Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal.

And I'll call the meeting, Council meeting of Tuesday, July 18th, 2023 to order and to state and start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Laquanguin speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and Songhees Nation, that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

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

Uh for members in the audience, the council is a safe, respectful, and inclusive space.

Um please treat each other, council and staff accordingly.

Um tonight will be a little bit different because we have a bit of a tribunal that we'll switch to on an agenda item.

Uh and uh so the uh the uh interest of council and perhaps staff may be different than um a normal council meeting.

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

And when prompted, enter conference ID 861-186-797 pound.

You will be immediately muted once admitted to the meeting.

Please do not unmute until you're asked.

At the appropriate time of 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 to not use your speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and ask that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

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

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

This meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

You are consenting uh consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website forever.

Actually, it says future access, but it is forever.

Um so uh there's one amendment to the agenda.

Unfortunately, uh item number five.

Uh Dr.

Eileen Peppler is unable to join us this evening because of a death in her family.

Um I've forwarded counsel's condolences and we could look forward to that in September.

Are there any other changes um that council would like to make to the agenda?

Seeing none, can I get a motion to approve the agenda?

Moved by councillor Brown, seconded by councillor Mattson.

All in favor?

Any opposing, no opposition.

The motion motion carries.

And can I get a motion to uh receive an adoption of the minutes for uh July 4th and a special council meeting held on June 28th, please.

Uh moved by councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor McKenzie.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Mayor's report.

Uh I will be brief this evening.

I've got an opportunity for the town to welcome the competition for the fastball tournament for the under 15 that's occurring in our park.

And I look forward to doing that.

As well as there's also an opportunity to celebrate one of our local coffee shops who has uh had some diverse um uh and and innovative employment uh and recruitment uh challenges uh that they've addressed over the years.

So I look forward to presenting them with a little bit of a certificate on council's behalf uh and uh and their uh service to the town.

So those are always good things to do.

Um uh this is the last council meeting.

Of course, we break uh before uh we return again in September uh and have uh August off in my stead as I will be out of country.

Uh Councillor Qualwich will be filling in for the last few days in July, and Councilor McKenzie will be filling in until I return on the 18th of August.

And I thank you both for uh having those allowances.

Uh so that says it for my mayor's report.

I think we can move down to the public participation period, and we can move first uh to anybody who would like to address counsel in the chambers, and then we'll move to the phone.

Would anybody like to address counsel?

Going once, twice, three times.

Uh Carl, have we got anybody on the phone that would like to address counsel?

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

So everybody's gonna wait till question period to make comments.

That's what I'm going to assume now.

Uh so we can move to business arising from previous minutes.

And of course, that was our draft tenant assistance um policy, and it was uh tabled.

And I I think the the reason for tabling, what I'm going to do is turn it back over to those moved and seconded to discuss, but that concerning the tenant assistant policy that the motion was that applications received before July 4th, 2023 not be required to comply with the draft tenant policy.

So counselor Rogers, you move this.

So I'm going to turn it over to you for comment and then go to Councillor Brown.

Yes, thank you.

So the um circumstances in the previous um uh meeting that was where this was discussed, uh, we had uh six members of council, and um uh the uh motion that was um presented had uh been defeated at 3 3.

Uh subsequent motion um uh not uh you know contrary to this was also defeated 3 3.

So we were basically waiting until we had a full man full council to then consider the uh uh the implications and um and discuss it and vote upon it.

So that's that's the gist of it.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers and Councillor Brown, please.

Yeah, same the same thing it was a tie vote twice.

So uh this was a s uh a section of that policy, which the policy itself was excellent, uh, but it was quite a discussion on whether it was fair for people that have already applied and and gone into the process whether they should be um had to have to have the same criteria in the in the policy and I think just to add to that we went to staff to figure out well when is an application really an application particularly around rezoning uh when does it become an application of course there is an application for rezoning we might not have decided on it or know what it looks like but at least it's been submitted so there is a point in time uh of submission for it um uh anybody else like to speak to the um the issue counselor mattson it looks like you're going to raise your hand so I'll go to you next yeah I I was just wondering that to to make it easier if we could just sort of raise our hands for those who'd like it to the policy to include uh anyone who hasn't actually started building or got a building permit or or how however it was like versus the July 4th so just so we get an idea and then I would just sort of because I don't think everyone was in agreement with the policy it was just a matter of when that one aspect took place either July 4th or for people who have already and we're talking about the project down at uh down the road and so that was the the main question since there hadn't been any other proposals.

So it's gonna be difficult and we can uh certainly amend um that uh if you had a seconder um if we wanted to test it.

So if we wanted to remove the date I think you're proposing, Counselor Mattson, in order to uh say that applications uh received um uh are going to be required to after this date actually would be uh required to comply with the draft tenant assistance policy.

So maybe that's good if we if we don't get people to support having every you know it being in place for everyone right now.

Like no one no one gets a deferment on it.

We can either just find that out.

I'll make that motion, and if it doesn't pass, then we just simply go to the other one.

We know because it won't because basically it will have uh won't have the votes.

Okay, so um can you uh be succinct on just looking at staff, make sure they capture it.

Can you read your motion aloud?

Council.

So that out of the yeah, even those that are in that haven't for for anyone who hasn't put in a building permit.

And you wanted to put in today's date?

Because we need to put that in or a date.

I'm just saying no date, or you know, put it for six months ago.

I don't really care.

I just want to know if if people want to vote for July 4th, we'll find out right away.

And July 4th is there, of course, is that the or July 8th or you know, whatever the current date is, 11th.

And Councillor Brown.

Well, July 4th was the date that the policy was drafted, so it just kind of made sense.

Um one way or the other before or after.

Uh uh, the intent is that for anyone starting out now who hasn't made an application, they have to apply with that to that policy to a T.

Right.

And I'm suggesting that the project on Prince Robert and Island Highway would have to uh this this bylaw would apply to them or policy would apply to them if they ever get approved.

Leanne, uh I think one of the questions, I know you have a comment, but one of the questions that would I think benefit council would be uh when is there an approved application?

Because somebody can apply for rezoning, but we don't know what that is, whether it's um uh until it is approved.

So when is it uh an approved application for rezoning?

I think would help council.

Uh through the mayor, it's when council approves the bylaw.

So um when when an applicant submits a rezoning application, it's a full application.

So we do know what the proposal is and at the um at the time of rezoning.

So um we're speaking here about current applications.

The um staff is recommending well, the reason for July 4th was because that's when the um draft policy was presented to council.

So anything, any application that was received before July 4th um would not be required to comply with the current policy.

So that's all in-stream active applications.

Some applications have been presented at council, rezoning applications.

Some are have not come to council yet, but we do have active applications in process.

And I think it's also my point of clarification that this policy can only apply to rezonings, not development permits or building permits.

Understood.

Any other questions for staff?

Council Rudd?

So if I understand then when uh this matter did come before um uh council the last time and the staff report was suggesting that it would be unreasonable to uh apply or make this policy um contingent or uh upon those that had already got applications in the stream.

Is that my understanding what the staff's position was?

Uh through the mayor, that is correct.

Um yes, thank you.

Yeah.

I guess my my next question is has um uh in this particular example with um we've got we've got an application before us, uh they've already posted and and um um you know things are in the works.

Um have has staff can uh worked or consulted with or discussed with the applicant and what the costs uh might be uh from this uh tenant assist policy if they were to apply or if this were to apply to them.

Um through the mayor, it it's uh it is a uh we have to be careful about talking about specific applications when we're discussing a policy that's going to affect the entire town.

And so um but you you did ask ask the question so um staff have not um have had had those conversations yet with the applicant just because this policy has not been adopted again I guess that's my problem is that um we don't know what the ramifications are.

We don't know how many millions of dollars this policy may um uh further impose upon uh an application that's that's in stream and in terms of everything else that they've uh they're committed to um provide in terms of DCCs, CACs, um and fees and so forth.

So the additional burden could be as much as three or four million dollars, I would imagine.

I I would suggest as well there's two sides of this.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

We've also got um and and not speaking to a specific property, um, but we uh the the rationale for the tenant assistance policy is not necessarily for the proponent, but the um residents that we're displacing and giving them an affordable place to live.

So I think there's two sides of that of the issue.

Counselor Lemon and then Councillor McKenzie, please.

Thank you.

Um to staff of of all of the there's not many, but all of the projects that are in stream now, um, and those that are underway, none none of the ones that are currently under const under construction or well I can rephrase this.

There's only one application, and that's the pending one that we have has yet to come to council that would impact tenants, correct?

Uh through the mayor, no, we have a couple.

Councilor McKenzie, please, and then Councillor Mattson.

Yes, I think we need to make sure that our policy is reasonable for all parties involved.

Uh so and even if we're thinking not about um this policy in particular, would it be reasonable to implement something for someone already in process and then change the policy?

And I I don't think that would be uh reasonable.

And I know in the past we've used fair, unfair.

I don't think that's the right term.

I think it's reasonable for all for everyone.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie, Councillor Mattson.

Yeah, just for simplicity's sake, then my motion should have been for anyone who hasn't had a rezoning approved.

And so we don't have to worry about dates.

So for anyone who hasn't had a rezoning approved already, this policy would apply.

What examples would those be?

Staff could help us on what uh where that would be and where the line is drawn.

Does that change things in terms of the landscape of individuals that have applications in stream?

Probably not.

Um could you repeat that question, Councillor Rogers?

Yes, uh, Councilor Madsen is suggesting that um uh this would only apply for those that haven't uh been rezoned.

But you know, it seems to me that if people are already in stream and yet have not been decided upon, then they haven't been rezoned, so they are still in in this predicament.

Am I right?

That is correct.

And uh I'll just ask because I need the information, how long can a project sit in rezoning?

We've I know we've got some applications out there that has seemed to be probably close to a year that they're in a process of rezoning.

Um so how long is that, Leanne?

Is there a limitation?

Uh yeah, through the mayor.

Um a typical rezoning process from experience takes about six to six months to a year, depending on the complexity of the project.

And is there a limitation and end date where it just stops?

So somebody could be in that for perpetuity.

Um so through um it's been um common practice where if we've had no activity on a rezoning application, we we send it usually about three three months.

Uh we send a letter to the applicant letting them know there's been no activity, and we're gonna close the file unless they respond to comments or get back to us with the information that we need.

Okay, thank you.

Council Rudd.

It you know, it it's again, it's um unless we have some specifics and in terms of an appreciation for, and I'm not even talking about anybody in stream.

Let's talk about somebody a year from now that has, and we've got a number of different examples.

We could look at point two with uh Christy Point or the the folks next door.

They have 20 rentals.

And you know, based on the rules that we've now got in this policy of um of you know moving them out, moving them back in and finding a place for them to stay, having a a tenant um a coordinator, moving them back in, giving them 25%, you know, and it sounds like it'd be a 25% benefit in perpetuity, not for a year or two, but in perpetuity according to this policy, then what would be the net impact um of an application on top of all the other costs that they uh they must uh address?

And I'm not talking about anybody in stream, because we don't know this information.

We haven't been able to apply this in any kind of practical sense to understand what we're talking about.

Um I'm not sure if staff can answer and give you a uh uh how much it would cost on that, because we haven't said how many units and I think that would take some calculation, Councillor Rogers.

No, I think it's I can help out with that.

But you're simple.

So are you saying you've got an answer to your own question?

Okay, then don't ask.

Uh Councilor Brown.

Realistically, people paying $675 or $700 a month, and they get evicted from their place because of a new building.

Uh almost none of them are gonna be able to afford a 2,000 rent rent apartment and pay $500 because it's double what they're paying now.

So it's a moot point, really.

I don't think anybody, and again, I don't feel comfortable talking about a specific project.

In some ways, we actually are, and I'm I'm not comfortable with that.

And I think this this date, the suggested date, I mean, you just have to have just as applications, you should say development app, re rezoning applications.

That has to be put in it.

The word that word in the motion that's put here on their agenda, that rezoning applications, not applications, period.

Because um, anyway, um, I feel I it's hard, you know.

Eventually we're gonna have nobody can afford to live in the rural.

That's that's just my feeling.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

So uh we've got a motion on the floor right now that Councillor Matson, if you could repeat.

On any project that they haven't re yet received rezoning, this policy would apply.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

So just for clarification, that includes anyone now or somebody 20 years from now.

So we've got a motion, uh, we've got a seconder.

All those in favor of Councillor Matson's amended uh motion.

All those in favor of it.

So oh, you've got a question.

We're halfway through a vote.

I know, but uh Councilor Lennon.

I was and so the date is no longer July 4th on your motion, Councillor Matson.

It is now July 18th.

Counselor Matson.

If they already don't have a rezoning application and approved rezoning or have their zoning approved, then it would account for it would apply to them.

Counselor Roger.

So um it still speaks to um uh counselor McKenzie's point.

The the whole um the concerns that were raised on July the 4th still stand is um and the concern that will it be reasonable for those that are in stream um right this moment that are applications that are coming before us in the next month or so is that reasonable to uh impose this um policy on those individuals so that's the question no we got to vote on something counselor rogers and and so we can we can vote on this and defeat it and I'd be happy to entertain uh the another motion on it but uh we've got something on the floor so we're having discussion about what we're voting on and that's not appropriate what we need to do is either vote on this and if if it doesn't get uh approved, um then we can um come up with another motion councilor McKenzie, you had a question or a comment?

Oh, I just wanted to clarify.

I think there was a previous motion, this which was this one, and then we didn't vote on that, and then councillor Manson.

Okay.

So if this one does not pass, then we go back to the initial one and vote on that, and then if that does not pass, we can figure out something else to do.

Um but let's go ahead and vote on this one.

Um so this includes the term rezoning uh with without uh uh a date uh on it, but uh be required to apply comply with the draft tenant assistance policy.

So all of those in favor.

All those opposed.

So I have uh counselor McKenzie, Councilor Rogers, Lemon, uh Quelich, and Brown opposed.

Motion is defeated.

So can I have a and we did have a mover and a seconder because I'm not that old yet, uh, on the initial motion that was that applications received before July 4th, 2023 not be required uh to comply uh with the draft tenant policy, assistance policy.

Now we just vote.

Yeah, Councilor McKenzie.

I don't know if it's worth amending it, but it could be phrased in a more positive way and be that application applications received after July 4th, 2023 should are required to comply with the draft tenant assistant policy.

I agree.

We're halfway through a vote on this one, so we'd have to defeat it and come up with another one.

Just trying to be a stickler for process here.

Counselor Madsen.

I just could just be a friendly amendment because it doesn't change anything at all, just makes it positive.

No, I think we'd we'd confuse the issue.

So let's let us vote on this one.

And if it does not pass, then we can we can put some positive words to it.

But this motion was on the table.

We need to deal with it before we go to an amendment.

Uh so all those in favor of the amendment, as it is written uh that applications received before July 4th, 2023 not be required to comply with the draft tenant assistance policy.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

So I have counselors uh Brown, Lemon, Mackenzie opposed, uh, and the rest were of the affirmative, I believe.

So that motion actually passed.

Uh so uh that's as it stands um now, Councillor McKenzie.

Uh if you wish to amend that one, we can do it in a positive light.

Sorry, can we just vote?

So I think it's finished now, isn't it?

Yep, we can we can finish that, but if we want to amend that, we can.

Well, no, I don't think so.

I think we've already voted it's a done.

Thank you.

We're happy with that?

Okay.

So that um that adds some clarification I think for for staff.

Staff any comments questions fair enough.

Councilor Brown that all being said, if we don't like a rezoning application and they aren't providing some assistance for people being moved forced to move out, we can always turn it down.

Sure.

Thanks, Councillor Brown.

I think the the issue for a uh a policy, and I realize that we don't have many of them that are council policies, is to guide us to be consistent as opposed to um a proponent.

So as opposed to anything else, that's kind of where it sits.

So of course we'll come to that discussion when we look at um their tenant assistance policy associated with it.

Any other comments or questions?

Counselor Rogers.

Probably consider the policy in in a cautious way, because we've just made the motion that um this policy would not apply to applications that have been made before July.

So if we've made that motion and that's been passed by council, then we're kind of not able to apply this policy.

We can think about it, we can perhaps see what the app any applications may have to offer, but I don't think that we could um, because we've now made the stipulation, not be so stringent about it.

Um staff, can you any comments or thoughts?

We we will be communicating with the applicants that the policy exists and the degree of compliance required, and so the applicant will actually be informed as part of the application process.

Any other part?

There's any reasons probably will be inconsistent with the advice we give the applicant.

Yeah.

I see there's still going to be some legal issues there, possibly.

Councilor Lemon, you had a comment.

I I was just gonna say we can we can negotiate.

Thank you.

I think we can move on to reports.

So if we're satisfied with comments and questions and the status of um the item, we can move to eight reports, staff reports, and we got a section 57 notice on Title 21 Eaton Avenue.

Staff, please.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

This presentation is on the town filing a Section 57 community charter notice with the land titles office against the property located at 21 Eton Avenue for the failure to comply with the Town of Uroyals zoning bylaw and building bylaw.

With me this evening is Stephen Patterson, the town's building inspector, and Dana Goodfellow, the town's Legal counsel.

And they will be a part of this presentation.

Staff sent the property owner, Alex Burns, and his legal counsel, William Kendon of Cox Taylor, a notice of tonight's meeting and a copy of the staff report and attachments on July 4th.

Staff nor the town's legal council have not received any correspondence or confirmation of receipt of the notice, report, and attachments emailed to them 14 days ago.

Ms.

Goodfellow reached out to William Kendon this afternoon and learned that he is no longer a practicing lawyer.

Alex Burns nor any other legal counsel acting on his behalf are in council chambers or aligned to represent this item or answer any questions this evening.

The purpose of the report is to inform council of a residential property with non permitted construction in contravention of several sections of the zoning bylaw and building bylaw, and to request counsel to direct the town to file a notice against title of the property at 21 Eton Avenue under Section 57 of the community charter.

The reason for taking this action now is the town was contacted by a local appraiser for information about the existing single family dwelling, which suggests the current owner may be listing the subject property for sale.

Registering a Section 57 notice on title is the least time intensive and the least expensive option to ensure that any future owners are aware of the non-permitted and illegal construction.

If this process is not undertaken and the property sells, then there is an added risk, and we are back to square one with new owners.

On September 23rd, 2021, the town received a bylaw complaint concerning the development of a second illegal secondary suite.

A site inspection was conducted on October 5th, 2021 by the former Director of Development Services and the building inspector.

During this inspection, the presence of a second illegal secondary suite was found.

The construction was undertaken without approved building or plumbing permits.

Due to the addition of the illegal secondary suite, the property now exceeds the maximum allowable floor area permitted under the R1B zone.

Now I will turn the presentation over to Steven Patterson, the town's building inspector, who will discuss what was discovered during the the inspection in September of 2021, communicate the timeline following the first inspection, and the findings from the recent the most recent inspection that occurred in June Uh good evening Mayor and Council.

My name is Steven Patterson.

I'm the building inspector for View Royal.

So yeah, Leanne and I have been working on this one.

So I have to go back a little bit with the timeline, which I wasn't here for, but we're doing our best to be as accurate as possible.

So I was called out for an inspection with our contract building inspector Robert Guterres, and we went out with our bylaw officer Brad Cameron.

So what we noticed during the construction of the illegal secondary suite, many violations to the approved building plans were conducted, such as and not limited to the removal of sections of foundation walls, structural supports, seismic shear walls, and excavation to the ground.

These contraventions have been considerably uh have considerably compromised the structural integrity of the main dwelling unit.

So just to give you reference, the top right corner, uh there's a foundation footing that runs through that big section.

That's where the shear, the seismic shear wall was, and that's the corner that the secondary suite, the second secondary suite has been placed.

So there's no way to confirm it meets any of the standards of the 2018 building code.

So this is just a bit of a timeline.

So following the first inspection on September 23rd, 2021, staff sent a letter to the current owner dated October 14th, 2021, giving them 90 days to come into compliance with the bylaws.

On January 28th, 2022, Farhill Engineering performed an inspection and prepared a report dated February 7th, 2022.

The structural engineer confirmed that work was completed without his consent or knowledge and provided recommendations on how to remediate the illegal work.

On May 31st, 2022, the property owner submitted a building permit application.

It was reviewed by staff, and the proposed floor to ceiling crawlspace height on the plans did not comply with the zoning bylaw.

A letter dated July 22nd, 2022, was sent to the applicant and owner requesting further information and revisions to the building permit plans.

Since then, the town has received no further communication or correspondence from the applicant or owner since sending the letter a year ago.

So the next thing, there'll be just a few slides just to show from the inspection of what we saw that day.

So this would have been the top right corner.

As you can see, it's just full of filth.

The leaves are everywhere.

Clearly, no one's been inhabiting this area for quite some time.

So here we look at where the stove was and the uh range fan.

Um both have been decommissioned and actually removed.

Um clearly, there's a bit more work that still needs to be done to be permanent and safe.

And then if you look here, this is the bathroom.

So he's had um a shower stall removed.

He's had the toilet removed, and I believe on the other one's just the sink in this uh picture.

And then here he's had gas lines um capped off from the dryer and the washer that he's had in the same corner of that bathroom.

And so that post there from the building plans we have on file, uh it's holding up one of the structural beams to the left of it.

Used to be the seismic shear wall that was um actually it had been built and put in for the house to receive occupancy.

So this is what was removed um by the owner to place in a secondary suite.

So the seismic wall is obviously for seismic uh activity, um and clearly that being removed without the uh approval of the structural engineer that did the designs on this.

Okay, so I'll just make a few points here.

Um the post and beam uh were installed, like I said, uh to code.

Um they had a structural engineer for the job.

This was approved by the building inspector at the time.

It was given occupancy for the house.

Um the seismic shear well was later removed to necessitate the unlawful secondary suite.

Uh, this was done without a building permit, as I mentioned before.

Um, and without inspections, we don't know uh the scope of work.

Um Far Hill Engineering performed an inspection on January 28, 2022.

Uh, and he submitted and they submitted a report dated February 7, 2022.

The engineer for the job um who had previously approved this work um mentioned that without his consent or knowledge, this had been modified.

He with the application from uh the homeowner, he did provide a set of drawings on how to replace the structural uh shear wall that's been removed.

Sorry, one sec.

Um so as I was doing the inspection, we took some measurements of the floor to ceiling height.

On the left and the far right, those are the bulkheads that have been built to accommodate, I don't know, possibly ducting what other uh framing would have been there.

In the middle, uh, that's the main size of the unit.

So the middle there measures 2.15 meters, and under the bulkheads, they average about 1.6 uh meters.

Um, these do not comply with the definition of crawl space in our zoning bylaw, um, and they do not comply with the uh crawl space height for the BC building code.

Um, in the BC building code 91089, uh titled crawl space, where crawl space exceeds 1.8 meters in height or is used for any occupancy or as a plenum and combustible construction or for the passage of flu pipes, it shall be considered as a basement in applying the requirements.

Um the application that was received uh from the homeowner, it was a set of plans, um, and he proposed the idea of um backfill.

I'm just sorry, I'll just read it here.

So the decaymant, he had a set of plans showing the decommissioning of the unlawful suite um and how he was going to remediate it.

The floor was to be uh filled up with compacted back filth 24 inches with a concrete slab placed on top.

In an email from the owner to Robert Guterres on October 27, 2022, uh Alex Burns asked that the existing height remain for the purpose of storage and asked if the floor could be built up with lumber to reduce costs, timing, and accessibility for trades to meet the required height for a crawl space in the town of Uroil zoning bylaw.

This plan would not be considered a permanent fix as removing framing would not be a difficult task and could be undone by current or future owners, resulting in the same problem where we are now.

A permanent solution would be to install the compact fill vapor barrier and finish it in concrete as was suggestion suggested.

During this construction, professionals will be required to permanently cap off all gas plumbing fittings and drains.

These will need to be tamper-proof and protected.

Um for my recommendation, uh, as the town has made numerous attempts to reconcile with the owner of 21 Eaton, and there has been no communication from the owner, it is recommended that council direct staff to file section 57 notice on title of the community charter to ensure any future owner is aware of the illegal construction and bylaw contraventions.

That's it, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

I think we're not done the presentation yet.

If you can hold your questions, uh would legal counsel like to um have any input into staff's report.

Thank you for the report.

Your worship my last name is Goodfellow G-O-O-D-F-E-L-L-O-W first name Dana, legal counsel for the town of you royal.

If a council decides to pass the resolution directing staff to register the section 57 notice on title, there are opportunities for Alex Burns, the owner of the property, to seek reconsideration.

Under section 58 of the community charter, Alex Burns can seek that council reconsider the motion that is passed.

If Alex Burns is not satisfied and the council affirms the resolution that is passed at a subsequent hearing, Alex Burns can then go to the Supreme Court to seek that the court order the uh LTSA to cancel the registration against title.

Alex Burns also has the opportunity under Section 623 of Local Government Act to seek a judicial review of council's resolution directing staff to register the section 57 notice on title.

Thank you.

And I know Councillor Brown has a question, but uh if we um and I know there there's some urgency because their consideration uh suspected that the property may be up for sale, um, would uh inaction by counsel cause challenges um uh or future burden on the town potentially legally.

Your worship um uh may I suggest that uh the response to that question be received in camera uh pursuant to legal advice uh to be provided to the town and to seek an order for removal or seeking people within council chambers to leave council chambers before I answer that question.

Absolutely and it may not be important to to answer at this time if we could do uh as much of the open questions, uh potentially first uh counsel.

Thank you.

Uh Councillor Brown, you had a question.

Yeah, I'm just I'm a little surprised it isn't an in-camera meeting.

Um notice on title, all that's going to do to the owner is make it difficult for him to sell.

It's not gonna fix the problems.

And that's more than it's more than just a minor problem.

This is a serious safety issue.

And I I see two other alternate suggestions.

One is invoking the remedial action process.

The the thing about the remedial action process, if he chooses not to do anything, again, I'm not feeling comfortable about talking to this not in camera, but anyway, if he chooses not to do anything, uh the town can actually go in and fix it themselves, correct?

I I'm talking more about my experiences with more as with unsightly properties.

I don't know about actually gaining entry to a building to actually do the remedial action.

But if that isn't even possible, I think we should be looking at the second possible recommendation.

Your worship um uh if I may answer part of the question uh that is not subject to uh I respectfully suggest uh in-camera council meeting.

Section uh 57 notice on title um can be removed on the recommendation of the building inspector that the deficiencies that gave rise to the notice on title being registered being rectified, and then the notice can be removed.

The section 57 notice is of use in terms of facilitating voluntary compliance potentially in the event that the property is sold.

Generally, people seek to have clean title and to have that notice removed.

And in order for that notice to be removed, then the deficiencies that are noted by Stephen Patterson in the staff report would have to be rectified before council makes a decision and staff direct that the section 57 notice be removed.

If a financial institution is seeking or considerate considering advancing funds, a financial institution may very well want the Section 57 notice on title to be removed before advancing funds.

But I think there's an urgency here, given that it's for sale, given that uh or potentially for sale, given that council will not meet again until September.

Um that that is a recommendation from staff.

Counselor Brown, is there any other I would support your recommendation, but with the timeline?

Because uh even if they put it up for sale, it could be months and months and months, and it's again it's a serious safety issue.

And uh I again I would support the uh staff's motion, providing there's a timeline on it.

And and we do have alternate actions that could be taken, and and and they may have to be.

Uh notices and titles sometimes sit for for for eons, decades.

And I'm sorry to say when I worked for the C or D at the bylaw department, all the notices in title were in camera.

Uh thank you, Councillor Mattson.

So so I gather putting on a section seven will provide incentive to the owner to uh to amend or to to fix the problem.

And if not, I guess then they continue to live there.

Um council could at a later date then go to one of the other motion or to one of the other recommendations to basically force them to remediate.

Your worship, if I may answer uh counselor Matson's question, um I suggest that that response be done in camera.

Counselor Rogers.

Thank you.

I have actually a question to the inspector and and uh I look forward to hearing more in camera just uh uh we have um a uh a drawing uh the crawl space floor plan um I wonder if you could bring that up please thank you so um could you point to the areas in question that uh where there's um structural issues um uh that are of concern so here here was the the shear wall was here mm-hmm and there was a shear wall here so on the plans we got from the structural engineer uh this one's been removed and so that wall ties in all the way up to the roof okay and that's for seismic activity now the the post that you see in the picture is here house when you walk in so that post you see is right bedroom bedroom here bathroom here okay great that that's very helpful thank you that puts you into context appreciate it and uh so the the we have a few decisions to make.

Uh the first decision is let's let's focus on staff's recommendation on on the Title fifty seven I think there's other actions that could occur, um, but I I don't think that's their recommendation right now.

And given the uh the urgency that is before us, um, I think we could do that.

If council wishes to move in camera, we can do that uh absolutely to talk about it uh more fully.

But let's focus on the staff recommendation as opposed to other follow-on potential recommendations.

Council Brown.

I'd like to make a motion to accept the staff recommendation to be reviewed at the first meeting in September, or first meeting in September.

So you're you're you're suggesting that we um go with the staff motion, but that it be reviewed because this title 57 be already on it uh by then if we direct staff to do it.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um can they can I just second for discussion because I want to hear from uh staff on that, please.

Yeah.

Uh so count seconded by councillor rogers' uh staff comment.

Through the mayor, um just some clarification, counselor rogers.

So, or just on them actually the motion that was put forward.

So, is the suggestion that um council um approve staff's current recommendation to move forward with the section 57, but then bring back the other two options in September to discuss in camera.

Okay.

Yeah, well review because uh perhaps the person is complying by that and so it's becomes moved.

But yeah, it'd be nice to get um an update.

And and if that hasn't happened, well then we probably have to go on camera to discuss the other options.

Well, I think we definitely would have uh to go in camera.

So that would be uh a a camera in camera meeting uh at the next possible uh um uh part of time.

But councillor brown and Councillor Rogers, the intent would be to um pass staff's recommendation for the section 57 tonight and then review it in okay uh councillor McKenzie and then councillor Rogers please councillor McKenzie and Councillor Rogers please does the resolution need to be made in this open meeting or can it be made in the closed it needs to be made because I do I would like to discuss it further but in camera for instance your question mayor to bias and I also have a question before I can make a decision on this one I feel the same way going camera okay uh staff just um uh for procedure, should we move in camera now or at the end of the meeting to bring it up?

Because uh of course that will alleviate any public participation on further agenda items.

Council can table the issue until we go in camera at the end of this meeting, or council can choose to go to in camera immediately.

Yeah, I'd recommend for transparency that we um we table it um uh until the uh the end of our current agenda if that uh suits uh council so we can continue on an open agenda until that time.

Councilor Matt.

I was just thinking for staff and having our lawyer here.

I mean, I don't think the in-camera is gonna take that long and we could spend a couple hours before we get to them.

It might be easier for just the public to go out for 10 minutes and then go back into out of camera.

Are there comments, thoughts from council?

I agree.

Let's do it now.

Go on camera.

I disagree.

I think uh there's really no telling on how long our discussion and line of questioning can go.

It's a serious matter.

Obviously, we've paused it in the middle of a public process, so there's no need to rush it and uh put a time limit on it and feel like we need to make a decision while we have members of the gallery outside.

So that and that's just it too.

We don't know when we're gonna get done.

So um, and the coordination of an open meeting as well.

Um so what we need um counselor Qualowic is a is a um I guess a motion to uh to table uh um the uh staff report 81A um to an in-camera uh following on the open meeting, if you're willing to provide that.

Okay.

Um so uh the motion by Councilor Qualowich, seconded by Councilor Brown.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Okay, Councilor Mattson uh has made a point.

Uh thank you.

So motion carries Councillor Mattson um uh was opposed.

So we'll table this discussion until the end of the open meeting here.

Thank you very much for the um in-depth report, staff.

That was uh uh well put up and thank you, um legal counsel for your advice, and we'll follow this up shortly so we will move uh with council support to um item eight B which is request to provide liquor services at Helmkin Centennial Park um uh and that there uh is a report uh on our um on our agenda thank you mayor to bias um Ivan Young director of engineering here I have before you um deputy director Ben Luberts uh from engineering department um you may have heard from the last meeting that he was the one involved with the WACIS BRINCE signal.

He basically did it faster than I could write the report.

So he did a good job on that.

But that said, um I will be away likely in October for about four weeks.

So I'd like to just uh open the table for director, Deputy Director Lubberts to do a couple of uh reports for you just for experience and just to build a relationship with yourself at council.

So without further ado, Ben will uh present these two and I'll be here for support.

But um you should be good wins for for my my friend here.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening, Mayor and Council.

Hopefully a lighter item.

This is regarding use of our uh Helm Consennial Centennial Park.

So, as part of uh their 2023 Cops for Cancer Tour to Rock fundraising initiative, the West Shore RCMP detachment is requesting to host the charity baseball tournament with liquor services at Helmkin Centennial Park with all the proceeds going towards the Canadian Cancer Society.

So through the BC Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Board special event permitting process, uh the applicant requests to provide their request to provide liquor service on public property requires written support from council.

So staff have no concerns with respect to this application as it's in accordance with our parks and public spaces by law.

I'll move staff recommendation.

I second uh so we got a motion on the table.

I'll go to the mover and seconders first for uh comment.

No comment.

Uh councillor Levin.

I think we're our park will be in pretty pretty safe hands.

So I'm very comfortable with this.

I'm not sure.

I I think the two the two organizations to really mess up your park are the are the police and the military.

So I wouldn't advise it uh under any circumstance.

Counselor Rogers, you had a question.

Uh we are gonna get a deposit right.

Counselor Brown Brown, please.

Yeah, but thanks for your work on the intersection there.

That was excellent.

And I got my cops for cancer socks on tonight, so I'm 100% in support of this.

I think we're ready to put this uh to a vote, folks.

Uh, this may be the least contentious thing we do all evening.

Uh so all those in favor of moving staff's recommendation for a liquid license for the special event.

Uh all those in favor?

Thank you, staff.

Uh any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Uh Packers Pump Station Tender Update.

Are you gonna stay there?

Good, good.

We got to hear from you twice.

Yeah, me again.

Uh this one's a little bit more technical.

Uh so uh this is regarding our capital project to do improvements to the Packers uh sanitary sewer pump station.

Um so given the scheduled tender closing date, uh it's an active tender that's out to public process right now.

Uh it's set to close this Friday, July 21st.

And uh the delayed award uh that would require um that would be required if kept to the September 5th, 2020 through regular council meeting.

Staff recommend awarding the project now to the successful bidder earlier to mitigate delays.

That a special council meeting in August be held so staff can inform council of potential options.

Move staff recommendation.

Any uh discussion?

Uh mover, seconder would like to speak to it.

No?

Okay.

Uh all those in favor of moving staff's recommendation.

Any opposed?

Unopposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, staff.

Um accessible uh BC Act Municipal Requirements Update.

Sarah, please.

Hello, thank you.

Carl, can you please call up the accessible BC presentation?

And have a lot of paper because I have the next item as well.

And of course, this one will not be controversial, nor will the next one.

I'll be here just as quickly as as uh Mr.

Lubert's was.

Give that a moment to upload.

We hope.

There we go.

Thank you, Carl.

We'll need the Accessible BC Act one rather than the Trestle one, please.

There we go.

Thank you.

So we will begin.

So this is not new information to you, but what we're hopeful to achieve today is a path forward in meeting the Accessible BC Act requirements.

When you first heard about this, it was at the Committee of the Whole Meeting in March.

And that was a proposal to address the three items of the legislation, that is the plan, the committee, and a feedback tool.

And the first motion that came from the committee at that time was that it wait because we knew there was another meeting coming up in May, and so the item was tabled.

Feeling a sense of urgency, the item was reprovided as other part potential partner municipalities were addressing it in March and April.

I felt I needed to bring it back to council with the September 1st deadline in the legislation ticking along.

And so that came back, and in it uh there was a resolution from it that came up that we go ahead and work on the plan.

And council put uh put forward the resolution you see at the bottom of the page, and that is to to begin to work on on a shared uh plan.

And um so that is what what came out of that.

And next slide, please.

At both meetings, council asked or elected officials asked that I attend the April 20th IACD meeting, which is the uh intergovernmental advisory committee on disability issues, uh, a group in the West Shore.

And I did attend that meeting on April 20th.

And at that meeting, uh there was a decision that um that a meeting be held of uh representatives from IACTI with corporate officers to talk about the terms of reference.

And so I provided a follow-up report to council on May 2nd.

And that provided a little bit of information about what other municipalities were doing and also to let the group know the outcome of the April 20th IACTI meeting.

And so those background reports are provided to you.

If you refresh, you'll find them, but you'll also find them on older agendas as well from those dates listed.

We did go ahead and meet.

City of Callwood hosted that meeting on May 30th, and two representatives from council were in attendance as well.

And we talked about the scope of work for a potential consultant to do for the accessibility plan.

We talked about the involvement of elected officials in a potential committee, the range of options potentially available for involvement of IACTI members.

And we also near the end of the evening began to delve into the draft terms of reference from March and April that had been considered by the potential partner municipalities.

There was a decision to hold a follow-up meeting, but at this point we've been unable to get a commitment for a date to proceed with that second meeting.

On June 5th, we received municipalities received not just V Royal, but other municipalities also received a letter from IACTI with four requests.

And one of the requests was could they please receive automatically feedback on the feedback all the municipalities received to their Gmail?

Could we ensure their community feedback sessions with a consultant with lived experience?

And could I act be endorsed as the accessibility committee?

And could councils please make their appointments for a rep for a backup representative and also citizen representatives if you haven't already done so.

And council considered that letter, which I was a little at their June 20th meeting, and a motion was made and tabled in response to that correspondence.

The discussion at that meeting was around the fact that there would be consultation and it would be iterative, I believe Mayor Tobias made that comment and occur over time.

And we talked about options for IACTE's involvement and what that might look like in different options for committee formation.

Because by that point, um, I think staff uh from the various municipalities were getting concerned about the timeline of September 1st coming along and went ahead and were looking for a pathway forward.

Next slide, please.

And so it's the options on June 20th that we learned of when we spoke with Chrissy Spinoza, who's the province's accessibility directorate, the policy director with the accessibility directorate.

And she was referred to us by Dr.

Mike Prescott, who I had met online at a course in the fall, learning more about this legislation.

And again, he had attended that the April 20th IACD meeting.

And I think what the sense of urgency that was growing is also we thought, okay, well, well, at least we have the funding to begin the accessibility plan.

But in fact, the legislation contemplates that any plan development include consultation with your committee.

So where is this committee?

And so that was when I picked up the phone and called Dr.

Mike Prescott, and he said, Well, you know, maybe we can get some help or some ideas from Chrissy Spinoza.

And she was very helpful, and in fact, suggested the joint intermunicipal staff accessibility advisory committee could be a good approach to get started.

And as I said verbally at the June 20th meeting, and now in writing before you was what we discussed with her at that time.

Next slide, please.

Some of the benefits of that approach could be that it would embed the concepts into the organization, so into the DM and DNA, and get that base level awareness, education, and environment.

Some of the concepts we talked about is perhaps, you know, maybe parks people from all the partner municipalities could have training.

And then a few months later, perhaps the planning department could have a little bit of training around, you know, raising awareness around accessibility issues and things that they can be thinking of in their work and just go through the various departments and try into even customer service training in just front hall staff, just trying to raise awareness as to how we can up our game and improve what we do and how we seek to remove barriers to our services that we provide.

And we saw this, or she suggested that this would be a way to build into the local government work that we do a foundational lens in our operations, our capital projects, our core and narncore projects, even wording in our RFPs and starting to turn our mind more to those.

The corporate officers could be the Joint Intermunicipal Accessibility Committee and call upon appropriate staff members.

Perhaps there's a topic on an agenda that is parks related or planning related, and call upon those staff members to participate and help out or come to those meetings where it would be important for their input to better inform the topics or the issues at hand.

As well, we discussed with Ms.

Spinoza that committee membership can shift over time if and as required, and it's not set in stone.

It doesn't necessarily have to be staff, but for the first three-year term to try it as that to get it up and running.

We could finalize the terms of reference in the fall, though much of it would remain as what was originally contemplated in that March-April proposal, which is the meetings are open to the public, the agendas are posted online, minutes are all available on the website.

Each municipality would deal with specific issues that are raised to their attention, but if there's systemic or broad issues, it's something that everyone needs to work on together, then that would be what would happen.

For the plan itself rather than the committee, Ms.

Spinoza suggested next slide, please.

In fact, we might even be one slide behind because I got talking.

So one more, yes, thank you.

She suggested that municipalities could mirror what it is the province is doing.

And right now, what the province is doing is for their work, they're looking at service delivery and employment and for their first three-year window in their plan.

And the hope would be that there perhaps there could be some cost savings in doing it that way.

You know, always best to look and see what someone else is doing and see what you can not have to reinvent the wheel about, but to learn lessons from that perhaps we can apply or look to use from them.

The joint intermunicipal staff committee could also look to use the template provided by the Disability Alliance group.

They did put something together, and it is a collegial working relationship that exists between the corporate officers and we could partner together to draft a plan if it is kept manageable in scope.

And so if we do do something like service delivery and employment and just look at our seven municipalities, there was a thought that perhaps it would be a manageable project that way.

The funds that have been earmarked in the financial plan this year could then, next slide please.

I just get busy talking.

Could be redirected to facilitate public engagement.

And that would hit on one of those points listed in the IACT June 5th letter, and that is drilling down into some of the barriers that are faced by people when accessing our services or our municipalities.

So whether it's physical or policy related or communication related barriers.

So go out and pay someone to professionally do consultation in our municipalities to find out key points that we perhaps could be looking to include in our first accessibility plan.

And that will then seek to or serve to inform recommendations that come out over the following three years and how we can address those.

It may also be though that some funding will need to be put towards completion of the plan should it be a little more complex than what the the seven corporate officers working together can can put together but we would hope to be able to do that work for the majority on our own.

If there are any funds remaining in the five in this year's financial plan because it has been earmarked we discussed with Ms.

Spinoza the opportunity to make tangible changes as well or look into really specific items such as are our municipal websites readable?

What could we improve?

Are our buildings accessible?

Should we undertake an assessment of those?

How much are those, and can we do can we do that?

Um, or even HR related items.

Are there things in our HR policies, our forms, things that we need to change or tweak that we can use the funding for to learn more about and then make those changes?

Next slide, please.

So, what the report contemplates is that we proceed, and um with the accessibility directorate's suggestion of having a joint intermunicipal staff committee at this time and have it comprised of the corporate officers.

We could undertake planned drafting using the template provided as I've indicated.

We would each municipality establish a corporate email address to receive those public comments.

That could be done by September 1st, and engage a consultant to do that public engagement or public feedback piece on public barrier barriers people uh face in dealing with our services.

And if we need help to help with the plan itself, and then also the partner municipalities can work on putting the information comprehensive but also unified information on our web pages or websites to share information with the public about this initiative.

Next slide, please.

Some of the alternatives that we talked about on June 20th, and this was a request that we look at again, I guess, in in more detail rather than just verbal, would be that each municipality could form their own staff committee.

So you would get some of the advantages that we've already talked about.

So again, you would have a more uh more informed public service.

You could choose to follow what it is the province is doing or not in terms of service delivery and employment review as the first items you you choose to put in your plan.

The committee work would focus on the requirements of the act and council would direct that work as well.

And over time, the municipality could shift the committee structure away from staff to a different format if deemed desirable.

So that would be the same as if the corporate officers do an intermunicipal group.

In this plan, each municipality would have their own accessible plan, accessibility plan, and they would be responsible solely for their own committee work.

Next slide, please.

Another option would be that each municipality form their own public committee.

And it would be similar to what we have with our CDAC or our PREAC committees.

Here we could again choose to be in alignment with what work we undertake, and it would focus on the requirements of the Act and be directed by council.

We would have our own plan, everyone's responsible for their own committees, and the meetings and the processes and support and resourcing would be aligned with how we treat our other advisory committees.

Next slide.

Another alternative that has been discussed is IACTI becoming the new committee.

With uh this option, appointments would be made by councils.

Um meeting processes and support and resourcing would generally be in alignment with municipal practices for all other committees.

Um the committee would be ineligible for grant aid funding.

I understand IACTI does currently receive some grant and aid funding from some municipalities.

They're not a not for profit.

Um, so some choose to provide grant aid and some do not, but they do request from municipalities that would stop.

Committee work would be focused on the requirements of the act and direction from councils, and it wouldn't include any of the inspections and hosting of social events that currently happen.

So there would be, and we discussed at the June 20th meeting, a loss of autonomy to some of the activities that I ACTI members currently participate in and enjoy.

Uh councils would direct the staff work and in the plan creation and establish a process to receive comments.

So with this model, I ACTE members would function as a committee, but their terms of reference would change to be in alignment with the resourcing available.

Next slide, please.

Again, each member would appoint one representative, and I ACTE member members could be selected to be the council representative, and that would be the linkage between the two groups.

I ACTE would continue with its current approach and continue on as its own group, including the hosting of social events.

They could continue to apply for grant aid funding with most municipalities, and the operations of the committee would align with how other committees run in municipalities.

And again, the work would focus on the act, direction from council, and the creation of the plan and the receipt of comments would be dealt with at the staff level.

Next slide, please.

So at this point, time is getting critical.

While the province has indicated to us that no, it's not a hard deadline.

They have indicated yes, you do need your feedback tool up and running by September 1st.

But they really would like us to have information communicated out on our websites about what our plan about our plan is going to be.

So this is why this report is before you before the break.

And so the next steps or the recommendations that I've put before you aim to move forward along the path with the development of our inaugural accessibility plan.

And in this recommendation that sees an intermunicipal staff committee, it would see IACTI remain in its own form and continue as it is and continue to enjoy.

I understand they recently had a music in the park event or a weekend event.

And those types of activities could and would continue as they should, and it is a good service that they do provide.

The recommendation is quite lengthy because for our municipality, the only item that we addressed when it was addressed in April was around the funding.

And so this is before you, and it is that we participate in a joint intermunicipal staff advisory committee on accessibility.

And our partners are listed as Calwood, Esquimalt, Highlands, Langford, Machosen, Souk, and of course ourselves.

And the terms of reference would come back to you for approval in the fall, but they'd be generally what we've looked at before.

I had we would need to look at those just to tweak them because it's not a public membership, it's a staff membership proposed.

So it'd be a little bit different.

And that each member municipality would need to allocate nominal annual operating funds for committee expenses, but that is similar to what was proposed before.

In this case, I think they would be fairly minor.

I think it would be a rotation of you know who's doing the minutes and who's kind of doing the hosting type of thing.

And that the joint sub-regional accessibility advisory committee prepare the initial accessibility plan with a focus on service delivery and employment.

So that is a little bit new and nuanced.

And that the funding allocated that we've put aside for year one in the financial plan originally for hiring a consultant to do it.

Many hands make for light work so that if that work can be done and following the template template that is out there, if the work can be done then by the corporate officers working on this project together, use the funds instead for assistance with the development of that plan, facilitated engagement sessions, on barriers faced by the public in accessing our services, and a specific project or initiative if we if there are funds available to begin to identify our barriers.

For example, our buildings, our websites, our hiring practices.

And next slide.

And further that we established that email address to get those comments in.

And that is the report and the recommendation before you.

But in the future, could you break it down a little bit more?

Um before I I go to my colleagues for comments and questions.

Right.

And there was a um uh there was a willingness for council to have IACD and kind of sort it out.

And I think we've we've done that, we've got done to go to course.

Um what I'm learning, this is this is a municipal, meaning this building municipal and staff, um, a start.

It's not a finished, it's not a finished plan.

It's a start of of addressing some of the issues with accessibility.

Um, so I I just want to put it the in that lens.

I think there's a great deal of value in all of our municipalities working together um in a common way to not only save money, but if I was had an issue with accessibility and was trying to get into a town hall in View Royal, I was hope it would be the same way I got into one in a squimalt and souk and callwood and Langford, and I would expect the same things.

So uh Sarah, thank you for your work on that.

But I'll I'll turn it to my colleagues, those who have questions or comments.

Uh Councillor McKenzie, then Councillor Brown and Lemon.

Thank you.

I have a few comments, but then it leads to a question.

So um I agree.

I like the intermunicipal approach, having it creates partnerships and efficiencies.

And I think the first few years are gonna require a lot of work and administration to set up.

So I think that it makes sense to have town staff as opposed to relying on the time and resources of volunteers.

My only concern though is how do we get the perspectives and ideas and uh of those people who have lived experience with accessibility issues?

And what I was wondering, would it be possible for to have your proposals so that the staff intermunicipal advisory committee, but have the chair or representative from IACTI as just an additional member to provide that perspective.

I think the perspective that the that would be uh available would be through the public engagement that's contemplated by using the funds to um have have that set up.

I also think in development of the plan IACTI would be consulted.

And I think in terms of lived experience um it's such a fine balance because I was um aware of the meeting of IACTI on April 20th when the question came up about inability to ask people what their disability is.

And yet the challenge of these corporate officers are perfectly fine, but I can't actually ask them if they are or they aren't.

However, many of them have, for example, First Nation, one of them is a member of First Nations.

One of the some of them have family members in wheelchairs, uh, elderly people with issues with dementia, and and children with handicap uh issues.

And so there is already a lived experience in the group.

So I think there's already multiple ways that that feedback will come.

But I think the other key piece will be the feedback available to that all municipalities are setting up the accessibility at SUC.ca, accessibility at machosen.ca, those websites.

And so if people have issues they will bring them forward because I think the disability no I should reframe that the accessibility community is much broader than it is is extremely broad.

There's issues of dementia that aren't necessarily represented um on IACTI or there's issue there's there's so many issues of accessibility people face that I think that it would behoove us to not you can't invite everybody and you and perhaps it's not appropriate to invite one only one.

Thank you.

Uh Counselor Brown and then Councillor Lemon I believe thank you Director Jones for your excellent report and very comprehensive and yeah it's it it's really good the way we work through with the two groups I actually they they do a lot of good stuff too and they're gonna continue to do that.

And I it's it's very important, like uh counselor McKenzie said too, you you you need to have professional people to to to do it right to fulfill the uh requirements of the act.

So I think that's excellent.

Um and uh and I I'm sure the majority of the commu uh other committee understands that and if they don't like it uh I'm on the committee and and so is counselor McKenzie and I'm sure that um they'll they'll see the benefits of having two two two groups one you know dealing with specifics and the other one dealing with uh the issues they've been dealt with for for for decades.

Thank you counselor councillor Lemon and then counselor rogers very comprehensive Sarah thank you uh I'm I I'm assuming that the other six municipalities are are receiving the same presentation or similar presentation and have they all approved it thank you for the excellent question the other municipalities um have actually approved the first report that was provided well actually most of them have approved that first report that went forward in um march april and so they're fine with the original let's strike a new committee everyone appoint one member um and their corporate officers and i have discussed you know what to do because i think it was call wood and View royal that wanted to um have engagement with IACTI and to see well, what could we do, what could we not do um can we should we exist in parallel or you know how what will that look like?

And so those discussions then have happened over the past few months.

And this is the next step.

So we are the first group to look at this report.

The other municipal uh corporate officers have received a similar template but have not yet brought it forward that I'm aware of.

They may have they may be this week or next but I'm not entirely sure of their dates.

So it looks like a pretty sure thing that come September and come the deadline that all seven will be on board.

I cannot speak for the others.

Councillor Rogers, please.

Okay.

Thank you, Councillor Lemon.

Yeah, um thank you.

Good report.

And um uh um I'd like to make a motion uh um recommend staff um or move staff recommendations with the hope that the other municipalities uh will uh get aligned and and we can move this forward.

So a move staff recommendations.

So we got a mover and a seconder and a um uh also still working on questions though.

Yes and comments.

Yeah, I I liked uh the suggestion that the chair of IAC be on on this committee.

I think it's it's one thing to be sitting out in the audience, another another thing to actually be right in there and having an opportunity to comment, even if they're not a voting member, they at least be able to provide comments that are a lot stronger than if uh you know just during question period like we have in our meetings.

Thank you.

Um got a motion uh on the table.

Would uh mover like to motivate a seconder?

Um it gets things moving.

Seconder.

So I think we can call the question unless there's other comments.

So all those in favors of moving the very long recommendation, and I won't read it out, Sarah.

Um uh followed by and further that the town of View Royal establish an email address to receive public comments as a set out in the Accessibility BC Act.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Sarah.

And I think you're gonna stay there and talk about the next item on the list.

Equally juicy.

If Carl, you would pull up the mural PowerPoint, that'd be great.

Thank you.

Start on page one of background.

Thank you.

Lovely.

So, by way of refresher, we had a engagement process with an overwhelming number of participants.

We were thrilled.

I at the staff level we were thrilled with 771 responses coming in, and uh we reported back to council about that.

The first choice being trees and forest for the ranking on nine different topics, and then you did receive the um all the the anecdotal information as well in a report that was provided to you in in early June.

So, based on the trees and forest theme, we did go out.

Next slide, please.

With a call to artists.

And I can't say we, I have to more uh kindly say um our arts consultant did, and she has been fabulous.

Um, Andrea Pass helping us with this project has been great.

Um working also closely with um Ivan in engineering, so thank you.

Ivan, I really appreciate that.

Great input.

So, anyhow, so the call to artists did go out, and it closed on July 10th.

We received nine submissions, and and uh the slide before you lists the different places or venues that that uh it was put to.

We thought it was a great um response at nine.

So that was wonderful.

Next slide, please.

The arts consultant had prepared prepared uh an evaluation matrix.

The criteria is listed here in point form background experience, quality of work, adherence to our theme, artistic merit objectives, safety, certifications, and longevity and suitability.

And by certifications, that's around you know, uh ladder versus scaffolding and what would be used.

So she reviewed the proposals that came in.

Five met the evaluation criteria, and of these two didn't meet some of the purchasing policy requirements, safety and/or maintenance requirements.

So we're left with three, uh Jesse Campbell, Colin Elder, and Jean Bradbury submissions.

These were reviewed um very recently um by the arts consultant staff, RCMP ICBC, those two groups being at the request of council wanting their input again.

The Island Corridor Foundation at the Island Corridor Foundation's request last fall when we asked their permission to do it, they said, Well, yes, but we'd like to see it again before it's finalized.

Um, so we made sure to include them and the community development advisory committee.

Next slide, please.

So a summary of the feedback would be the RCMP told us that the J.

Campbell, and we'll look at these submissions in a minute, and the C Elder submissions were viewed as comparable from a safety perspective.

And uh they did suggest, though, for the Campbell proposal that the locomote over the train move to the northwest side just for um to not fool anyone, and uh the Bradbury submission they suggested could be distracting for drivers.

ICBC had general comments about not wanting glossy anti graffiti coating because their concerns around reflectivity with lights at night.

They asked for an additional crosswalk ahead warning sign for the northbound approach.

And their general comment was that the artists demonstrated a simple palette that would mitigate camouflaging and they used lighter colors to help enhance the contrast with pedestrians.

So they they thought that the artists were very clever to have done that.

And for the Campbell proposal, they suggested also that the locomotive move to the northwest side.

That locomotive keeps coming up.

We'll talk about that more too.

And Island Corridor Foundation, they liked the Campbell submission because it had the locomotive and uh reflective of the corridor.

But again, could it move to the northwest side?

And for Gene Bradbury submission, there could be an issue for maintenance and safety, were their comments.

And for the Community Development Advisory Committee, they had quite a long conversation about visual contrast, designing for simplicity for safety, maintenance, sun damage, trains being potentially a potentially divisive issue.

They talked about realistic and uh more, I guess, uh less realistic submissions and and what that might evoke from a community sense in in the neighborhood.

And they had support for both Campbell and Elder submissions, but they did prefer a stronger preference for the Colin Elder submission.

They did note that the Bradbury one could be an issue for maintenance and pedestrian visibility.

Now let's look at, oh, I'm falling far behind, Carl.

Next slide, please.

Next slide.

And now we'll talk about the submissions.

So as I mentioned, there's the Jesse Campbell at 60 points on the matrix, Colin Elder at 58 points, Jean Bradbury at 57, and going from left to right, those are just a general flavor of the submissions for Campbell, Elder in the Middle, and Bradbury on the far right.

Next slide, please.

So we'll dive into the Jesse Campbell.

This is a local Metis artist.

He indicates that he attended View Royal School for grade 8 through the Home Learners Link program.

His assistant painter Morgan McCaulay worked at uh worked on the View Royal Elementary School mural.

Um so this one is next slide, please.

Alders, Doug Fur, Spruce.

And he has indicated or Jesse has indicated that it's in your agenda package that they'd be willing to remove the locomotive feature from the installation.

They're sensitive to the fact that that could be an issue for some people if there's any hesitation.

So not necessarily moving from one side to the other, but removing fully if required.

He viewed or they viewed that as an optical illusion with the train coming at you, but but it didn't really did realize that that could be a point of controversy or concern for some people.

Next slide, please.

And this just gives you a representative of some of Jesse's other work.

Next slide, please.

And on the northwest side, one side is Doug Fur, the other is Western Red Cedar.

Next slide, please.

And again, representative work that's been done by Colin Elder.

And finally, next slide.

Jean Bradbury is Bowen Island artist.

The work that Jean Bradbury proposes is Gary Oak and Arbutus.

And next slide, please.

And on the other side, rainforest.

And there's discussion about painting in some understory plants and animals after some consultation with botanists and getting some little animal creatures in there.

And finally, next slide.

And an image of other work already done by Jean Bradbury is shown on this slide.

Next slide.

This is the hard part.

So the voting has been very close, as you can see by the 60, the 58, and the 57.

I do suggest though that while beautiful, the Gene Bradbury one would I think have more distraction and have maintenance issues with fading.

So perhaps it is down to the motion before you is the Jesse Campbell with 60 points.

If the train is an issue, it could come out if council so chooses.

The other option could be the Colin Elder.

And both ICBC and the RCMP kind of were like, well, you know, they weren't they were looking at them for safety and they seemed comparable to those groups.

ICF preferred the Jesse Campbell.

They were keen on the train being represented because they're an organization that is train focused.

And CDAC um liked both, but had a preference for the Colin Elder.

So that's clear as mud.

So tonight, council, uh, we would love to have a decision from you so that we can proceed because it is also a time sensitive issue.

Weather is important, and to delay this will mean it does not happen this summer.

Thank you, Staff.

That was a great um report.

And uh just my own comment is that uh uh I hope we get a chance to thank the artists for their submissions because all of them are really excellent.

Um and uh really excited that it is difficult to choose between them.

Uh Councilor Brown, please.

Great to be Mr.

Contrary tonight, and I'll sure, but I I did have milk in my cornflakes this morning.

Um personally uh I attended the CDEC committee meeting.

I'm not a member of it, but I did attend the meeting and uh um it was everybody liked the um Colin Elder uh one is they like the simplicity of it.

Um and there's a lot of issues.

Um I know the other auditors said he could take the train out, but I think some of the issues they had with were the train.

You know, if someone had a close encounter with the train and there were some um political issues as well.

Perhaps uh John, you could uh carry on with some of that conversation, some of the concerns they had.

Yeah, who um somebody else, uh Council McKenzie and then Councillor Rogers.

So I I agree, uh Sarah, with your um kind of closing it down to Campbell and Elder given the comments from the RCMP and and things like that.

I also agree with potentially moving the train on on the Campbell's um submission just because the as we said the controversy and also potential people thinking it's a real train.

And but I was wondering, I know it's time sensitive, but could we do a poll, just like a week long poll between the two to um see what the public wants?

I think that would take mean it would have to come back to us for decision.

So that would mean September.

Could we not say that whatever receives the most votes we would endorse?

We could, hypothetically.

But we could do that.

But we'd have to make a make it really clear to staff that and then it would be too hard to play that game if I was an artist to get all of my friends that don't live in View Royal to uh to get on there and vote.

So yeah, I think I think we should make a decision.

One way or another.

It could be yes, no, uh, whatever.

Uh Councillor uh Mattson and whoever hasn't gone before, Councillor uh Roger, or actually Councillor Rogers and then Councillor Mattson, sorry.

Yeah, thanks.

Um and indeed um I had uh uh listened in to CDAC's comments and and they were um well guided uh by the arts consultants who did this value resolve and I really appreciate the fact that we'd had the RCNP and ICBC and ICF um involved in and the um giving their valued input as well.

I think the art consultant also really helped with uh the principles involved which um um you know connected with the the community and and as well as um and that this is one of the things that um uh Jared picked up uh really clearly um was the divisive potential of uh the ENN.

And um uh thinking upon that, um it's um it is I think a significant issue for the Squamo band.

Um just as a matter of matter of history, uh the first spike of the ENN was on the Esquamo band's um land um on May 7th, 1884.

Um that was the escove was where all the steel and all the locomotives came in.

It was um uh the whole community was completely turned upside down.

And so I I think that's probably the long history.

And I do remember uh Chief Thomas saying to me uh we want our land back.

Um and uh the and this is why the ENN trail goes around the Escalmal bands today.

So if we're going to um consider um uh any kind of train in this mural, we have one more consultation to do, and that is with the First Nations for um uh and I think that when um uh Chief Thomas came to our inaugural council, and um uh we we really so appreciative of his being there, um, and it was all about um reconciliation, and I think uh we would be really amiss that if we're going to have any thoughts of a train that we must uh consult uh first.

So that will take time.

Um so for that point, uh I appreciate also that um uh the artists uh Jesse is is willing to remove the train for if we're gonna consider that.

So it really is then boils down to um if his council is uh agreeable.

It's either Jesse without the train or or uh um uh the uh submission by ms um by Colin Elder.

And um for that um my two sense is of supporting Colin Elder, similar to the um CDAX um viewpoints.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Counselor Mattson then counselor Lemon, please.

I think my esteemed colleague was digging pretty deep there to find a reason to support Alder over Campbell.

But uh I I really do appreciate the uh the fact that it's over a train tracks, and and I like the work by uh by Jesse, and I certainly don't have any problem with the train, and I don't really foresee anyone thinking that they'll be wandering through there and thinking that the trains coming at them.

So um it is it is it it is over train tracks.

Um it is the corridor, and uh I I quite support uh Jesse Campbell's work.

Thank you, Councillor Lemon, please.

Art is so subjective.

We'll you know, we'll never have everyone agreeing on this.

Um and I have such high regard for CDAC and their opinions and their their recommendations.

So it comes down to more or less a personal vote at this point, and and I have to say on the Jesse Campbell one, train or no train.

You don't leave the tracks, whatever.

I like how he blurred the foliage into the real foliage.

So what is a you know whatever that tree is, um asp ash or poplar or whatever, it's it's it blurs right into the background.

So it's it's not distracting, it's it's just all part of the environment.

And uh so my vote is for the Jesse Campbell.

Well, we can do we can deal with the train issue.

Um we can have that.

The the um I like them all.

My only concern about the Colin Elder one and the Gene Bradbury is there's so much one color space, it's almost begging to get tagged.

But the first one, um, but they're all lovely.

The first one, uh, again, it just appears like our natural surroundings are just projected on that thing.

So I I think um I think we need to go for a a couple of things here.

Um, because some comments have been brought up, train or no train, but can we say um can we move on staff's recommendation for Jesse Campbell to push that one, or do we need to have further discussion about that?

I move we support staff's recommendation okay we got a mover and a secondary we can get into the specifics of train no train afterwards but we could because that's contingent on the artists so uh council McKenzie since we can't do a poll um I'm gonna rely on the committee which is made up of residents to uh kind of make my vote as opposed to my own perspective so I'm I will be supporting the CDAC recommendation.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

Councilor Quotes, please.

Yeah, just so we're clear, I'm also not comfortable making the vote on behalf of my personal opinion for this.

Uh there's a very robust engagement process.

Uh beautiful artists, everything, every selection would be wonderful.

Uh I will be supporting the wishes of our uh constituents uh by way of the CDAC.

Thank you.

Councilor Rudd.

Yes, I I too support uh CDAC's recommendation.

Um and I just also want to point out that we have uh in that area already a a train on the trestle, so there as well as there's a train on the viewboil um mural that they have.

So, do we need a third?

Any other comments?

Thank you.

I mean I didn't want to say anything so negative, but to my mind the the the Jesse Alder one is just kind of busy and it doesn't really blend in nearly as well as the that other colin Alders just doesn't blend into the the background and I I just don't think it doesn't look nearly as good as the Jesse one.

Okay.

Um if there's no other comments or questions, um then we could vote for uh the recommendation for uh Jesse Campbell's art, and then subsequent to that we can talk train no train.

So all those in favor of moving staff's recommendation for Jesse Campbell's uh call to artist, all those in favor?

All those opposed.

So we've got opposed.

So Jesse Campbell is not the one that's selected.

So uh yep, you can.

Second.

I think I already said it.

Very well.

Um any other discussion point or you want to motivate?

I like the simplicity of it.

I like the two different types of trees.

That's what we asked for was trees.

And actually, it does kind of blend in nicely with the background.

So I'm sorry, Ron, I disagree with you.

Uh Councillor Rogers, please.

Um, I I was my colleagues have already pointed out, um, we've had the public give their input through the advisory committee, and they did uh seriously consider all aspects um with uh great consideration.

Okay, so uh any other comments, questions?

Uh all those in favor of the call and elder.

And so we've got four two three.

All those posed.

The Colin Elder one was selected.

Um what are the next steps uh for this?

The next steps see staff prepare um a contract, and the work will begin in a few weeks in sometime in August, and the work should be done right around the beginning of school is the anticipated timeline.

And we are I've put out a call a month and a half or two months ago to the school to indicate that this was happening and asked that they turn their minds to opportunities where we can do a joint event with them for a little unveiling.

Thank you very much.

Are any other comments about the implementation timeline plan?

Seeing none, we can move to the um next item annual report for year ended December 31st, 2022.

We should have already received this one, and this is uh the move to adopt after you, Kim.

Thank you.

Um the report on the agenda is is um had been made available to the public two weeks ago it was advertised and uh available at uh town hall and the only change that was made is the addition of the mayor's comments and we're now in a position to adopt it councilor brown i'll second uh so we got a movement uh second uh any comments that the mover or seconder would like to make about it pretty clear, straightforward.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you, Steph.

Thank you.

And I think we're down to some committee.

The whole resolutions, of course, that we've already been through.

Um, that the committee recommend to council that the zero carbon step code be implemented in the building bylaws as follows.

Uh, part nine buildings, houses, duplexes, multiplexes, and townhouses meet zero carbon step code level four by the first of November 2023.

The part three buildings of six stories at last meet zero carbon by first of um July 2024, and part three residential buildings greater than six stories and commercial buildings meet zero carbon step level code level four by first of November twenty twenty-four.

Uh councillor not simply I just for clarification um on the first one, uh the November first, twenty-three date.

No, did we backdate it to that date?

Or I thought we went to July on on one of them.

No, I think we made some amendments, but those amendments seem to jive with what uh was the outcome of our discussion at the council of the whole after we debated for some length the timing for each one of the yeah.

No, in the last motion, there was a date change, and I was just I'm just confused in terms of what the date would stay.

Yeah, I maybe stick no it's that's the two buttons on July 1st.

I think it was November.

Oh Kim.

Yeah, there was some uncertainty about the content of the resolution.

Councilor McKenzie um as a precursor to the resolution stated that she wanted to um be in sync with Victoria and Sanich.

And while she summarized the resolution a little bit off base, um what's on the agenda is consistent with the Sanich and Victoria program.

Happy with that?

Uh councilor Rogers?

Correct.

Um so I guess this was different from the staff's recommendation.

Yeah.

So I I guess my my concern and and um maybe staff can help me to say um you know staff have made a a number of um you know points um while that um there's the intent to move it along as quickly as possible.

There's an aspect of staff resources, the consultation, and um um uh you know doing this as as uh properly and accurately as possible.

Um with this proposed new time frame, can staff handle that.

Staff don't have an objection to council's wishes.

The uh the concern expressed by staff was whether or not the industry got um enough time to adjust their program and whether or not we should be giving more consideration to the industry.

But the resolution is is very clear and we can work with it.

Thank you, Council McKenzie, please.

And just on the back of that, the the industry w were consulted as part of the Sanichin Victoria.

So they and a lot of developers are in View Royal are going to be working in in those other municipalities as well.

So they will have had the heads up.

So that's why I don't um don't think that should prevent us from moving forward with these timelines.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

Um we got a mover and a second.

Any other comments, questions for staff on it?

I'm just trying to I'll second.

And seconded.

Um but Council Rogers, you had a comment or question?

Sorry.

Yes.

Um well there's a thought that um all developers live and work um in VWL, they don't.

Um I the uh staff have identified that um um part nine, uh which is the houses and and uh townhouse and so forth.

There's there's a lot more complexity uh to those um that aspect, and and that's why uh staff was recommending July 1st, 2024, not November 1st, 2023.

I understand it, I get it, and I think the the um the staff had raised really good points.

Um and I so would not support uh November 2023 in that regard.

Um it's uh it when you think of November the 1st of July, the um to July, there's not that much period time frame um in terms of number of months.

Um and it allows everyone to get into sync and ensure that the the western communities are um are able to contend with at all.

So I will not support the motion.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Um any other comments?

Counselor Brown?

I think we have to move quickly all you have to do is look around at all the fires all across north america the coral getting bleached by the ocean temperatures being over 90 degrees uh flooding in the in the eastern states of the states uh to me the faster we could this is one teeny tiny thing that we uh it's important for us to do thank you counselor brown um anybody else like to speak to it councilor rogers the province just passed this a few months ago, what may um and uh victoria and and sanites have had um already a head start on us and and had uh that out of consultation with um their um their builders and and so forth and and I think we should um give the same respect um again uh small view royal 10 000 people um and you yet what do we got maybe with with a third municipality that out of 13 and coach nowhere near this uh this approach and who knows how long Langford even they're aware will will go to it so and I totally agree the whole situation of sea level rise some people don't believe that exists but um it it is I I understand the the the urgency but in seven months given that uh due consideration I I think it's um uh we need to get all the people can uh support it as much as possible.

Let's call the question.

I support this motion.

Okay, uh had a request to call the um question, but just to be clear, counselor Rogers, you're not debating um the carbon step code.

You're you're debating the the proposed date move from July to November.

That's right.

Yes, indeed.

Okay, thank you.

Um so as it stands, we have a mover and a second, or all in favor of the zero carbon step code.

Uh we have all uh all opposed.

And uh seeing one opposed is councilor rogers, so motion carries.