participation in building a culture of trust and respect to ensure others feel comfortable to share their perspectives, identity, and life experiences.

I propose that the town of View Royal staff, mayor, and council seek to increase self-awareness of diversity and inclusion and are mindful of personal prejudices.

We must support new ideas, different perspectives shared by team members, and ensure everyone is equally engaged, invested, and sharing power.

We must recognize inclusion as an important part of the work environment by modeling inclusive behaviors and encouraging others to do so.

And we must promptly address and respond to diversity situations, whether external or internal, with appropriate action to achieve a positive outcome.

I, we, Allison and I recommend that town of Urail staff, mayor, and council engage in ways to include diversity, equity, and inclusion into common work practices.

And in addition, a statement on the town's website and weaving uh DEI into future strategic plans and including it in language with new job applications, whether internal or external, uh, that supports an inclusive environment.

Training and education should also be encouraged.

Uh Canadians uh have changed over the last few decades, and our country has become much more diverse, more so than ever, not just culturally, but in other ways as well.

And as a municipal government, we have a responsibility and a duty to acknowledge and address and put this forward from the top down.

And I'm open to discussion on how this will look.

But one way or another, this will have to become part of our uh common practice here.

Thank you.

And I'm going to already assume that uh Councilor Mackenzie, you've seconded this, so it's already uh put it on the table.

That's great.

Council McKenzie, was there anything you want to motivate on this?

Yes, thank you.

Uh this is definitely a topic I'm passionate about, so thank you, Councillor College.

I believe that in order to develop the most effective policies and services for our town and the majority of people in our town, we need to have the people with the diverse perspectives at the table.

Decision makers at staff level, at the council level, at committee level should all be reflective of the diverse neighborhood that View Royal is.

It's also academically shown that diverse groups make better decisions as well, rather than groupthink.

Both Councillor Kolowitch and I have implemented diversity and inclusion programs in our workplaces, and we've seen the positive benefits of weaving that into every practice in recruitment and just all aspects of the workplace.

So I fully support this.

I think we should replicate it in View Royal, starting with reflecting it in our website, our strategic plan, and all our future recruitment efforts.

And just coincidentally, actually, the CRD recently invited certain counselors who are on their committees to attend uh what was it called here?

It was inclusion literacy and board readiness workshop just on this topic.

So it's something that is a topic that is top of mind and is really necessary and V Royal needs to start reflecting it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

Questions?

Uh Councilor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um I certainly I I agree that uh diversity and and um what broad experiences there are necessary and and uh rejuvenate uh both uh all viewpoints uh of council and staff.

And um I'm really hoping that we would um apply the um uh the principles in this motion to our advisory committees.

Um that is one thing that um people are lamenting that we don't have uh any advisory committees uh um with any any diverse citizenship and and involvement.

And I think that's of uh critical importance.

And I hope as we think about this motion and how to um uh move forward, um, advisory committees um you know can be that uh prime example of what we're trying to achieve here.

I do have a a question to the motion.

Um it uh we must promptly address and respond to diverse diversity situations, whether external or internal, with the appropriate action.

Uh can you give me an example of um because I'm not quite sure if it seems pretty broad but also a little vague on on how we would uh address and respond uh to diversity situations.

Can someone help me with that?

Sure.

I can I can answer that.

And uh these type of uh statements involving diversity, uh they are broad, John.

Uh specific examples on a motion like this may not be inappropriate, but uh perhaps um anecdotally, uh, an example could be uh somebody approaching uh the town staff or having an experience within the town of View Royal that comes our way uh and we're forced to address it.

Uh whether that is uh denouncing it or or dealing with it in some way, that can be an example of an external uh DEI uh uh instance that happens.

Uh internally, of course, uh it it comes down to uh uh job applications, uh language.

Uh so there, you're right, there is a variety of examples uh it's a very very large topic that we could talk about for for for many days uh and that's why there's workshops and courses and university uh courses on this topic uh all over the world thank you any other questions or comments on it counsel lemon this is so easy to support and and i think it's uh it's necessary, it's timely.

Um, I'm on the greater Victoria Library Board and and we've hired or the the library system has hired a coordinator specific to this.

So it's it's um it's it's integral to to um public service and practice now.

So thank you both of you.

And the last thing I'll add your worship has to do with uh the future of this council, because uh you will you won't likely see the same seven people here uh for the next election.

And historically uh we have had a low number of candidates put their names forward for municipal government in smaller municipalities in uh Vancouver Island, and I would love to see that change.

I would love to see people from all walks of life put their names forward and have a robust election as much as I love getting acclaimed.

You know, it's just not, it's really not what we're looking for, right?

We want people from all walks of life, uh from all diverse backgrounds putting their names forward for uh municipal politics and all levels of government.

So it's just one more reason to support this.

Thank you.

Yeah, I uh fully support it.

I think uh one of the things that I've been toying with is um bringing to council before the next election an opportunity to have an open house so that the public could ask us questions about how much time it takes, what are the other duties that we have to fulfill in order to get the message out there so we can so it's not so much unknown before they actually run.

Um so yeah, I think the diversity inclusion starts with us, it doesn't stop with us, and certainly uh pulling that down.

And I think it's achievable just looking to staff to both add a statement to the website and um maybe uh look in mind for a future date for report back to our hiring practices or inclusion.

Is this a a doable implementable uh thing?

I think there's enough models for it, but I'll look to you, Scott.

Yeah, I I think it's a a practice we've um come quite a ways on.

Um, and it would be quite easy to implement.

Uh training uh would be something we'd have to look into, look for different opportunities for staff and council.

Thank you, Scott.

But um I think we're well on our way.

And uh just recognizing Councillor Matson, I'm glad you joined us uh from Morocco time.

Um it's early in the morning for you, so thanks for um for coming.

And I think we're ready to vote unless you had a comment or question, uh Councillor Matson.

Uh no, I'm sort of had a little bit of difficulty hooking up, but uh I'm here now as well.

And uh yeah, I sort of missed this beginning of this conversation, but you know, philosophically all happy with the concept of you know diversity, equity, etc., and in terms of us doing as much as we can, uh, as long as it you know it doesn't get sort of too too obtrusive in terms of uh what we're trying to do, because the reality is sometimes we just have a hard time getting people to come out.

So, yes, happy to support the motion.

Thank you.

Uh so I'll um call the question then if there's no further comments.

Uh all those in favor of the um including diversity inclusion.

Any opposed?

Uh were you opposing or are you you uh no, you weren't.

So every uh all in favor unanimous uh passes.

Uh thank you, Councillor Qualitage.

And I think uh it's over you, Councilor Lemon for UBCM resolution amendment to the BC Mental Health Act.

Yeah, thank thank you.

Um I'm gonna read a piece here also uh several times, um on many occasions actually, um West Shore RCMP Superintendent uh Preston has spoken to us about the time that the the amount of time that officers are um languishing in hospital waiting rooms with with um people that they have apprehended who are um mentally in mental uh mental health, having a mental health crisis or uh and and or a uh a an overdose or opioid crisis.

Um well I'll just read this because we you know we've spoken about this many many times at council, and and I think it's time for us to go up the ladder and see what we can do.

So the opioid crisis, mental health crisis, primary care crisis, and homelessness have compounded to change policing in our towns and cities.

Every day in towns and cities across the province, RCNP and municipal police officers apprehend individuals experiencing mental health and substance abuse crises and must stay by their sides in hospital emergency departments until they are seen by a physician.

And we know how long that can be.

To be so publicly in the custody of a police officer, often for hours, is embarrassing and stigmatizing for the apprehended individual and shows a distinct lack of compassion by the system.

So the BC Mental Health Act needs to be amended so individuals apprehended and accompanied to a hospital emergency department by police can be handed over to other trained, qualified, and authorized persons allowing police officers to remain in service to their communities.

And to this end, I've um put to put together a resolution to go to the UBC uh UBCM convention in September calling for an amendment to the Mental Health Act.

And it reads whereas section 28 of the BC Mental Health Act specifies a police officer should accompany persons to hospitals with apparent mental disorders and acting in a manner likely to endanger the safety of themselves or others.

And whereas the opioid and mental health crisis in British Columbia communities has resulted in an increase in the number and length of times police officers are immobilized to the service of the greater community to sit in hospital waiting rooms while accompanying apprehended individuals until they are seen by a physician.

Therefore, be it resolved that the UBCM call on the provincial government to amend Section 28 of the British Columbia Mental Health Act so that trained hospital staff or other trained resources, such as commissionaires, can relieve police officers of the responsibility of attending hospital emergency departments with apprehended individuals.

Thank you, Councillor Lemon, and efficiently included your motivation that preceded the the actual question.

I appreciate that.

Do I have a second or seconder?

Seconded by Councillor Brown.

And uh what's your motivation, Councilor Brown?

Yeah, as a police officer for 32 years, I certainly spent hours myself sitting with uh mental health patients.

Um I would suggest in the motion to add the possibility of appointing uh security staff at the hospitals as provincial special constables, and that way they'd have that status.

Obviously, they would need require some extra training, but rather than uh having a police officer tied up where they could be doing patrols or investigating some serious well, mental health series too, but you know, ongoing crime.

So um be a good example of of provincial constable status is the SBCA.

Like there's multiple agencies that do animal control, but with an investigation for abuse of animals, it has to be turned over to the SBCA because they are provincial uh constable status.

So the same a similar status to what the SPC has would be grouped.

So I'm assuming that's a friendly amendment, and I'll look to the mover to see if you would.

Yeah, um, if if I may, uh two years ago, uh the council of the day um wrote with this request to the pre to the province and specified that security guards be trained for this position and and you know got shot down.

So in speaking with um in uh Superintendent Preston, that's he said a trained uh in here says trained individual trained staff.

Um so it it could be the security guards, it would likely be the security guards, that makes all kinds of sense rather rather than having you know the the admissions clerk.

Um but I I chose to leave it open on on on his um advice and recommendation too.

You okay with that?

Yeah.

That's begins.

So my that my question was whether the security or the special constable would have the authority to detain somebody and prevent them from leaving.

Uh, because I think that's the reason currently that the police do it, is because they have that authority.

So that was the only unclear part for me.

Council Qualworth.

I can support this motion.

But it it it brings me to another point, actually.

Well, a couple of two points.

Is that I can remember sitting here several years ago asking this same uh request of the provincial government of the day.

And uh there's been zero action.

And uh for me it really dovetails into the healthcare crisis in British Columbia that is getting really uh no attention from the government of the day.

And this is another example of of patients, because let's let's be clear.

These these are patients of the health authority being brought in.

Uh they're being admitted through triage and they're being cared for by physicians uh at our local health authority, and they're sitting there for anywhere up to 10 hours.

And and certainly I can speak from experience, and it's true, it is.

You, Councilor Brown.

Yes, thank you.

Um, question to those law enforcement members of uh council is it appropriate to use the term apprehended individuals at the bottom.

Just I'm just gonna use an example for as counselor uh Mackenzie uh brightly brought out, you know, the authority.

So like a a provincial uh uh constable would have peace officer status.

It's the same as a bio officer, they're dealing with but you know, noise complaints, animal complaints.

However, when they're on duty, when they're working, they do have uh peace officer status.

And so that that that special constable would have the same as the SPCA person would have peace officer status.

So if they're going to apprehend an animal and the person took a swing at them, they'd be you know assaulting a peace officer.

So um, and they wouldn't have that authority, but the the special constables would have to have that status.

I hope that answers your question.

John Uh yes, thank you.

And and and i guess uh that's my concern um in in this of I got two concerns one um did we research ubcm resolution database to see if there were any similar um uh resolutions put forward in the past council there was a resolution from White Rock I believe staff was it two three years ago um asking for remuneration so that the time is that the time spent sitting in in a merge was um was covered.

But as far as I know, um there's been no other yeah.

Uh and I'm also interested in um making sure that we've adhered to the UBCM uh specifics.

Um they're very particular about how resolutions are put forward and and uh the format and so forth.

And um if I also may point to um Councilor Brown's uh comment, um are we asking that these trained individuals also be peace officers so that uh they can be handed appropriately to um uh individuals in the hospital setting?

And again, would that be a a part of authorization through the um 28 of the Mental Health Act?

Councilor Brown.

Yeah, I think that would be appropriate uh to add that to make sure anyone anyone who's appointed to look after those patients in in lieu of the police should have peace officer status when they're in that role.

Not when they're at home and they see something going on, they're not a peace officer, but it's their neighbor's house getting broken into.

They can't say I'm a peace officer, I'm arresting that, but when they're at work, when they're in on duty, that they're a peace officer.

So would that be an amendment?

Yes.

Okay, so how would that read?

That persons that are trained to uh uh handle these patients in lieu of the police uh have peace officer status when doing that role.

Okay.

Counselor Matson.

Yeah, without my island health hat on, I did speak to Raj, who used to come to council periodically, and who also now works for Island Health.

He says, you know, they've been working on this, they're ready to go just when the provincial legislation changes.

So maybe we can also just contact the province directly to find out how they are with this, because I'm sure they're have been working on it somehow.

Maybe we just don't know where they are with it.

Thank you, Councilor Matson.

And perhaps uh a two-pronged attack uh we could um you know check on status plus have the ubcm um resolution ready to go.

And Councilor Rogers, you brought up a point about formatting, and we can definitely handle that to ensure that meets UBCM criteria but uh looks of it it's pretty close however we do have an amendment from the submission and uh Sarah if you can follow me I think it's uh so that trained hospital staff uh be given the special constable status yeah not just hospital well special constables special constable and when they're on duty they have peace officer status so that would be uh an amendment so we could probably remove the uh trained hospital staff and and other trained resources and just use that as as com commissioners, take that out and just say trained hospital staff, and then um uh be given special constable status and peace officer status um so they can relieve police officers of responsibility uh of attending hospital emergency departments.

No further comments or questions.

I'll call the question.

All those in favor of counselor Lemon's UBCM resolution.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you, Councillor Lemon.

And I think this brings us to staff reports.

Uh oh, Ivan, you're up with the urban forest strategy recommendation for award.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

I've been the young director of Engineering.

Uh, I bring before you a recommendation of awards to uh for Diamond Head Consulting to uh take on our urban forestry, urban forest strategy project.

Um the RFP only one, there was a bit of interest through questions during RFP, but only one put it in a bib, which is Diamond Head Consulting.

Uh through staff review and some reference checks, they're they're a great consultant to do this work.

They're currently undergoing uh the district of Sanich's urban forest strategy and working with the city of Lankford, so they have some local presence, and they've done probably over half a dozen urban forest strategies and equivalents in the lower mainline in the last uh five years.

So, um, with their scope alone, uh, it does meet the existing budget of about 82,500.

However, you'll notice in the recommended option that uh we have asked for a little more, and the reason why is because they have presented two options that uh staff believe to greatly benefit the quality of the urban forest strategy to make it more view role catered, and then most importantly, uh what uh Diamondhead has found through previous reporting in the region is that the uh CRD data uh paints a little more of a positive picture than actual conditions.

So uh what they want to do is basically ground truth and proof the data out, which takes a little more time.

Um, but what we get is a view role-catered urban forest strategy that takes a more relevant and realistic picture of the current events that will allow them to provide more effective solutions in the future.

Um, so the uh reports here before you the staff's uh recommendation is that council wore the urban forest strategy study to diamond head consulting in the amount of 104,110 plus GST and that the uh financial plan be amended accordingly.

I move staff's recommendation.

Got a mover and uh seconder.

Um, and uh Ivan, I've just got a couple of questions about this, and I'd entertain those from my colleagues, of course, as well.

Um, will this CRD's already done uh some mapping for us?

And you're um skeptical uh uh on on some of the results for that.

Uh, and that's fine.

Will this be able to create a baseline for us of of uh urban forest data for?

Uh Mayor Tobias, yes, that is correct.

So one third of the report would be you know how we kind of pictured it as the now, wow, and how.

So one third of it is the now, and that is uh that will ex uh exactly answer that question.

And will this cover uh private and municipal holdings in Burewell?

Uh yes, that's correct.

And uh I guess my next question is is uh are we able to within the scope of this uh contract award um look at some correlations between uh the heat mapping that CRD has already done and and uh where we're lacking trees.

Uh mayor Tobias, that's a great question.

I do know that uh part of the scope of the work would be required to um benchmark and assess tree stresses uh for the effects of not only climate change but also pressures of development.

Specifically with respect to the heat maps, I'm not too sure, but that's something that can certainly bring forward to the consultant if they have not done already.

It seems like a pretty logical approach, in my opinion.

Do I even uh turn to my colleagues if there's any questions?

No questions.

I'll go to comments then.

Council McKenzie.

Thanks.

So I'm supportive of this strategy and uh you know the choice of award, except for the additional money.

Um, the reason is while I think it's great to have more accurate information, I don't think it's the most important part of this work.

Uh to me, it's more about producing tangible recommendations that the town can implement in order to maximize the benefit of the trees that we have.

So I I fortunately was able to meet with the View Royal Climate Coalition yesterday to talk a little bit about this.

And really, what we're looking for in this report is how you know we can use trees to mitigate hot spots that the CRD have identified in their heat mapping.

What type of trees should we be using to uh that are drought resistant to make sure in the future, you know, with less rain that they they survive?

How much soil and land do we need to protect around trees when we do developments to ensure their longevity of the trees?

And how do we put a financial price tag on the value of our forests so that we can do more natural asset management?

So for that reason, I I won't be voting uh in support of this only because I don't think the additional 2022,000 dollars is uh really where the value of the report is.

Thank you.

And just uh to confirm, Councilor Rogers, you moved staff a recommendation option one.

Is that correct?

Yes, I did.

Okay, and uh just to be clear, uh Councilor Brown, I believe you seconded.

Okay.

All right.

Uh noting um Council McKenzie's comments, any other comments or questions?

Councilor Rogers.

Uh yes, I I I agree with uh Council McKenzie that uh these are really important points.

Um uh but unless we have a a really accurate understanding of what our tree canopy is, um we'll be uh chasing big data bad data.

And and um so the most up to date uh information that we have will enable us uh to move forward and and uh in and ensure that we're going to uh the forest to come and uh that will be able to um provide uh a canopy and protection of uh heat domes and so forth so we we have to uh get the right information first thank you thank you council rogers uh uh just a a final question i guess ivan for you uh for the uh option one you have field plots, option two, you had individual uh tree canopy mapping.

So is that separate?

Or were those all included in option one?

Uh Mayor Tobias, both of those are included in option one.

Okay, with that option or with that uh individual tree canopy mapping, would that provide species and health?

Uh Mayor Tobias, that it provides a better picture because the CRD data does not provide that.

So part of that ground truth thing is to better understand uh the little ecosystems that we have in VROL.

Um CRD data takes into account tree height to certain extents, and it can kind of defer as to what's coniferous and what's deciduous, but that's about it.

Um this will allow us to uh better provide recommendations as to tree species with respect to location, climate change uh resilience, etc.

Okay, thanks.

And and last part of that is could we use the um last CRD's LIDAR um as a baseline and do change detection to see how many trees were lost in the past?

Uh yes, so I believe the 2019 data is being used as a benchmark, and then what they're doing is they're taking their 2023 orthophoto and doing a whole bunch of um calibration and a bit of uh urban forest calculation magic, I'll say, to basically take our data all the way to 2023.

So what that will allow us to do is not only um give us an extra four years of data because there has been quite a few developments that have removed trees.

So you look at the Earthskins and you look at the three Humpkin and that it will take that into account.

Um, but it also gives us a a better more data to kind of extrapolate from.

Thanks, Ivan.

Any other questions or comments?

Seeing none, I'll call the question.

We've got a motion on the floor, and if uh that's to move option uh one.

Uh all those in favor of option one.

Any opposed to option one?

Seeing Council McKenzie's opposed to uh option one, uh motion carries.

And I think thank you, Ivan.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I think that brings us to the residential development update report.

Good evening, Mayor Tobias and members of council.

This is the biannual residential development housing supply update report.

I don't have a formal presentation, however, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thanks, Leanne.

I just had a couple of uh questions.

Um in reading your report, um, we've got a significant amount of uh development underway uh that looks like it's going to be uh completed within the next year to two years uh out, I guess.

Um, and I realize you're focused on big projects here, um, but I I note that we've built with the all of the the developments we've got, we've got zero accessible that we've approved.

Is that correct?

Zero accessible units?

Yeah.

I would have to go back and look at the applications.

However, I'm not aware of any accessible units being secured in any legal agreements as part of any of these large developments.

Okay, thank you.

And that wasn't uh follow you, it's just probably an oversight for council previously not to bring that to the fore.

So we've built of all all those hundreds of units, we built none that are accessible.

And how much commercial have we built that is underway right now?

Through the mayor, that is something I'd have to come back to council with.

Yeah, but none in the developments that you're showing us, correct?

Uh the project at 258 Halfkin Road, um, project number two has uh ground floor commercial and a new grocery store that will be introduced into the neighborhood.

That's the only mixed use development.

Okay, thank you for that.

And would it uh seeing how we're um I I believe council, I'm saying this for the benefit of the public, is aware that we've been issued a date for housing targets uh from the province to start negotiating with them, and that's I think the end of June ish, that they'll be engaged with primarily staff to to start discussing what View Royal's housing targets should be uh for the next little bit.

I'm just wondering uh it's for to make it easier on you, Leanne and development staff through this busy time for you, because you'll just finish up with bylaws, then targets, then OCP.

Could we think of a common way um to report out both to council, to the public, and to the province?

Like if there was one place what they would look, it could look like a web page, it could look like whatever.

So you don't have to report three different ways to different people that could just be available for them.

Have you considered that?

That is de definitely something we can consider.

We do are you talking about just how active applications, or are you just talking about number of units that are under construction?

Yeah, it would it would depend on what requirements the province has primarily.

I think that would suffice council as well.

And it would just be like that one-stop shop so that you wouldn't be you and your staff wouldn't be so busy doing different types of reports, it would all be in kind of one place, it would be up to date.

We have had some internal discussions on how we could potentially use some of our existing platforms to communicate that information.

And once we have our meetings with the province and also maybe reach out to other municipalities who are on the list in the first group of 10 on how they're communicating out their progress, that's we can look at those municipalities as well.

Thanks, Leanne.

And just for the public, I note that the only municipality to have achieved their housing targets, I think, was Victoria, out of the 10 that were issued them.

Uh so if the provinces listen, just saying.

Yes.

Uh are you able to clarify or confirm that these developments in progress will count towards the housing targets?

We will have to get more information from the province on that.

Council Roger.

Thank you.

Uh staff, the um I'm wondering about Elsa Mulane.

Didn't we approve some townhouses there?

Would that be on this list?

Council may recall that that application was declined, and then the applicant picked up the third property and has come forward to committee of the applicant is currently working on the legal agreements associated with that rezoning, and therefore it hasn't been approved and not part of this list yet.

Okay, thank you.

Um the uh the entire uh CS Lake uh West Park Lane uh development.

Uh we approved um um a certain number of units they've um uh are ongoing with their large uh six story and and the other townhouses um uh that they want to come along with.

Do we have any idea um how many more um of whatever grant total we had approved for number units uh the number units left because I see they're working in the the back uh portion of that site through the mayor.

There are two more phases um left in this development.

They have not come forward with any application, so I cannot confirm the number of dwelling units in those future phases.

Okay, and um this this document is the one in October is so helpful.

Um and I think along the same lines as what the the mayor is suggesting, uh, that we have uh some repository, uh easy accessible repository for uh council as well as individuals that could go back in the 10 years and and see how many units were approved over those that 10 year time frame um uh just to get a sense of um the just like this uh not only for the last six months but the last 10 years.

Do we have we have that ability through the work with the province?

Perhaps that's something we can suggest and they can help us out with some with reporting out.

And again, my last question is that we do have the uh transit zone uh bylaw um uh coming up.

Do we have any sense of um if we were to um have a full build out of uh that density as uh suggested by the province, uh 10th story and otherwise.

Do we know how many units uh that um uh the maximum number of units that would be produced in in that zone through the mayor?

It'd be very difficult to come up with a total at this time.

I'm not suggesting it at this time.

Maybe uh when we uh start getting a sense of um yeah, anyway, it'd be fun to um speculate to see how well over provincial mandates will be uh achieving.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Uh staff.

Councillor Matson, please.

I was just wondering if you could clarify when exactly in our long process uh projects would actually get put onto the the list.

At what stage through the mayor.

Uh staff have not had conversations yet with the province.

The pro my understanding is that the province will be giving us a housing target?

And having to meet that housing target.

We have to provide annual updates and then a housing target for I believe it's for five five years.

And I don't have to guess I mean it's like on like when would staff can't think the count like once a building permit's in, or you know, once an occupancy permit is in, when does it sort of just get added to our our list?

Good question.

I would assume it would be a building permit, so approved building permits, so units that are under construction.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilor Mattson.

So we've got a recommendation to receive uh staff's uh report.

Can I get a mover in a second or please?

Seconded by counselor uh brown, seconded by counselor Lemon.

All those in favor?

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And I think we're down to Gibraltar Bay Gazebo options.

Thank you, Leanne.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

I had to move the mic down.

I'm not I'm substantially shorter.

So before you, we have a follow-up from an April 2nd meeting, and we will move through these slides because we're gonna see this recommendation again.

And I'll see if I can move this forward.

Okay, here we go.

Have I already moved too fast?

I did.

Here we go.

We'll try that.

There are four options in the report, and uh we will talk about these.

They're at the beginning of the report, and we will come back, as I said, to recommendation one.

But number two is that we not provide funds for either refurbishment or removal of the gazebo, that we could provide more or less than the 5,000 that's set out in the report to look at either refurbishment or removal of the gazebo.

And as discussed earlier this evening, that we uh could um remove the registered um statutory right-of-way over this common property and release and remove the public access provision over this common lot.

So the background is, and catching up is the uh February and March damage to the gazebo balusters of the railings.

Um and you can see the February damage here with some of the balusters kicked out.

And I was alerted by the Strata president in February, and he and I emailed back and forth some septed ideas, and they did take some increased security measures at that time.

Then in March, approximately six weeks later, further damage was done.

And the gazebo at this point is currently closed for safety reasons because more were kicked out.

On April 2nd, the strata president came and spoke to View Royal Council as a petition and delegation, you'll recall about the extent of town's willingness to perhaps cost share in either refurbishment or replacement.

And the refurbishment would look to replace the railing and baluster system with either a cedar or powder coated aluminum rails, a new deck surface, miscellaneous carpentry work, and repainting around 16 to 17,000.

And replacement, and I learned today that removal and taking away the gazebo would be around 3,000, not the 2,000, and provide a lookout with perhaps some other option of metal or concrete.

So closing in the railing system because right now it's an opening, as you can see, down to get down into the gazebo.

And there was no estimate provided when Mr.

Coppethorne, the Strata president, was speaking to you in April.

And I haven't heard of a fully fleshed out estimate for that type of approach at this point.

The motion coming forward from that April 2nd meeting is at the bottom left of your screen, and it's also in the report.

And that is that we come back to you before the strata meets coming up later this month.

So it will help the strata determine what option they may wish to proceed with.

So the report discusses well, what is the community impact?

Well, at this point, the public currently has the use of the property guaranteed through a statutory right-of-the-art.

We have done past improvements.

As you can see, the stairway and the railing project was something that was done a number of years ago on a cost-shared basis.

And so we have done past improvements with the with the strata where the strata undertakes work, and we have contributed to that work.

Financial implications.

Well, if there is a decision to fund, a budget amendment would be required, and funds could come from the casino revenue account.

There are, keeping in mind, nine other strata or nine stratas, including this one, with public access statutory rights of way, and they all have regular maintenance, maintenance, repairs, and replacement requirements for things like stairs and walkways, railings, gazebos, and benches.

Just wanted to point that out.

So there are ongoing things that do come up.

And we have done other cost sharing work at other places in the past.

I'm thinking of uh down across from Heart Road, actually, uh, a walkway and and um a chain fence improvement uh a number of years ago, perhaps about 10 years ago now, that lasted over two or three years because it was a fairly large project.

General comments.

This land is private.

We can't choose the final improvements, or you know, whether it is a refurbishment or a replacement option, that is up to the property owner to decide.

What we are is actually considered an occupier, and um council needs to decide if it wishes to provide funds.

We do have, as an occupier though, some responsibility for safety.

I will point that out.

Uh refurbishment will have ongoing costs, however, because uh a number of years ago the strata did talk to council about um a declaration uh insurance provider talked to them about by 2029, they would need to replace the gazebo, and um we did talk about that with the strata and and what that might look like, and that that discussion would have to happen closer to 2029.

Well, this clearly would would change that.

However, the refurbishment uh outlined doesn't consider roof replacement, so that would be another cost down the road in the near future.

Um, what that and when that would be still is up in the air because they're having that reassessed, I believe, next year coming forward.

So again, that could change when that happens, but it is something that isn't going to happen now through refurbishment.

So again, it would come up in the future.

The recommended option supports materials that have some longevity with the metal and the concrete.

It's responsive to the changing environmental conditions and greenshore principles with the gazebo removal, new metal rails to close off the opening down to the water.

It is quite a steep drop-off if you've been down there.

And potential additional improvements could happen if there are funds remaining or left available further inland or upland.

And you saw the bench in the earlier photo that is sits up a little bit higher.

Of course, any works should be to the town, a director of engineering satisfaction to ensure public safety standard is met as an occupier.

We want to make sure that it's uh it is safe for inviting the public to be there.

And with respect to how does this impact any of the documents that we have, well, it does uh fall in line with some of our OCP policies, and that is we do want to provide neighborhoods with accessible green spaces that meet our social and recreational needs of our residents.

We recognize that connections to parks and recreation are going to make for more walkable places.

And I did look across the shoreline and I thought actually, this is cited quite ideally because, in terms of where the increments are of spaces and open space, it it isn't a great location for that, uh promoting a healthy lifestyle for people.

Um, and also the OCP speaks to identifying and developing access to water and and viewpoints.

And with respect to the parks master Plan, it balances the use of waterfront with the protection of environmentally sensitive features because in this point it is a lookout above the water.

So the recommendation before you is that council cost share on a 50-50 basis up to a maximum of $5,000.

So it would be a total dependent could be more if the strata wishes to put in more of their own money.

But $5,000, so a $10,000 project, the removal of the gazebo, and the installation of additional railings to close off that opening for safety at the edge or the slope.

And the provision of any additional upland improvements, if there are funds available, to create a lookout on the property to the set direction of the uh to the satisfaction of the town's director of engineering.

If you have any questions thank you Sarah uh let's go to questions first council lemon Sarah if if the strata should want to keep their private property private is that doable or are we are we or is the the agreement between the town and the and the uh the strata um in stone.

It is set by a statutory right of way.

Um there would need to be a a pro uh it's a legal agreement that the municipality could release.

I would think that it would need to be on a public agenda.

And I would need to seek a review of legal advice as to whether it was a condition of the uh uh we would have to go back through the legal agreements to see if it was a condition of any uh we I mean we looked at it from the perspective of was the gazebo legally required?

We don't see that it was, but was the common property access legally required?

And that will require, I think, a a check of of the documents and in confirming the historic perspective on that.

Council McKenzie.

Thank you.

I have two questions.

The first, um, Sarah, you mentioned that with the other nine right of ways, that there have been instances where we've shared costs of benches or or staircase.

Were these on the private property or was it along the right of way?

The right of weight is the um registered over the private property, like that's the legal tool.

Um, and so for example, in the instance uh across from Heart Road at that um, I believe it's at Water's Edge, and two other stratos on either side of it, it was on private property because that's where the pub we have registered the statutory right of way that permits the pedestrian act public pedestrian access.

And so we are inviting the public across private property.

Um, and in that instance to make it safe, it had been uh eroding in a bit of an edge drop off.

So we reinstituted a safer pathway and Kosh shared that as well as um a better chain fencing along the edge.

Okay, thank you.

And I'm not sure if this question is more for the strata, but I don't know if I ask it through you first.

Uh I previously read that there was debate uh from the strata whether the gazebo should be publicized on the town website with our parks maps.

And so if the town was to uh you know go with the option uh that that's been recommended by staff and pay into it, would the strata then be comfortable with continuing to promote it on our website?

Because it's a statutory right-of-way permitting public access, it's a public access area.

I don't know if so it's it is a public access area.

It's an it's an unfortunate thing, perhaps, that it's not uh well liked to be shared necessarily, but it is a public access area where the public can freely go by by right or by by law.

So I've just got uh one question.

If you can go to slide three, just a picture kind of looking down at the gazebo.

So uh what we're proposing as a future state with the gazebo would be gone and the railing would be enclosed there.

No other re uh other changes except maybe beefing up the concrete.

But am I saying that right?

It wouldn't be the town designing it, but it would be removal of the gazebo and just closing off the opening with a railing system, would be what the intent of the recommendation is.

What it visually looks like is up to the strata.

And uh just another follow-on.

Have you discussed um kind of your recommendation with the strata to see if that kind of met both sides?

Because we could come up with an agreement and then they might not like it, and then um we're back here.

I have forwarded the report to the strata president on Friday.

And he is here tonight if if you have any questions or comments that they may have a a vision of what gazebo removal looks like.

Yeah I'm just uh specifically and please come up because I think that would save us some uh some time back and forth and uh allow some clarity for us both because this is a joint venture um uh does the um does the recommendation by staff align with uh the strata's kind of view on on what should become of of that spot.

Is it compatible?

I'll be in a much better position to to answer that question after the 21st of this month when we have our annual general meeting uh we're we're we are uh making a presentation to our group as to whether or not the gazebo should be removed, uh, and that decision hasn't been made yet.

So so we're we're doing that presentation, and we're very happy to have had uh your your input to see that you may be willing to help, but but there has been no decision made at this point in time.

Perfect.

The answer to all my questions.

So um so you're going to take uh if passed this evening, you'll take our recommendation, whatever that looks like, back uh inform your council, and then I I assume report back to this council on your decisions that you've made uh there.

Correct.

Perfect.

Thank you, sir.

Councilor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um I'm I'm certainly in favor of uh the first option, uh recommended option that the staff have uh provided.

And and um uh Councillor Match and myself were on council at the time with the uh high um very interesting debate and consultation that we had with the property owners and um uh the residents.

And there were there were a couple of uh things um that were um highlighted as far as uh public requirements of approval for this uh development and what we see today.

And that was um uh public access to the the water, the the uh Chibraltar way as we see it now, um public access uh through the uh site um uh from V Wall Avenue, back and forth, and then the access to uh Prince Rubber Drive and uh ensuring that a forested area was preserved at the top.

So this is an integral part of of um uh of the whole uh community benefit that was uh committed to it the very beginning as this um development occurred.

I think the uh other way of looking at it is that with our other road ends and and access points to the water, the town has to pay a hundred percent of those costs.

But maybe road end it's up to us to uh um pay fully for uh any amenities, any access, any safety, all that stuff.

And I I think also uh staff noted that we've um uh in good spirit with the strata uh contributed to a wonderful walkway and it's uh safe way with the railing.

And uh I think uh with staff's recommendation it continues that goodwill uh with the strata.

I would be in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't think we had a mover in a seconder yet.

So are you moving it, uh Councilor Rogers?

Yes, please.

Okay, do we have a seconder for staff's recommendation?

I'll second.

Councillor Lemmon.

Any other questions or comments or debate?

Uh Councilor Brown.

I'd like to make an amendment to that to uh uh do option three and make them make it up to eight thousand dollars because there's uh during the discussion it was suggested that the cost could be as high as sixteen thousand dollars, so at least eight thousand, but uh uh five thousand dollars doesn't go very far.

And because it uh fully uh parks plan and our OCP it's fits right in there.

And to me, five thousand dollars is pretty doesn't go far costs or more and I would prefer the option of increasing it at option number three to increase it to eight thousand dollars so I think that's a friendly amendment if uh the mover and the seconder agree um I would support that okay and Council Lemmon and I'll go to Sarah but do you support the I you know I I think um option one would not have been recommended if it weren't viable.

Sorry, uh thank you.

I think the difference between option one and three is two differences.

One is price and the other is solution.

Option three doesn't speak to a solution, and option one does.

And so I'm not sure a friendly amendment covers it.

Excuse me, I think um the up to 8,000 would be paying for half of a refurbishment.

Um whereas the 5,000 in mind contemplates removal.

Um I learned today the cost to remove and dispose of the gazebo is 3,000, so the town's portion 1,500, leaving uh the 3,500 for railing, soldering, and a bit of if there's any concrete work.

So if it's a solution of 8,000 for half of a refurbishment, then that could be option three.

And I just wanted to point that out to council.

It it makes no difference to staff because it sounds like there's support to provide support.

One is solution oriented and one is more broad which is the option three.

Okay.

Thank you, Sarah.

Counselor Brown.

Yeah, I know I understand that, but I think the with option three with the staff recommendations, you know, to make sure it's safe for one, I think the gazebo itself, it's nice to have a place to have cover, obviously in climate weather or even in hot sunny days, to at least have a place where people could sit and enjoy it uh without having to deal with the with the elements.

And and again, the the dollar amount, again, five thousand dollars is not a lot of money.

Um, but I understand what you're saying.

It total makes total sense.

But with the set with the staff recommendations, but just raising the amount up to $8,000.

Okay, I think uh Council McKenzie.

So I I feel that we should really limit our financial involvement to just sharing in the cost of kind of making the area safe after the removal of the gazebo and and not uh the removal of the gazebo itself, because that decision to build uh a gazebo there was originally the decision of the strata uh if it's the same as it is currently we wouldn't have had the uh option to say what could go in that in that place so I I'm not supportive of of the uh motion to increase it and I think it's really important that council remember this is not a park it is private property and this money that we're we're proposing to spend here.

It actually could be better spent in one of our many town parks that are is really accessible uh to people from across the town.

Um and if we were to invest even in the making it safe for people, so perhaps um putting in the railing there, I would certainly want to make sure that the town is getting value from this investment and we're promoting it on our website and even better signage in the area locally, because I know even intentionally trying to find the gazebo, I was I had to go twice to to try to find it.

It's not clear that it is public access.

And so if we are contributing, I feel that we should make it clear that it is uh open to anyone to use.

I think uh Councillor Mattson.

Yeah, I'm just listening to the conversation.

I mean, I don't I don't think it really matters whether it's a park or public access or on private property, it's still an amenity to the town that was created in terms of uh when the development was rezoned.

So that's I I think it's sort of a distinction without a real difference in terms of what the public cares about.

But I certainly agree with uh counselor McKenzie that better signage to make it easier to to find would be a good idea.

Um and whether it's you know 5,000 or 8,000 doesn't much matter to me.

Um if the strata wants to keep it as a excebo and it only costs the town an extra three thousand dollars again I would certainly agree with whomever said that it becomes uh uh a more of an amenity to to residents and as well as people on the strata who can go down and use it on sunny days or even rainy days.

So um I so I think I'm speaking in favor of uh counselor brown's motion.

Okay the motion on the floor I think is split between 8,000 and 5,000, but it's to move staff's recommendation on slide one.

And I think we've got um uh a discussion ongoing.

Obviously, if the the 8,000 isn't spent, it's gonna come in as less uh money, but it gives them some flexibility to do that hearing other views.

Councillor Quelich and then Councillor Brown.

Thanks.

Yeah, I brought this up last time too.

And I just want to be clear is this gonna be on our website now?

Is this something that will be accessible now that we're contributing?

It already is, I believe, on our parks map, so it isn't hidden.

Um, so so it is, and I just want to be clear that the secondary didn't approve any amendment.

So what's on the floor is option one only.

So it's a point of discussion.

So you haven't approved, Council lemon.

Are you opposed to a friendly amendment of eight thousand?

Uh let's go with this first.

We're we're all over the place in this place.

And so I'm trying to herd us back on to uh the motion that we got on the floor.

It seems to me when the strata came and spoke to us before this is more or this is what they requested.

Um not not the dollar amount specifically, but the removal of the gazebo and uh the installation of railings.

So I'm uh I remain comfortable with the recommended solution.

Uh at the 5,000, I think the other there's no question about that.

The only question was that uh Councilor Brown had suggested more money.

Um the mover um had agreed to 8,000 by 5,000, and then it was up to you.

Otherwise we'll have to it doesn't have a second or we'd have to move.

Sure.

So 8,000.

So you're happy with that.

So that's the motion on the floor is staff's recommendation with the increase from 5,000 to 8,000.

Um but sir, you had a point.

Thank you.

Uh yes, my name is Paul Hardy.

I'm with the strata counsel from Gibraltar Bay.

Um just to remind you, the impetus for this was um kind of a safety thing and uh ongoing potential vandalism.

Uh there was a brush fire there a few years ago, and we wanted to ensure that the town of V Royal is kind of aligned with us in the future in terms of these issues.

So we're delighted that you're discussing it and we appreciate any offers to share in the cost.

But probably more importantly is uh you know addressing this issue ongoing for safety and vandalism.

And um that's where advertising is a bit of a concern to us.

We think that if people from V Royal come through the area, that's great, but uh the the people that have been coming through we're not sure where they're from and uh causing some trouble.

So we'd we'd really uh like to feel that we're aligned with V Royal on that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Counselor Brown.

And the emotion, the amendment is is to up to 8,000, so it may come in less.

So yeah, and it gives the strata the option too.

They could say, uh, no, we're happy with the five, let's take the thing out, the gazebo, or we would like to refurbish it and then spend the 8,000.

They're they're 8,000 plus or 8,000.

So it gives them that option at least.

Sorry.

Option one does not give them that option.

Option three gives them that option.

So so to be clear, Councilor Brown, this is just the removal of the gazebo and the railings to make it safe.

That's that's the only thing in in the motion we've got on the floor right now.

No, but the amendment was to um follow the staff's recommendation as far as the safety concerns go.

And uh again, it gives them the option of refurbishing, right?

So it's it's entirely different.

It's like apples and oranges, really.

The to me, option three, yeah, it doesn't include that, but my amendment would be to include what staff has already recommended, except for the dollar amount.

And that is option one to be clear.

Well, option three, yeah.

Okay, let's do a uh combined of option uh one and three.

So option one, the recommendations from staff with the amount of up to eight thousand dollars.

I think that I think that's completely different motion than what we got.

All we did was increase eight thousand dollars to the re for the removal.

So we were to have we would have to vote on this, and and if the this defeats or if you uh had a seconder for that, uh we we could consider that uh another option.

So right now the only thing on the floor that we've agreed to is staff's recommendation and we've increased eight thousand dollars.

There's no refurbishment.

Uh just hang on a second, Councilor Rogers.