Council Meeting

Call the council meeting for November 7th to order and that we recognize that we're within the traditional territories of the Esquimalt and the Songhees Nation.

This evening we'll hear from the public who telephone in during the public particip participation and question periods of the agenda.

For the audience, council is a safe, respectful, and inclusive place.

Please treat each other accordingly.

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

And when prompted, enter conference ID 632-075-506-pound.

And you'll be immediately muted once admitted to the meeting.

Please do not unmute yourself till ask.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will ask the last four digits of your phone number and ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback and ask you not to use your speaker phone to ensure quality.

Um, and ask you at the right time to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

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

Can I get an approval of the agenda that would include the late items to the blue sheet?

And we've got a slight amendment uh with the inclusion of uh the item that councillor Mattson added to the uh agenda that if there I think the best place for it would be probably notice of motion um if there is agreement with that can I I uh you wish you just a question on that um staff if um uh I'm just wondering why this wasn't added on to the agenda by staff uh if it would had been uh received last week it was probably my fault because counselor matzon forwarded to me to forward the staff which I neglected to do because I thought counselor matsen had cc'd staff on it sorry whatever the November the first.

So that's my question if um because you know the requirements for any notice of motions should have been received by Thursday last, and and so staff could have put that on.

I'm just wondering why that uh we missed that.

We will need to check our emails.

We uh do not have a recollection of receipts.

Yeah, and I'm I'm concerned about hearing this right now and and not as in uh as a motion, but it should be a notice of motion for for um for future consideration so staff could respond to it.

I think the Sid put this on as a notice of motion.

Yeah, this can be entertained as a notice of motion unless there's opposition to amending the agenda uh so with that can I get an a motion to approve the agenda as so read so moved moved by counselor rogers seconded by seconded by counselor Mattson all in favor any opposed seeing none opposed um and then we have minutes from the public hearing for october 17th and the council meeting for october 17th can I get a motion to adopt, please moved moved by councillor lemon, seconded by councillor McKenzie um all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Some good news and some times that we need it.

Mayor's report.

The CRD recently purchased a golf course.

In our growing communities, we need more splendor or more space to recreate.

So I'm very pleased to announce that.

Later on in the agenda, I will reveal when it comes to um uh motions arising that we'll announce our um candidate or our our our new CAO.

And lastly than that i want to thank sarah jones for uh uh covering in kim's absence uh and doing a spectacular job of getting council ready for another public hearing it seems like we haven't had one in a long time and then we had two back to back and that takes a lot of work for staff so thank you uh for that um just a reminder as well that uh council can't entertain any new information during your comments on the bylaws for the public hearing so if you're making a comment uh during the comment period, you're certainly encouraged to do that.

But uh please keep your comments specifically about that uh um disclosed because that that public hearing is done now.

So any new comments about the provincial government or anything else you want to talk about uh is fair game for the comment period.

Um but we'll just leave that until the appropriate part of the agenda to discuss uh for um the public hearing.

Uh we've got uh two public or petitions and delegations this evening.

Uh and let's go first with urban systems for regional water supply development cost charges bylaws.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Well, we have our uh presentation uploaded on the screen here.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Patrick Stevens, project engineer in the CRD's Water Supply Engineering and Planning Division.

And with me tonight, also from the CRD, are Scott Mason and Joseph Marr.

We also have our consultant, Urban Systems, here with us tonight, with Sean Sean Heffernan and Samantha Bowen in attendance.

The purpose of tonight's presentation is to inform uh the Royal Mayor and Council of our Regional water Supply DCC project and to answer any immediate questions surrounding the project.

We ask that any follow-up questions, concerns, or comments be submitted through your representative on the Regional Water Supply Commission for consideration.

So the CRD has been working alongside Urban Systems for some time to develop the draft development cost charge program for the Regional Water Supply Service.

The project was first identified to be explored through the Regional Water Supply 2017 Strategic Plan.

The project was then identified as a priority through the CRD board in the CRD's 2023 to 2026 corporate plan with the intent of implementing the Regional Water Supply DCC bylaw and program.

The Water Advisory Committee, as well as the Regional Water Supply Commission have been informed of our progress to date and have endorsed the continuation of the project to the consultation phase, which is which we are working through now.

For those of you who may not be familiar, the CRD's Regional Water Supply Service provides bulk drinking water to all the municipalities and First Nations in the Greater Victoria area.

The primary water source is the Sooke Lake Reservoir, and major components of the system include three watersheds, 15 dams, two tunnels, two disinfection facilities, and roughly 120 kilometers of transmission mains.

I'll now hand it over to Sean from Urban Systems to continue on with the presentation to provide background information, progress to date, and next steps.

And thank you, Mayor and Council, for having us tonight.

Thank you.

Thanks, Patrick.

I'm just going to continue through the presentation here.

We've got a quick agenda.

We're just going to go through a quick overview of DCCs and what they are.

We'll talk about the program itself, what's included in that, how it was developed, and then we'll talk about the draft DCC rates, and there'll be time for discussion questions.

We have quite a number of slides in a short amount of time, so I'm going to go through this pretty quickly and I'll just go back to any slides that you'd like me to add more information on at the discussion point.

So, very quickly, uh, for those who don't know, DCCs are fees uh that are um used to recover the cost of off-site infrastructure required to support growth.

They're regulated by the province through the Local Government Act and the DCC Best Practices Guide.

They require approval from the inspector of municipalities in order to be adopted.

The general philosophy is to foster fairness, ensure consistency, minimize the financial risk to the CRD, ensure certainty to the development community, and that the services support growth and development to promote transparency and equitability and to ensure the timely processing of development applications.

DCCs can be paid at one of two times.

They're paid by applicants at time of subdivision for the creation of single family lots or at the time building perm uh building permit for the creation of uh attached units, multifamily units, commercial industrial and institutional units.

This is done at the time building permit because that's when the number of units is actually known.

The CRD is selected to collect multifamily units and commercial industrial institutional uses as per square meter basis and collect multifamily units on a unit basis.

And this is partly due to ease of administration, but also knowing the exact units and in order to have consistent definitions across the region.

So, just a quick overview.

This would be a new DCC that would go, would be applied to all local governments within the CRD.

So, this would be in addition to any DCCs that are currently charged by the CRD and by the municipality.

So I've put up a slide here quickly that shows the current DCC charges in the town of View Royal.

So currently a single detached unit would pay $9,800 worth of DCCs to the municipality as well as $2,900 to the Juan de Fuca Water Distribution System, which is another CRD DCC for distribution.

And again, today we're talking about supply, which is a different service.

Just for reference, a high density unit would be charged $6,500 per unit by the municipality and then $1,644 by the CRD for WannaFuca.

So these charges will be in addition to that.

And again, they'll apply in every local government from SUC to Sydney, View Royal included.

Just a quick overview of the DCC program development.

So every DCC program requires three major components from a technical perspective.

Those are the growth projections.

We've completed growth projections for View Royal and the CRD as a whole on a 30-year time horizon.

We've also built the program around the regional water supply 2022 master plan and the CRD's regional water supply capital plans combined.

These have the master plan itself has a recommendation of over $2 billion worth of infrastructure upgrades in the next 30 years.

When that plan was adopted, it was identified, DCCs were identified as a key funding tool for the implementation of that regional water supply master plan.

The last part here is benefit allocations.

Under DCC legislation and the Local Government Act, DCCs are required to evaluate the benefit to new versus existing growth.

So in that many development cost charge projects are actually cost shared.

It's not developer pay, it's developer share.

So within that, each project is given a benefit allocation and is the relative benefit of a project to new versus existing users.

In this case, most of the projects, because there's a holistic benefit to new and existing growth from these projects.

There is a proportionate uh benefit allocation assigned um based on the future population growth.

So I'll get to that when we get to the project list itself.

It's approximately 35%, and that represents the population change over 30 years from today.

So again it's the proportionate benefit to that group.

This is just a quick uh kind of infographic to show how this all comes together.

So we estimate growth through inputs on the regional growth strategy, other water modeling analysis growth estimates and modeling that was done as part of the Wantafuca water distribution system for the town of V Royal.

We look at again the master plans and the capital plans for the CRD regional water supply service.

Again we look at the determining the benefit for each one, and then there's the DCC assist factor.

So this is a tool in legislation that is a peer policy decision to be made by the regional board, and that is uh gives them the ability to assist development by increasing the DCC assist factor, which would have the effect of lowering the DCCs.

I'll talk about that briefly in a subsequent slide here.

Uh just a quick overview of 30 year growth projections we're including for View Royal.

We've identified a growth of approximately 335 single detached units, 800 multifamily units, and 1200 high density residential units.

We've got 52,000 square meters of commercial and 7,500 square meters each of industrial and institutional over the next 30 years.

So again, just talking about the assist factor.

So again, this is in the local government uh act.

It requires that the CRD must assist development for DCCs.

Um this assist factor can vary from the least amount of 1% to a maximum amount of 99%.

1% being the least amount of assist.

Any increase to that 1% amount would result in a lower DCC, is essentially a subsidy to the development industry.

But any increase in that assist factor must be made up through non-DCC revenue sources.

So the money just doesn't go away, it just comes out of a new revenue source.

In this case, it would be the water rates.

So the users would pay in the end if that assist factor increases.

Typically these range between 1 and 10% because again, they have to be made up through non-DCC revenue sources, uh, the proposed uh assist factor for the regional water supply DCC is 1% currently.

Um, this is an overview of the program.

We've simplified the project little list a little bit here into kind of six major groupings.

I'll go through them very quickly.

Um, within this, you can see the proposed benefit allocations.

So the Suc Lake Reservoir, because again, this is an upgrade uh level service and capacity upgrade to the Suc Lake Reservoir.

Uh, again, this is a project that was identified as having 30 35% benefit allocation.

Again, it's shared proportionately.

Um, the Leechhead watershed is the only project at 100%.

This is purely new capacity for the regional water supply service.

That's why it has 100% to uh benefit to new growth.

If it would not be required if no growth were to occur, so therefore it's a hundred percent benefit.

Uh water filtration plant.

This is the largest project at about 820 million.

Again, that is shared proportionally.

Uh transmission mains, these go across the CRD.

These are also shared proportionally for level service and capacity upgrades.

This will be an asset renewal as well as adding capacity.

Smithill storage tank is a reservoir upgrade.

So there's a bit more of a cost sharing in that smaller project.

And then there's studies and modeling with which are eligible under the DCC legislation as long as they can identify and support the implementation of DCC projects.

So just in total, sorry, it's just a note.

So when I say it's a cost share program, we have identified over $1.4 billion dollars worth of projects, of which DCCs would contribute $523 million of that uh $1.4 billion.

And the remainder would be made up, 920.9 would be made up through uh the CRD um water uh water user rates.

So these are the proposed draft DCC rates.

So right now um with a 1% assist factor, the cost for a detached residential unit is $9,000 for $9,044 per lot.

Uh for a multifamily unit, it would be $7914.

Um, and for that'd be for a townhouse and for a multifamily apartment, it would be $5,000 and 87 dollars per unit.

Um, commercial would be $33.92 per square meter, industrial $16.96 per square meter, and institutional $7348 per square meter.

Uh again, this would be in addition to your municipal DCCs and the Juan de Fuca water distribution system DCCs, which would uh put a single detached lot in View Royal to 21,700 per lot, and a high density unit would be $13,250 per unit.

Just to show you where this would kind of land in terms of overall communities and DCCs, you can see the town of View Royal would be lower compared to others in the region.

It'd be kind of middle of the pack for the region and then lower on the whole across British Columbia.

In these other communities that we're showing, you can see that they also contribute regional DCCs in Metro Vancouver.

This is also for regional water supply.

Other communities, and they're, you know, each community is different.

It has to come all the way from Souke Lake.

Like we don't have a big lake or river right next to us to support our water supplies.

And that's basically what this service is paying for.

So it's integrated into other DCCs across the province, either through that municipality or through another regional service in, for example, Metro Vancouver.

This is a really quick conceptual overview.

We call it the worst case scenario of kind of how the implementation of the regional water supply master plan and capital plan would impact water user rates per cubic meter, essentially, over the next 30 years if uh DCCs are not implemented.

So what we see here is an increase from around 80 cents per cubic meter to almost 350 per cubic meter, which would have a pretty substantial impact on user rate, water user rates across uh the regions.

So again, DCCs would contribute about a third of the total cost of the implementation of that master plan, which would bring these down substantially.

Um, just a quick overview.

SQL or consultation bylaw adoption.

So we're in the process of we've met with staff from each of the local governments.

We're in the process of presenting to the councils to provide feedback on the proposed draft rates in the regional water supply uh DCC.

Um, once we collect this feedback, uh, we'll bring it back to the Regional uh water Supply commission and the CRD board uh for further direction on how to proceed.

If we're given direction, proceed to conduct additional consultation, we'll then conduct public open houses, as well as consultation with development stakeholders in the region.

We've also created a website with background information and the master plan and all the details that kind of go into how the program itself was developed.

It's also important to note that the uh the timeline for the implementation of the DCC Regional Water Supply DCC, if it is adopted and approved by the regional board, it would likely not be implemented until early 2025.

Through legislation, there is a one year in-stream protection or grace period for those applications that are in place.

So they would begin, they've given a year to achieve their building permit or subdivision approval.

So many applicants will not be impacted until 2026.

And then the CRD will also reevaluate the program every five years as they do with WandaFuca.

The CRD is very diligent about doing this in that five-year course.

That's when we would review growth estimates to see if they're on track.

We make any adjustments at that time.

We'd also review the project lists and capital costs in that uh in that process as well.

So it's not set in stone, it gets updated as your DCC bylaw does and renewed over time.

Excellent.

And I think that's discussion uh discussion and questions.

Thanks very much.

Thank you for your presentation.

Any questions?

Councilor Mattson.

Thank you for your presentation.

Um, so given the potential the new provincial legislation, potentially there could be, you know, one to three additional homes on each single family lot.

So I noticed under duplex, there's does that mean you'd be charging about 9,000 for each of those lots?

Each of those additional through the chair.

They would be done per unit, basically, and they would pay a lower fee.

So they pay around 15,000 per duplex, six uh 7600 per unit.

Oh, and then there's a one to Fuca rate too.

Plus the one to Fuca rate.

So I I'm just wondering that if under the my question is under the current provincial or the proposed provincial legislation, would each of the new units, if they're developed, have to pay these rates?

Uh through the chair, yes.

Okay.

This would be any new development uh that occurred would be subject to these rates if the bylaw is approved.

And just my my other question is um I know sewer is an issue in terms of large numbers of of new units, but any problems with sort of getting water to it's like we had a few hundred new units built in town uh are you just boost up the pressure and we get more water get to it or do you have to start redoing water mains and things through the chair, and I'll allow my colleagues with CRD to jump in if they have anything further to say.

But uh this is part of that planning, the master um the regional water supply master planning that we're doing.

We want to ensure that there's a water supply available to future development, and part of that is you know uh collecting these monies so we can create that infrastructure uh as it's needed, and that's the purpose of DCCs and uh you know through the Wanna Fuca water distribution system uh DCC update that I'm also currently working on.

That there is a you know, there's a planning process where we look and say this is the amount of growth we think we're gonna need.

This is the infrastructure that's requires services growth, and here's the bill.

Um so yeah, we don't anticipate an issue in servicing these units um because we're gonna collect the DCCs and the revenue required to to provide that infrastructure.

Thank you.

Uh Council Rotterdam.

Uh yes, thank you.

Um being um on both the regional water supply commission and the Juan de Fuca water uh supply um or retail, um, you know, I I can certainly say that the uh uh Juan de Fuca DCCs has been extraordinarily successful and it's been a long time and and the VO uh has been a uh um uh contributor to all that and um you know to the to this point it's a long time in coming um but the the pressures are are extraordinary uh and the the 2002 um report what is it two billion dollars of of infrastructure that's that's necessary so I guess if we didn't have this CCCs would the impact then have to be on the taxpayers, the existing taxpayers, and on the water rate?

Uh through the mayor, yes, that's correct.

Uh again, if there's no TCCs, it's being paid for through water user rates essentially.

So your bark bulk water rate, and that's the graph I was showing second to last slide.

It, you know, it's going up uh to implement this uh you know regional water supply master plan and DCCs will help to you know ensure development makes a contribution towards that, which will have effective lower rates in the long run.

Right.

And um again, I think the focus is on quantity and quality of water, and certainly the um uh the um what's it the health safety officers uh it's not saying uh uh when, but uh not if, but when do we get the uh filtration?

So uh again, extraordinary planning.

My my concern is that um uh like Councillor Manson, is that we have suddenly have a new player in town.

Um the province is um uh you know, with its Bill 44 will place enormous pressure on the water supply in in the town of View Royal.

I mean, we've um uh it clearly states that any um property that is uh 230, 230 square meters is entitled to have four units, possibly five to eight people.

Who knows how many?

So I guess the quant the question is quality and and quantity.

So have um, and this would we when we do were doing the report and staff were doing the report in 2002, we didn't anticipate what the province was going to require of of this region.

Um and like Councilor Matson, I'm I'm not quite sure, and I'm not quite convinced that the dcc is on a single family unit well this single family unit doesn't exist anymore they've they've abolished that and there now every every um you know lot in in uh in a home in town is going to be required to and without any public hearings and due process suddenly um and and i guess that is where i'm having significant doubts that um we've got uh the plan that really does cover all these possibilities that if if indeed um we have a place that's allowed six units because the next test transit, those additional people playing placing that additional requirements, is the DCC's in tune and flexible enough to address that.

Through the mayor.

Uh supply DCCs are really functioning at a the highest level, essentially, right?

And that's again like we have the opportunity to renew and update this every five years.

So when we're talking about something like a water filtration plant in 20 years from now, like the sizing of that is you know determined based on kind of the growth we have and the existing users that we have.

So if we do see a change in trajectory and population or we are seeing you know, more density, like those things can be adjusted and and evolved, and the cost for those can be adjusted and evolved too as we go to build them too.

The thing about DCCs is they are flexible in that regard.

If you end up constructing a a project and um, you know paying for it to you know if it's on your project list too you can you can carry forward debt to pay for that as well too.

So there is options to help kind of you know that flexibility and they are set at a very high level.

The the DCC exercise in a way is is you know what we're doing is we're looking at the the works we need and the growth that we're looking to serve and we're we're generating a rate.

So it's a question of whether or not it will generate sufficient revenue.

And that is where you know we we add contingencies to our projects we look at the type of growth.

And you know, in a way, um, we want to ensure the rates are set in a way that we generate that sufficient revenue.

If we if we're not, if we're undergenerating revenue, uh, you know, we can correct that in five years.

In terms of the master plan and what actually gets built, like that's more of an operational um, you know, decision-making process, especially when we're looking regionally where the services are like, you know, a higher order of magnitude, they're bringing, you know, the trunk, you know, the transmission mains and the reservoir upgrades and whatnot.

Um, at the local level, too, like uh that's you know, a question for WandaFuca is like that distribution level, whether or not um it's a DCC eligible project.

DCC eligible projects are ones that should have wide uh spread benefit to growth.

They should benefit multiple users, not particular developments.

So some of those, you know, one off, like you know, I'm putting in six units, um, but I don't have enough fire flow, that might be something that is addressed through the development process rather than through like a DCC project.

So um there's just some thinking around that.

Um the last point I'll make is in kind of how DCCs are charged.

Um so you're you charge a single family unit at the time of subdivision.

So that pays for the lot.

But in this case too we would include uh detached secondary suites as uh the same as multifamily rate.

So if you were building you know a new single family lot with a detached suite you would actually pay two DCCs.

You'd pay the DCC for your lot and you'd pay the additional fee for the detached suites.

So that's that way you're collecting um you know more revenue for that densification of a single family lot.

Secondary suites are they are they are they charged at all or or no?

Through the mayor.

So essentially the way we've determined the rate separation between single detached units and multifamily units is that um it's it's assumed basically single detached will have the ability to have a secondary suite.

So we will charge detached secondary suites as a separate charge because really it's hard to determine as you've probably had through your discussion about suites, like you can build a single family building and put in a suite later.

So we need that trigger a building permit is really when you have the tool to collect it.

So you know the building of a single family house it's it's it's it's a hard trigger to determine.

You can set it up so suite goes in later type thing.

So we know the the tools we have to keep and when we can capture it so we're tying it to those thank you any other questions seeing none thank you very much for your presentation thank you for having me so for and for the next item i i don't know if i have a conflict but i might have a conflict because of my role on the board so i will pass on this i i don't think we're voting on it counselor so you can yeah when it comes to that part you could recuse yourself but if you'd if you'd like to for certain but i i mean, as I can't but I want to vote.

Yeah, okay, that's fine.

And now we have a uh presentation from West Shore Primary Care Society.

Thank you for you for coming this evening.

Good evening, Mayor Tobias and Counselors.

Thanks for inviting us here this evening.

My name is Leslie Keenan.

I'm the executive director of the South Island Division of Family Practice.

And with me tonight is Dr.

Spencer Cleve, family physician and chair of the West Shore Primary Care Society.

They're different organizations, but we work hand in hand to partner on changing the landscape of primary care for the better, I hope.

Um before I hand it over to uh Dr.

Cleve, I just want to tell you a little bit about the South Island Division of Family Practice.

We're a local nonprofit organization with membership of 350 family physicians, and we're um funded through a partnership between Ministry of Health and Doctors of BC.

That's where our infrastructure comes from.

We're one of 36 divisions in the province, and in a nutshell, our work is about using the physician voice to uh collectively improve primary care access, etc.

With the um division, part of our work is creating a sense of community for family physicians because that helps to improve relationships, communication, and we can be used as an avenue for family physicians to work with partners in healthcare such as Island Health, First Nation Health Authority, Municipalities, that kind of thing.

Part of our work as a division is to remove barriers for family physicians.

Typically, they're systematic, systemic in nature, and they add to the administrative burden of family physicians.

We are a member driven organization and so we're responsive to physicians.

Just to give you an example, we hired last year an in-practice consultant who provides business supports and administrative supports to family physician clinics that need it.

We also have a family physician recruiter who is currently in Montreal at the Family Medicine Forum, hopefully, you know, doing her magic to recruit some physicians to South Island.

And one of the I have a little story I want to share with you about the power of municipalities and influencing family physicians to land in a community.

And it's a friend of mine who's a family physician.

And when she was finishing her family medicine residency program, she was toured through Sudbury.

And the person who toured her was the mayor of Sudbury and showed her, you know, the sites and you know privileges of living in the community, as well as expressing to her the value and her presence in that community.

And she said, it had not been for her immediate family living on Vancouver Island and obligations to them, she would have gone to Sudbury.

And I don't know if you know Sudbury, but it's in northern Ontario.

It's pretty bleak.

It's a mining town, it's pretty cold.

Not the first choice that would come to mind for a family physician to set up a practice.

So just to you know, uh explain to you what your influence could be.

And if uh the mayor or counselors or municipal staff would like to join the division in uh creating some kind of welcome uh package for physician physicians that are visiting here or uh physicians that are moving to the community, we'd welcome you with open arms.

The last point I want to make is that in May of this year, the province created a new funding model for family physicians.

It's been very successful.

About 70 percent of family physicians in BC have signed up for it.

And so it acts as a recruitment incentive for our province.

But there are barriers to setting up practice in, particularly in South Island or places like it, including things like the cost of clinic space, which is at a premium, the cost of medical equipment, supplies, staffing, HR, all of that is borne by the physician out of their pocket.

And so what I'd like to do is uh at this point pass it over to Dr.

Cleve, who's going to be talking about the West Shore Primary Care Society and some potential opportunities for partnership in recruiting family physicians.

Thank you.

Thanks, Leslie.

And uh thank you, Mayor and Counsel, for having me here.

Um, my name is Spencer Cleve.

I'm a family physician.

I practice at Eagle Creek Medical Clinic, so my practice is based here in View Royal.

Um, but here today I'm I'm here in my capacity as the chair and founder of the West Shore Primary Care Society, which is a registered charity with a mandate to support increasing access for the public to primary care services.

Um we s we incorporated in 2021, and we've been slowly um building our strategic plan uh and our legal understanding of of how to conduct this work.

And one of the gaps that we identified early on in trying to move this issue forward is the fact that with all talk of building new clinics, we are not actually saving the clinics that are failing.

So just some bleak numbers to share with you.

Currently have a deficit of access of 35 full time family physicians in the Western communities.

Roughly speaking, every year we don't hire two to five new family physicians in this region.

We are falling further behind.

So to say it's a crisis, I would say we'd be putting it mildly.

On top of this, and germane to the issue that brings me here today is primary care maternity services have fallen to a crisis level in the South Island as well.

When I was a trainee, it would be considered highly unusual and a cause for alarm when a patient would show up for delivery with no perinatal services having been received.

And as of today, it's a routine occurrence because women who are expecting are unable to access primary care services to prepare for delivery.

So I'm here today with a bold and specific ask, fully aware of how bold.

However, I'm hoping that can be the beginning of a discussion around the possibility of View Royal potentially stepping into this discussion, possibly providing some financial support such that the society could do a good thing here and take on a clinic that's in distress, a clinic that's going to fold one way or another, and possibly breathe new life into it with new staff.

Our board is comprised of family physicians and community members, non-physicians.

We adopted this model from Shoreline, which you might be familiar with on the Sanish Peninsula.

And I think this brings a community voice and a physician voice, and it allows us to partner those two things and it informs the services we intend to deliver.

As I said, the bulk of our work to date has been to develop a framework for converting existing clinics.

We have infrastructure that's not being used.

We have clinics that are going down, who've lost their physician infrastructure and who are in the process of folding.

And we actually were approached by two such clinics with a request that we take them on, allow the private corps to dissolve, and allow the physicians to practice under our umbrella, thus making their practice more sustainable administratively and the business model more sustainable sustainable fiscally.

One of the things that we hear from physicians as well, prospective physicians, is that the Western communities has fallen below the critical mass of physicians to essentially maintain a system of care.

Unfortunately in the region we have a smattering of clinics, some of whom are carrying on, some of whom are in distress.

There's very little coordination happening.

The province has introduced the primary care networks, which is a step in the right direction.

And our organization was officially voted into that process.

But we don't have a physician group that's large enough, I think, to maintain things like on call groups and other partnerships that make the region an attractive place to work.

And so a big part of what we want to do is to develop that system of care to be an overarching organization that can provide supports both to clinics under our umbrella and outside.

Um, and lastly, you know, really where the rubber hits the road is to create capital projects for new builds.

And it's beyond the scope of this discussion, but that is also something that we are engaged in.

So, again, the main reason I'm here today pertains to Grow Health, which up until last year was one of the largest providers of maternity, primary care maternity services in Greater Victoria, and unfortunately lost approximately half of their physician group in one year, moving to other provinces.

Grow approached us letting us know they were in distress.

The government had given them some temporary funding to avoid further loss of services, but with the requirement that they find a way to make their practice more viable.

And so they have approached us to take them over, to recruit new physicians and to decrease their administrative burden, essentially running the practice as a whole and allowing physicians to focus on their clinical duties.

We've explored the legal case for this, and what would be required would be for us to take over all of the assets and infrastructure of the clinic, which would come at a cost.

That's what you see in option three.

We've had this appraised by a certified business analyst, and I'm happy to share a detailed budget with council and staff.

We've also included some other options.

We are working with a recruiter who has a proven track record of recruiting foreign-trained physicians on a rapid basis to this to the South Island.

This person has uh recruited several physicians to the Sandwich Peninsula and others further up island.

Um and we were able to do that um working with him uh to recruit grow to be um minimally viable, which is option two, uh, and to full staffing, which is option one.

Um so, like I said, a bold proposition I realize, um, but uh hoping this is the beginning of a conversation on how we can partner on this and and other endeavors.

So thanks very much for your time.

Thank you.

Before I go to questions to uh my colleagues, I've got a couple uh for you.

The costs listed there, are they a one-time cost or an annual cost?

One-time.

Okay, thank you.

And um uh is the private existing clinic, you said it's in our municipality, and that would be my my concern is here are we investing uh because it's municipal money.

Uh, how do we direct our sponsorship toward View Royal residents, aside from View Royal providing money, and all of the patients for that clinic are from another municipality?

Sure, yeah, that is uh that is a tricky thing to manage because um there are legal constraints around and and College of Physicians and Surgeons constraints around how patients can be accepted.

So I don't believe that there is a framework under which we could refuse someone care based on where they live.

Um that's a very valid point.

The clinic itself is located in View Royal, so by virtue of its sheer proximity, one would assume that View Royal residents would have access.

Um but it's certainly something that we're willing to explore.

This is issue that's come up with other other municipalities.

How do we ensure that our constituents are included?

Um, like I said, there's not really a hard line that we can take because of the College of Physicians and Surgeons and provincial legislation, but certainly we are willing to explore any options to provide you some reassurances in that way.

Thank you.

Um I'll go to Councillor Lemon then, Councillor McKenzie, please.

Dr.

Cleve, we want you here.

We want you to stay in View Royal and I imagine everybody in this room wants you to stay in View Royal, probably everybody in town.

So I, you know, maybe I'm preempting here, but I would move that we we ask staff to meet with this group and perhaps bring bring forward some options and and uh opportunities that we can, you know, without without raising taxes considerably.

Although I, you know, I suspect that if it came to having a family doctor, people in Veroyal would be prepared to pay a little bit more in taxes rather than standing, you know, out outside nursing care center at five in the morning hoping to see someone.

So um anyway, that I'm I'm that's my motion.

It wasn't very articulate, but it's that we we ask staff to meet with this organization and bring forward some um recommendations and options for us to consider.

And and just as you know additionally I think that um you know in the last election campaign there was at least a couple of us that made um said that working towards maintaining primary care in V Royal was the primary was a priority so um i'm you know whatever we can do within our means i'm on board thank you counselor lemon i'm i'm assuming that those are uh words of support so um yeah well we can come to a resolution after we finish some questions and comments if that yeah if that works for you uh councillor McKenzie please thank you for your presentation um I was wondering whether converting from the private to the nonprofit uh for those two clinics in particular.

Does that provide um also the option for tax exemptions for rental of the clinics because they're now a nonprofit from yeah from the municipality?

It would really be more of a question, I think, for a lawyer, but um I I assume so, and that's what our lawyer uh indicates, but I would defer to um to uh city staff and and so forth on it for the official policy, but I believe so.

Okay, thank you.

And then um also curious whether another option would be to request developers to include you know free or low rent clinic spaces as part of their amenities packages.

Um would that also be something that uh your organization would be interested in too?

Would that work towards your objectives?

It does, yeah.

Thanks for asking that.

Um, it's something that we're exploring with other municipalities as well.

Of course, without buildings being built right now, those things are all kind of on a two-plus-year horizon.

Um, so absolutely, and that's part of our strategic plan.

Um, yeah.

But I wouldn't replace where we're at now with issues like this where we're concerned about imminent loss of further services to the public.

Thank you, Counselor McKenzie.

Uh Counselor Rogers, please.

Yes, thanks.

So you're the US shore, and that's Langford and Coldwood and the other ones.

But the the ask is specifically for View Royal.

So can you put those other municipalities in some perspective on their roles?

Are they going to chip in on the View Royal clinic?

Uh our strategy thus far, and it may be flawed, um, feel free to educate me, is that we've we've been approaching clinics based on uh or municipalities based on where the clinics are cited.

So, for example, that one of the other clinics that's come forward uh asking that we take it over is located in Langford, and we've approached Langford pertaining to that clinic.

Another clinic project that's come up is in Callwood, and we've been working with Mayor Kobayashi on that project.

So we've been trying to not have any one municipality shouldering all the load, but just to approach the municipalities about you know where the clinic is located.

Yeah, and and I certainly appreciate um uh Council Lemon's motion, and and uh I think we do need to get creative on um because I'm very interested in in providing support.

But I guess um just another question.

Where's the province and all this?

How come they're not shipping in?

Um the I should say the province has contributed.

So they've they've assisted us with uh change management dollars through the primary care network to allow us to create the legal and business case for this.

Um and uh they have contributed to other capital projects.

Um grow specifically, like I said, they've been shouldering essentially the the difference or the deficit for for Grow Health thus far, with the understanding that Grow would approach an organization like us um to come up with a more long-term plan.

Um and so our long-term plan is to make grow internally sustainable, um, hence the one-time ask as opposed to an ongoing ask.

Um, but these are for the costs that it would need to get from point A to point B.

Yes, thank you.

And certainly you've heard tonight that the province has great um demands on VOL to really boost the number of individuals coming to live in here and they're going to need uh healthcare services as well despite those that are um retiring.

So that's uh I I get the point.

I I um again speaking to the idea of options one of the options I would be interested in and uh you pursuing is a um a grant and aid application I would much rather put money into this than any duplication of services that uh currently exist in V Royal.

So thank you.

Um and I h look forward to getting ideas and working with you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Councillor Matson, please.

And then Councillor Brown, if you had a question too after Councilor Madsen.

Yes, thanks for your presentation.

So I gather from your presentation that your your primary focus is right now is saving the GROW clinic.

Okay.

And so would one of which of these options would like you provided some options here.

So which of you are is one of these options would would save GROW I would say on the immediate term option three, but in terms of of making the the clinic minimally financially viable uh option two to bring in at least one more uh family physician um through our recruiter um would make it such that the the clinic can be in internally uh stable from a fiscal perspective um we have actually successfully recruited one other foreign trained graduate already um but it still puts the budget a little bit under breaking even um even with the efficiencies that we can gain um taking over the organization um so to bring in one more full-time equivalent on top of acquiring all of the assets which are owned by a smattering of different individuals um and all of the infrastructure.

Um, option two would would would be the bare minimum, I would say.

Okay.

So if the town did say go for option two, how how long would that keep the clinic open?

Or would it so I guess my concern is what if we're back here in a few years?

Um we've we've had hired uh the business consultant through the division of family practice to help us run those numbers, and that's how we've arrived at that option two would put us in a position where we're solidly um in the black or able to able to maintain the business long term.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I'll go to Counselor Brown and then Councillor Kowalovich.

Yeah, thank you, uh Doctor, for your presentation.

I think it's a great uh initiative, and certainly uh having a clinic uh such as you you suggested in View Royal is certainly uh it's a great town to live in.

I'm certainly you'd have no problem recruiting doctors to come.

Thanks.

Thank you again.

Thank you.

Uh question for staff.

Uh would this fall under the uh umbrella of our usage for the BC Growing Communities funds that we will be receiving to the 204.6 million.

That I would have to defer to the director of finance.

She is on the call, but I'm not sure if she's prepared to answer that question.

Don, if you're still listening, I think we have a question for you.

I'm afraid I'm not gonna be able to answer that just off the cuff, but certainly some uh discussion and research could we can we can help you out at a future date.

And maybe uh Councilor Levin, I know you had a motion on this and your microphone still locked, um, that we would um uh ask staff to bring this back with some with some details and after uh potential opportunities for financing, particularly if this is a one-term thing uh for us to deliberate at that time.

But I I mean this is excellent.

Uh number one, thank you for your your work that you've done in in investing.

And I realize I'm learning more about um uh kind of how doctors are funded uh in British Columbia, learning more uh as I go through this process.

And that really you're it's up to the doctor to create a business, to hire staff, to develop a practice, and because they're so busy with uh providing care that often and and the expense of just doing all of that is sometimes not individually um uh you know uh profitable enough to to keep the practice alive, despite the the the good that they're sharing.

So um I think I'd I'd probably like to bring that to uh maybe Council of the Whole, if we could just discuss then uh Sarah, if that's not too much to ask.

Um and uh hope that colleagues would support that motion.

So um it should we continue by the motion, uh Jerry uh I think we do we just go to that one and it's the same, right?

So the staff are gonna investigate, come back with some some options for for funding.

Yeah, okay.

Um second that uh okay, so moved by councillor lemon, seconded by counselor Rogers.

Uh all in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

So I guess we'll get back to you, doc.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much.

And I think that brings us to public participation period.

Now's the time if you want to come up and address council.

Um we'll start with the room uh for anybody that would like to address council on anything on the agenda or anything council would benefit from your thoughts on.

I'll start with in the room first.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight.

I did write a lender, a letter to the agenda that that's attached there, and I hope you'll read it.

It contained more detail than I can include in a few minutes up here.

It has remarks about the balance of the original project summary and for the parking review, and it touches on the need for attention to the actual on-street parking capacity and limitations that currently exist in View Royal.

I hope you'll find it constructive.

For tonight, I want to voice some concerns about the agenda item called the terms of reference.

At the Committee of the Whole on October 10th, a report titled Parking Review Terms of Reference was presented to council.

It included that council had asked for the terms of reference for the parking project prior to posting a request for proposals on BC bid, that the purpose of the report is to present the Committee of the Whole with the draft terms of reference.

It concluded that staff had prepared the draft terms of reference for council's consideration and feedback prior to posting on BC bid.

But the report does not contain a draft of the terms of reference.

It does contain a bullet list of ideas that could be included in a terms of reference.

That's a far cry from a draft document provided for final review.

The precise language needed in a carefully crafted terms of reference would become the heart of the contract document for this proposed $75,000 parking review.

It will be binding.

The wording will describe what viewroyal is asking the contractor to produce no more, no less.

The terms of reference will be the terms of reference will be the reference for deciding if the contract has been fulfilled and would be the core of any contract dispreuve.

There's no such document in the report to the committee of the whole tonight's meeting, there's a new report called off street parking review.

Request for proposal terms of reference.

The document identifies some changes in the project scope.

Usually project scope is an early stage part of a project.

On page two, it says twice that the staff will draft a terms of reference document.

The report concludes this report is to provide counsel with an update on the scope of the RFP for the off-street parking review.

Staff will ensure that the terms of reference are clear to avoid confusion on the town's expectations for the desired outcomes of this project and reflect potential provincial changes.

So now the scope of the project has changed.

There are no terms of reference to review tonight.

It seems there's no longer an intention to provide the terms of reference to council for review as requested.

The terms of reference are the final description of what the project is.

So far, there are just two speculative reports of what the project might include.

This project's been stalled for over two years.

It started in June 2021.

But there's been no real harm to View Royal during that time.

With Housing Bill 44, the province has massively shifted the goalposts.

I think there is room for a parking review, but this is not a project ready or a decision ready project.

The project objectives are unbalanced, and without an exact terms of reference draft terms of reference, council does not know what it's buying.

It's premature to go forward with this project until a more thorough consideration of project scope is undertaken and council is better informed about the terms of reference for the contract.

Among the ideas in the Committee of the Whole Report bullet list is that the contractor will create an engagement plan.

This is the same way the OCP project, the housing needs assessment project, acquired their engagement services.

They were not successful.

It's telling that in the Committee of the Whole report, of the many parties listed for engagement, all are listed as external tech stakeholders.

There are no internal stakeholders to consult.

External stakeholders is a term used for those who have a business interest or other indirect interest in an organization or a project.

Internal stakeholders are those that are directly, even unavoidably, affected by the decisions of the organization or project, like the people that currently live in View Royal.

I was very dismayed to see that the residents of View Royal were listed as external stakeholders, alongside all the other groups, such as the Urban Design Institute, a well-funded development industry lobby group.

It seems like the discussion about the consequences of poor engagement in the OCP project and the desire to improve engagement processes has fallen by the wayside.

This is very disappointing.

Thanks very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Wilson.

Anybody else in the room wish to address council?

Seeing nobody going once, twice.

Get or take her.

Susan Preshow, 285 Pavis here.

I guess in light of everything that we're hearing, lack of doctors, the new Bill 44, everything else that's coming our way.

Review what's going.

Something that's on the venue or the agenda this evening is about the new development.

I guess I have one question about that.

I attended the last meeting, and the big thing that was very surprising to everybody is that there was no room for a fire truck.

Now we're hearing first and second reading, but has that been solved?

I didn't have a chance to go through 200 pages of a presentation, but has that been solved?

Housing, the buffering, has that been looked at?

Has the question that I asked about Grand and Fur, has that been looked at in regards to the cedar buffering that we have presently that looks like it's going to be ripped out?

Have all those points that everybody that comes up here and talks from the residents has that been listened to has that been have the letters been read because it seems that all the stuff that's on the agenda tonight is the same thing that was discussed the other point.

The OCP of 2011 is it four stories without any commercial is it five stories is it six stories what is it we have things in place, but it doesn't seem that we're using those, and we keep seem to be changing our points of view without thinking about what you said before.

What you want for the OCP is the character of the city or the town.

And unfortunately, the province is coming down our throats and going to be taking that away from us.

So I ask tonight, please think about all those things when you ask your questions, when the presentation is done, and thinking of all of those elements that we've been talking about over the course of the past year, since you've been in place.

Think about those things.

Think about the constituents that you have heard from and have not heard from, and what that means.

What isn't good for down the road seems to be okay for up the road, space-wise.

Why?

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I I just wanted to hopefully dispel some of the concern with regard to the provincial legislation, Bill 44.

The province has gone far and wide to find an example of how the missing middle worked all the way down to New Zealand.

But I'd like to draw a comparison to how it didn't work in Portland, Oregon, which is much closer to home.

Two years ago, two and a half years ago now, they brought in the same legislation, almost identical.

In the first year, they had an uptake of 600 units.

They're five times larger than Greater Victoria.

That would equate to Greater Victoria having an uptake in one year of 125.

But let's remember that when they did theirs, the interest rates were half of what they are now.

So when you look at how many we're gonna, how many applications you're gonna receive in View Royal, I think what you have to look at is can the average individual that owns a home afford to build two or three or four more units on their property?

I think not.

I don't think they have the covenant to do it.

I don't think they can borrow the money.

I don't think they have the skill set to do it.

So all we're looking at is a few small developers that are going to run around and pick up some properties and and do a few developments.

But I think those will start primarily in the core in the city of Victoria in Sanich.

So it'll be a long time before you see too much of that uptake in View Royal.

And I wanted to share those thoughts with you because I think that there's some major concern about how it is going to affect this community.

I don't see that happening anywhere in the near future.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Ford.

Anyone else in the house?

Going second, third time.

Go to you on the phone, Carl.

Mayor Tobias, we still have caller 8247, who may want a chance to speak.

Council standing by.

I'll take that as uh maybe they don't know they're still hooked up, Carl.

Um that might be what it was, uh Mayor.

Or maybe they had trouble um getting on our uh unmuting.

So we'll uh we'll do some examination and see if there's any problems.

I don't think there is, but we'll check.

Thanks, Carl.

Appreciate it.

And I think we can move along on the agenda.

We've got no business arising from previous minutes, but we have a couple of reports.

Um first of which is internet intersection cost comparison with Erskine Lane and Watkiss Way.

Good evening, Mary and Council.

So Ben Luberts, I'm the deputy director of engineering, and today I'm actually coming to you as acting director in Ivan's absence.

So I just have a report to present to you and a brief summary here.

So the developer of Nine Erskine Lane requested to provide a traffic signal at the intersection of Erskine at uh Watkins Way instead of a roundabout that was originally required as a condition of rezoning.

So council passed a resolution at the October 17th meeting to change the uh or to approve change to the covenant from a roundabout to a traffic signal.

And uh additionally, council requested at that time a desire to learn the cost difference between the provision of the signal compared to a roundabout, which is the purpose of this report.

So we did some uh findings and uh concluded the capital costs of a traffic signal at that location is expected to exceed the cost of a roundabout to the tune of about 800,000.

This is predominantly due to the extension of road enhancements that would be provided further west of the intersection and road widening that would be required along the applicant's frontage to accommodate uh the enhanced pedestrian cycling infrastructure.

And there is a diagram included in the report to help visualize those differences.

And we also determined that the operational costs uh were confirmed to be fairly similar between the two types of intersections, um, comparing the cost of a traffic signal maintenance is offset by the cost of roundabout of uh landscaping uh with a larger roundabout.

So I present this to you.

Thank you for your report.

Questions?

Yeah, thank you.

Thanks for the report.

Uh the one thing that we've we have approved um number 10, and with that their commitment for a sidewalk, and which and just correct me if I'm wrong, but sidewalk would come up to Watkins Way.

Uh so through the chair, um yeah, my understanding is there uh is a commitment from uh the rezoning at 10 Erskine to construct a sidewalk from their property up Watkiss, or sorry, up Erskine to Watkiss.

Um the sidewalks that we spoke about here, pedestrian recycling enhancements are not those.

These are on Watkiss Way.

I I guess the the question is that they're they're they're committed to doing that, obviously.

Um, but if we're all going to undertake uh the intersection improvements, um would we not uh want to negotiate with the uh proponents of number 10 to while all that work is going on, uh to also include that uh for the benefits of pedestrian safety on both sides of the road?

Through the chair.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Okay, so figure one shows um the the intersection and it shows a sidewalk on the number nine side, but it doesn't show the sidewalk that um number 10 is now committed to.

And I'm just wondering in terms of timing and um since you know it's more cost effective to get it all done at the same time, curbs, etc., um that you know, would that is that something that staff will work on and negotiate with number nine, number 10, and and so forth to make sure that that intersection is is completed for the benefits of the residents as soon as possible uh so through the mayor i if i understand you correctly you're talking about coordination of construction um so the sidewalk obligated under uh 10 erskin is uh doesn't come into effect until they actually apply for their building permit at which time we would enter into a servicing agreement and then the they would actually be obligated to provide that sidewalk at that time so until we receive a building permit for that development um there's no real opportunity to coordinate uh construction uh or or obligate them to start contributing money towards that infrastructure.

Hopeful thinking thanking.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

If uh council is satisfied, we could uh move to receipt.

Movish eight, second.

Uh all in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, thank you very much for your report.

Thank you.

And you're gonna, oh I think it's over to Leanne now.

Uh off-street parking review request for proposal uh terms of service, Lianne.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Good evening, Council.

The purpose of this presentation in the report is to provide council with an update on the terms of reference for the request for proposal for the off-street parking review, which was which is a non-core project identified in the 2023-20 to 2027 financial plan to be completed this year and next.

This is just a screen a slide here that sort of speaks to some background information on where we have been and where we are now.

So again, in in during the budget deliberations for this year, this project was identified as a non-core project.

Staff presented the project objectives and the draft terms of reference at the regular council meeting on October 17th, 2023.

And as noted in the project summary in the financial plan, the proposed project objectives are to take a comprehensive review and update of the town's parking regulations, including accessible and bicycle parking requirements, to ensure that the parking requirements reflect current policies, local parking needs, and best practices in parking regulation.

And also that extensive stakeholder and public engagement would be included in the process to identify and test parking innovations.

And so what that would involve is likely a working group made out of key stakeholder representatives, including members of the public.

So it's all encompassing.

So looking at commercial, institutional, as well as residential uses.

It would look at accessible and EV charging requirements.

So we do have parking requirements for those too.

However, even like in light of the recent Canadian Tire DP where council asked for type two fast chargers, perhaps we need to kind of revisit our the charging infrastructure and what we're requiring for developments.

So this parking review would also look at that.

And also there's no end-of-trip facility requirements.

There's no like dimensions for parking spaces.

So taking into account like cargo bikes, larger bikes, e-bikes, things like that.

So this particular review would look at that as well.

Our um our parking byla also does not include on-site loading requirements for commercial or residential.

Um, where we don't require loading, so for um moving and delivery, delivery trucks.

And so this review would also take that into account, as well as looking at um best practices for dealing with minor variances, parking variances.

So maybe to try and avoid the whole Gyrosa development variance permit that we um had to deal with a couple of months ago because we um it was uh uh we received a building permit or yeah, building permit and a business license for a change of use, um, going from a retail to restaurant and um within an existing shopping center, and they had to go through the owners had to go through a uh a development variance permit process.

So looking at um perhaps um how how we can um sort of streamline that um more efficiently, especially to um uh promote and support our local businesses.

And then also looking at the cash and loo um requirements for reductions in parking.

So right now we do have a cash and loo requirement.

Um should we receive a parking variance and uh uh and it's sort of an opt-in option.

Uh, and uh and the um obviously the price of parking has gone up and that in and the and the uh funds that we do receive through the cash and loo option is to use towards building other parking facilities or um active transportation um opportunities and things like that so the um the cash and loo requirement um is is um something that staff um think it's beneficial to look at as well so i'm summarizing what was included in the staff report that council looked at um a few weeks ago um but the the reason for bringing this forward um right now is um and also into response to a council you know council's request is that um we do know that out of bill bill Bill 44 that um the the province is is prohibiting municipalities to um require parking for small scale multi unit housing, and um that would come into effect on if if this legislation, if this bill is passed, then it would come into effect on June 30th, 2024.

So in light of that, there's been a desire to sort of, as part of the RFP process, sort of park that that piece of it.

So don't want to waste staff time or a consultants's time on establishing parking ratios and legislation and requirements where we have the province saying that parking is not going to be required for these types of residential uses.

And so we're kind of decoupling that from this.

That staff was happy to make sure that the consultant is is clear that um that would would likely not be um part of the scope of work because we're going to be mandated by the province um the um yeah and that's all i have to say about this and so happy to take questions thank you lean uh council loan thank you lean um in decoupling that aspect um and and proceeding with the rest of the uh the the project um when it comes to back to coupling it uh would that require i would would stack would that be part of staff time or would that require a whole new expenditure?

Would that require a consultant?

What would be involved?

Um, so through through the mayor, I mean, I I'm I'm getting up to speed like everyone else on on the new bill 44 on the you know the bill 44 legislation.

And um we're gonna be so if if this legislation is adopted, I guess, um, then we are gonna be required to update our zoning bylaw.

So we're that would be part of the work that we would have to do to um um to ensure that our zoning bylaw is consistent with this provincial legislation.

So um it's it in a way it's kind of happening in a way concurrently, which is kind of nice for us, especially if we're embarking on this on this project.

And um, and so we would be uh d depending on what what um council um so as we're moving forward with this project, um there'll be check-ins with council and things like that.

And um so it just depends on what you know what council decides to adopt as part of um zoning bylaw updates associated with the recommendations that come out of the parking review.

So um to answer your question, it wouldn't be uh doubling up work, it would essentially be deleting parking requirements that are associated with um townhouses or other small-scale multi-unit housing types where we're regulating parking for at this time.

Thank you.

I it might be along the same lines as counselor Lemmon, but so you're not proposing that we do part of the review right now and then part of the review in in 24, um June 2024.

No?

Oh no no this would all be this is all one project one parking review and all I'm saying is that we're um not gonna um uh waste staff and consultant time on um on establishing and reviewing and assessing um parking ratios for the small-scale multi-unit housing because we know that council are the the the province is not it's not it's not going to um let's read it right here.

It comes right out of bill 44.

But um uh under bill 44 is that the council of a municipality must not on or after June 30th, 2024, require an owner or occupier of any land or of any building or other structure to provide off-street parking or loading spaces for the residential use of a small-scale multi-unit housing unit.

Okay, so it's unlikely that we would have two costs associated with this for a con uh consultant.

No.

No, it would be less work for consultant because they wouldn't have to review that aspect of the parking pile of those the parking requirements.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie, Councilor Roger.

Uh less work, more chaos.

I'm really hesitant to uh go ahead with this because there is the um uh this you know that there's a word if the province confirms that municipalities can or if they cannot um you know we it's um you know they it causes me great concern so if we're we are going to if they again uh I'll reiterate a broken record the province is saying that um we can put up to four units of any place that has 230 square meters.

So that accounts for a lot of the 2,000 single family lots that we have.

And if that, you know, let's just take the harbor for example, if the province, if what I'm hearing you're saying, the province is saying, municipality, do not, do not require any car of those four units, any car of those four units to be on that property.

You gotta put them on the street.

Is that what is that what the province is saying?

Through the the mayor, I um I don't know what the province is saying.

If I can the province isn't giving an alternative.

The province is just saying that we can't we can't provide off street parking.

Yeah.

So, you know, with that uh draconian heavy-handed direction, um, you know, we have chaos, and and I don't know how we're going to have any kind of resemblance of order through this this uh review um to ensure the safety of of um and even uh addressing the congestion issues that are going to arise in this uh the province.

No, unless I'm reading this wrong, but um I wouldn't be prepared to even bother with this report um if we're not dealing with the crucial issue of how we're going to address it in our small neighborhoods.

If I could just provide some uh a bit of insight, and it's a a bit of a discussion I had with Leanne too.

So there's two issues here.

There's one real issue around uh some challenges we had with parking um uh for commercial uh the fact that um uh a space was a restaurant then its use was something else is the Greek restaurant I'm discussing and then we couldn't issue the permit for it because with the changes council made to the parking we couldn't there wasn't enough parking to issue them a permit.

So that there's that real impressing issue going on with commercial other things like what what uh um accessibility for parking.

There's other issues such as um uh loading zones that we really don't have a provision for requirement that that we should be including.

So we could do this one or two ways.

We could table the whole parking study, which would still leave us without some firm direction on accessibility parking, loading zones, making sure our businesses can run effectively, and then the entire question about residential that we're all concerned with.

Uh, for my own perspective, I would be happy to advance a limited study that that would focus on enabling in our businesses and commercial and accessibility uh and leave that part out for stuff that is still emerging with Bill 44 and all of the implications that it has, because I would be uncomfortable with going forward for that too.

But I think there is a pressing need right now to advance some work on our current parking that isn't um isn't helping uh our our businesses be successful uh whilst we do have another issue.

Comments and questions and other ways around.

Uh let's go with counselor McKenzie first and then counselor Mats.

I just have a question um based on what uh you said, Mayor Tobias.

I'm just thinking uh when do we have an idea of when we would know more about uh the legislation and be able to include residential, or is it too far down the road?

Are we talking like December or are we talking you know another year?

Uh it it i if the current legislation is passed it's at its first reading now it's supposed to get final reading I think by the end of the month is where they're pushing it.

Uh so if that is the legislation then that is the legislation we will know by the end of the month.

That's right.

So why don't we wait?

It's gonna be liquidy split.

Okay so and so if we we know, uh, I don't know what the the the time critical uh uh aspects here.

We've been doing this since two thousand twenty one it's not our fault that the promise is you know trying to throw us under the bush so if it's um um if we wait this short bit of time, we can then determine where the province is coming from.

You know, is there a gun to ahead and or not?

And um uh, but if they're gonna give us some opportunity, then I would like to see an orderly process where the public will be able to engage and be involved, and we can hear from them on that critical matter where it affects them the most.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Uh Councilor Matson, please.

You probably wanted me first, but you always confuse the two of us.

You know, I I I look at a lot of these items and we have policies for bicycles, we have policies, you know, whenever we do a rezoning and we're put in a development, we we look at loading issues.

So my question is like, you know, we could probably increase the cash and loo or look at whether that's um so there's a few things we could we could look at, but I just don't see us spending $75,000 for this study when a number of the issues haven't reared their ugly heads ever.

I mean, the only time was when we had a and and a little issue about the um the the new Greek restaurant.

I mean, it really wouldn't matter.

This review is not going to fix those because it'd be the odd little anomaly, and you have to deal with it separately.

So I just don't see a purpose in this.

Uh a big review.

If there's specific issues that are of real consequence, like you know, the current cash and loo, I mean that can be looked at and staff could simply come up with what some of the other municipalities are doing or put a uh an annual increase on it to the cost of living or something so that it doesn't just stagnate at 12,000 or whatever it is forever.

But anyway, I I don't support doing a review at all.

So what uh there's a number of ways we can deal with this.

One of those that might be worth a thought would be to table the parking study to our strategic discussion where we will talk about council's priorities over the next little while.

Um, so staff can take a direction from that and that will occur uh coming up in December and we'll just table any further discussion on the parking until that time so moved councilum um this is 2023 money am I right uh that is correct so it's actually split over two years so I believe it's um uh I think it's 35,000 this year and then uh 40 000 in 2024 um so it is part of staff's work plan and that's what we're we're doing so um the direction from council this evening would be helpful.

Thank you.

I'll second the tabling motion and and and if i may, speaking to that particular point, we're not, you know, give you up.

I think council would be more than happy to give the staff the flexibility because the province, you know, has has required us to give you that flexibility so that we can be the most informed to have the public's most input and put it all into the total amount into the 2024 budget.

And then we've we'll know where we're coming from.

Any other comments or questions?

Um so we got a motion on the floor to table this for our strat discussions forthcoming in December.

That will give staff a clear direction about anticipation and expectations.

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Now we're down to committee of the whole resolutions, which are none.

Other reports, which I don't believe we have.

Correspondence.

We have the late correspondence from Mr.

Wilson.

Can I get a motion to receive?

Movers.

Move by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councilor Lemon.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

We're down to the rezoning application for 339, 341, and 345 Island Highway.

Does that bring you back up, uh Leanne?

Or what does everybody else go on vacation when all these big ones come up and leave you to it, huh?

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Uh Sterling Square Community Planner presenting uh rezoning application for 339, 341, and 345 Island Highway.

Um purpose of the presentation tonight is to provide an update to council following the September 12th committee of the whole meeting.

Uh answer the questions that were brought up at that time and uh clarify uh some uh maybe misunderstandings and then uh moving forward also have uh the bylaw as number two uh or item number two attached to this uh report uh staff also have recommendations so i will do a bit of a uh just a bit of a recap um on what the application is but like i said really let's uh discussions largely going to be on uh what's changed and uh confirm questions that were brought up from the committee the whole meeting so the uh application in question is for rezoning the properties three three uh three three nine three four one and three four five island highway the uh site was a form for uh is the former site of the Cambridge Motel.

Uh its function primarily is for uh below market rental housing in the community.

It's located in the Harvard neighborhood.

The current land use designation is the mixed residential land use designation, which would support apartments up to a maximum of 1.6 FSR, and which is consistent with what the applicant is doing.

The current zoning is C5 tourist commercial.

And staff had previously presented to the community a comprehensive development zone after some questions that were raised at the community of the whole and further conversation with the applicant.

Staff and the applicant have worked moving forward now to look at an existing zone within the zoning bylaw, the uh RM3 mixed residential zone, which uh with uh the current application is consistent.

Uh I'll be touching on that in just a moment.

So, in terms of uh unit mix overview, nothing's changed here.

Uh in fact, if I remember correctly, the applicant has actually increased their amount of uh amenity space indoor by uh roughly 200 meters or 200 square feet.

Um, the proposed uh unit mix for uh suite one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom rental apartments for this application remains uh the same as per uh presented uh to committee the whole.

Um with respect to the application uh and zoning information the applicant is requesting a single variance uh and that would be to the uh the height of the building uh using the existing RM3 residential zone instead of like I said the uh the CD zone you can see that the proposal uh outline on the far right hand side uh the uh proposal is consistent with what is uh existing in the RM3 zone with the exception of the uh the the height so the uh the use, density, and setbacks uh are all conforming to that uh that existing zone.

Moving along to parking uh at this time app uh the applicant hasn't requested any variances for parking.

More detailed review of the parking would be done at development permit should this application move forward.

That's where we would being the staff and applicant would look at the kind of the design details in terms of drive all widths and dimensions of parking spaces.

The information presented on the slide and the report is consistent with what was uh at the committee the whole uh meeting in September as well.

Um conceptual design, no changes here in terms of the the rendering of the image or rendering of sorry the uh the buildings.

Um the top screen or top image on the screen is uh of the front yard, so that would be the view from Prince Robert Drive.

Uh the image on the bottom would be of the rear yard, so looking from the fire hall at the back of the building.

Um and the flanking yard, uh which is on Island Highway, would be the top image, and then the conceptual rendering for the uh the side yard Hetel Park is the uh the bottom image.

Again, uh no no changes here from the uh the committee of the whole meeting.

So a few things that have changed since the committee of the whole meeting, uh I'll go into now.

And changes uh are really just clarifications from from that uh the that meeting.

So first the uh applicant staff have confirmed the amenity spaces on the site, and uh there are four amenity spaces in total, uh outdoors with one indoors.

So the one indoor space is outlined in black.

I'm realizing that this image is a little bit small, so I will point to it.

Uh mouse doesn't seem to be working.

The um the black outline uh square on the bottom uh around the uh the uh the building is the indoor amenity space.

There is a uh green square which shows the uh proposed outdoor amenity space.

The uh purple square shows the uh proposed barbecue area space, uh the yellow space or yellow square or kind of polygon shows the proposed uh children's play area play structure, and then the green outline space shows the uh green space that is to be uh on site.

Um staff and the applicant had had uh quite at-length conversations about these uh amenity spaces and have come to the agreement that these would be secured in a legal agreement, a covenant, and uh that it's detailed more in the in the recommendations.

But these have now been confirmed via uh a site plan with with staff and uh showing this to council now for the first time uh on in terms of where they are on the site.

Um the applicant also confirmed now that they are going to be providing uh community community amenity contributions.

Um that came up at the uh committee of the whole meeting.

So the applicant has agreed to provide uh a total of four thousand dollars per residential dwelling at the uh this time that would equate to uh uh nine hundred and fifty-two thousand dollars uh at the uh rate of 238 dwellings that are proposed.

And next, just a few uh few items here on um I'll call it largely transportation issues.

So the first is the fire access and loading that uh came up with the committee of the whole.

Staff have reviewed that with the applicant and can confirm that that's uh not an issue.

Um, the fire department, engineering department, and planning department have worked at length with the applicant to confirm that fire access can be achieved off of Island Highway.

There is some slight change to the site design in terms of where the fire truck will come into the site.

So the fire truck will actually come into the uh kind of the courtyard space that's shown on the screen.

That allows the fire truck to operate its apparatus and to put down its um, I guess secured uh can't think of the word right now, but uh basically it allows it to uh to operate in that space.

It also allows the uh the fire truck to back into what is uh a loading space uh or turnaround area, which um the applicant and staff have worked uh together on uh seeing as a new addition since the community of the whole meeting.

So we see a fire access being achieved, a new loading space, and access and egress from the site no longer being an issue.

With concern to uh rat running, uh at the September 12th Committee of the Whole meeting, members of the community had requested that staff explore opportunities to address the impact of route running on pedestrian safety while using Prince Robert Drive.

Although a small fraction of trips to and from the development site can be expected to utilize the Prince Robert Draw Prince Robert Drive View Royal Avenue route through the Harbor District, it is not possible to correlate the resulting impact on pedestrian safety to those trips generated by the development site.

Should council choose to investigate further into the pedestrian safety issue beyond the effects of the proposed development as a town-led initiative.

Um there could be uh opportunity to use community many contributions to uh fund um uh further uh traffic calming measures in the neighborhood.

Um, at this time there's no proposed capital project uh or projects for road work in the harbor neighborhood to address council's concern with uh with route running.

The uh proposal still includes the following recommendations from the applicant's traffic impact assessment, which includes installation of a traffic uh intersection or traffic controlled intersection at the uh corner of Prince Robert Drive and Island Highway, the installation of westbound turn lane on island highway uh to Prince Robert Drive, installation of sidewalk and landscape boulevards along Island Highway frontage, uh the upgrade of existing bus stop with a new bus, uh new BC transit shelter uh on island highway, and the possibility of doing a uh two two way left turn lane between Prince Robert Drive and Burnett Road.

Next is uh the uh Heddle Park Trail Connection.

At the September 12th committee, the whole committee uh committee meeting, members discussed having a trail connection between the development site and Heddle Park.

The development site of this portion of Heddle Park being the lands that abut the subject property are currently in an unopened and undeveloped state and make up a linear piece of land.

It is identified in the Parks Master Plan of 2017.

Council may wish to note that recently a survey was completed to gauge support for the trail connection, of which 12 adjacent properties were surveyed, and two of the eight that were received showed support.

The applicant has agreed to construct fencing along the Heddle Part Park location, which would be consistent with our development permit guidelines.

They'd also be required to put fencing along the rear yard, which is where the fire hall is.

However, the applicant has expressed concern with providing a trail connection to a trail or proposed trail that is not yet established.

And staff share similar concern with having an ask to provide or for the applicant to provide a trail connection to a trail that has yet to be established.

Should council wish, there may be the opportunity for use of community venture community vendor contributions to establish this as a formal trail connection.

The one thing I wanted to clarify with the uh the change in location uh of the barbecue area and the uh the children's play structure was that there's not going to be any impact to the uh existing arborist uh report or tree management plan that the arborist has provided.

So the uh tree management plan shown on the screen here confirms that the relocation of both uh the barbecue area and the the tree or the play structure, or not in any area that's shown to be affected by uh trees.

The uh applicant would still be looking at removing 43 trees on site, which would be replaced at a two to one ratio or cash and loo.

And should the application move forward, the applicant would be required to provide a tree permit prior to building permit issuance.

Staff believe over the long term there'd be urban forest recovery via the new landscaping, which would be confirmed via a landscape plan at time of development permit.

Proposal would have to meet the BC step code and financial implications.

The town would be responsible for maintaining a new signalized intersection as well as sidewalks, boulevard, new trees in the right of way once the uh once this has been installed at the applicant's expense.

So I will um there's there's quite a few items in this uh this this first part.

So I'll read the uh I'll read the recommendation and then I'll I'll give a summary of what's included.

So the first is that the applicant prepares and execute uh executes a legal agreement securing the following items with the contents satisfactory to the Director of development Services and Director of Engineering, and in a form satisfactory to the town's legal council prior to final adoption of the bylaw.

Installation of a traffic traffic control light at the intersection of Prince Robert Drive and on a island highway.

Community ready contributions, the amount of $4,000 per residential dwelling unit, minimum indoor community running space of 160 square meters, outdoor amenities, including barbecue energy space of a child play structure area and play structure, the lands comprising the site would not be should all be shall not be sold or otherwise transferred separately.

The three lots would be consolidated prior to building permit.

That invasive species invasive species removal and restoration restoration plan be provided prior to development permit issuance.

Outlined in the tenant uh assistance plan uh dated July 10th, 2023.

The second uh second recommendation is and that a notice be prepared and a public hearing be scheduled after first and second reading and prior to third reading of zoning bylaw number 900 2014, amendment bylaw number uh 1128.

Um following your decision on these recommendations that are provided, uh consideration for first and second reading of bylaw 1128 is attached as item two of this uh agenda item or report item.

Um in addition to the the recommended motions, council may also consider option uh one as an alternative motion, which is to approve the recommended uh recommended motion with amendments such that council approved the list of secured uh covenant items on the condition that the following amendments be made.

The note here is that should council consider the this alternative alternate motion, uh council would be uh must be explicit in uh what amendments to the uh recommended motion are, so that uh that they can be amended as such.

The second option would be that uh council decline the application.

Uh that council and would read as council could decline reasoning application 2020 uh 2023 oh one uh for 339, 341, and 345 Island Highway.

Uh, if this was the case, uh the application would be closed uh that is the end of my presentation so i'll take uh take questions thank you for a great report and also thank you very much for uh putting the alternative recommendations in uh it's the extra step that helps council out in looking at um ways to address it i'll start off with one question if i may can you go back to your background slide it's near the beginning see original or the zoning, the current zoning for this plot of land is as a campground, is it not?

This essentially intended for the amount of um you know space that you would have immediately across the road, for instance, for camping.

Was that am I saying that right?

To the mayor, uh these the zone is uh C5 tourist commercial.

I don't I I can't recall off off the top of my head if um if that zone permits uh a campground.

Um I would have to uh maybe look to my my colleagues to see if they could pull that up.

Yeah, sure, thank you, Sterling.

Uh, through the mayor, the the yes, so as Sterling noted, the property is currently zone C5, tourist commercial, and the uh permitted uses are hotel and motel, um, and then accessory uses including a retail store, a cafe, and restaurant.

So the the current zone does not permit a campground.

But it doesn't permit an apartment building either.

Right.

That is correct, yeah.

Um so my my next question that follows in on this is just are my numbers right in this, Leanne?

If we've got 233 units at 2.5-ish a piece using or 2.4 that we're looking at about five hundred and eighty-two people that will be moving into this apartment building.

Yeah, to the mayor, just just to clarify, I'd say it's two hundred and thirty-eight units.

But how two two hundred and thirty-eight units?

Okay.

So two hundred and thirty-eight units at two point four, two point five, whatever we're going by for household, regardless of it's a singular studio.

We both know that they're not occupied solely.

About five hundred and eighty-two people.

Is that fair if it's vacancies full up?

Through the mayor, I I just looked over um at the applicant to confirm if that number is um is cr is right.

Um so uh it's uh it's hard to sta for staff to to um to I guess if you like the average household sign size in V Royal is 2.4 people.

Um uh in terms of the housing mix, there's there's a mix of studios, um one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom.

Um it's uh it would be hard to say uh if it'd be hard for staff to confirm um the the tot the the total max people that would live in this building.

Um but uh if you would like the applicant to uh respond to that question they're here this evening.

No, that's okay.

I was looking for a staff response.

Um, so more than 500 is what I'm kind of gaming at here with that number of units is a fair case.

I guess my question uh to my fellow counselors would be given the light of everything in this new bill that's coming down.

Are we happy with a single project having 500 people uh into our neighborhood?

Uh with that.

Um, uh, and I thank you for the changes that I know the development staff have worked hard and the proponent have.

We've got absolutely no amenity space for commercial that I think we brought up.

For me, it's too dense.

It's uh there's no commercial space in it.

We've got requests for a doctor's office, that's not in it.

We don't have any on Exian Lane, not even a coffee shop, not even a place to put a post office.

We got nothing.

We got more high-end apartments, and that that's a concern with me.

I don't know if I can entertain supporting this moving forward given the fact of the place we're in, knowing that the proponent is that's his specialization in high density um residential because it's profitable.

Uh, I just don't see any benefit to the town.

Council Rogers.

Thank you for your points.

And I but I would be interested to hear from the applicant as to what their estimate of um number of individuals uh post-development.

Good evening, council.

My name's uh Jeff Klaus.

I'm with Boardwalk, the applicant.

Uh we've looked at uh our other uh competing developments uh in the area uh at Aurora uh as well as the View in uh Langford, and we estimate uh 1.6 to 1.8 time uh density ratio uh for that, which is uh consistent with the unit types that uh we have here.

Okay, I you have if you could just stay there for a moment, please.

Um I'm sorry, I cannot remember what meeting when you came back.

You gave an excellent summary of of um uh the amenities and and the uh the taxes that are the DCCs, the it was a quite a considerable list of uh of benefits that uh council and the public should consider.

I I'm sorry, I could not find that in the package.

Uh did I miss something?

Was it there?

And if not, um if this is going to go, and I hope it will go to a public hearing, um, that it should be made available to for the for the council and for the public to uh to consider again.

So that that's the other thing.

Uh uh, I have and again I'm not sure if so do you have that and you would be able to provide that for us?

Yes, we can we can provide that for you.

Okay, thank you.

If I if maybe I'll just switch over to staff now, please.

Uh so um staff, thank you for the list of um ideas and and suggestions.

Uh I think the bus stop um I would prefer to see it to the satisfaction of both the of the town and BC Transit, not just BC Transit.

So I think the town um uh should have uh be satisfied with that bus stop as well.

You know, so that's just a suggested wording.

I do like the fact that the um uh the proponent and staff have uh shown a pull-out, bus pullout, so it does not congest traffic on a on a busy road.

So that's really great.

Um staff, the step code.

I thought it was we would step code three now.

Yeah, to the best of my knowledge, uh to the through the mayor.

Um I I I believe it was uh step code uh two.

Um I'll I'll look to uh director of Devont Services to confirm though.

Thank you, Sterling.

Yes, we are currently at step code two for part three buildings.

Oh, which has step code three in it?

Uh those are part nine.

So houses, town townhouses.

Because they again in in the applicant's um uh information package, it did say step code two or higher.

So I'm I'm curious uh if the now may if I can uh impose on the applicant.

Um would it would you be willing to go to step code three?

Yep, yeah, we can uh make some amendments here and and uh uh consider uh a climate action achievement.

Okay.

Um staff I take your point um uh with respect and we did get a letter from uh a resident expressing concerns uh about the um impacts on Prince Robert Drive for the number of traffic that would come up and it's an unknown factor.

Um so you but the point is well taken we do need to have uh that assessment and uh at some point I'll certainly be making a recommendation that staff uh investigate that be prepared be proactive bring recommendations back as well as doing a traffic count, uh a vehicle count of uh the harbor.

It's a long time overdue, and we should then be able to anticipate how many vehicles would be um um, you know, if we get a baseline, we'll know really how much would uh arise from this development, if any.

Um I do note in the in the uh uh transportation report, and I certainly support um the uh the idea of uh widening for the two with the uh left turn lane, um, and I hope um that staff would work with uh again if this is approved, work with the applicant to uh make that a reality.

Um in terms of um uh everything that we've had and and what the staff have uh provided, I'm certainly prepared to now hear from the public in a formal public hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Any other questions for the uh staff on the issue?

Councillor McKenzie, then Councillor Rogers.

Okay.

Or Council Member Manson.

Curious where we were in the process as far as hearings or yeah uh we're just questions for staff and then we can we can uh go on to uh uh debate so counselor McKenzie and then counselor Matson if you had a question then yeah uh so my questions uh I guess my my concern that remains is about the the sound especially coming from the fire hall.

So I was wondering, is it possible and is it at what stage is it that we can ask for trees to be planted along the front of the complex?

Like, can we specify where we want to see some trees for soundproofing?

Through the mayor.

We were going to uh attach landscaping requirements and design of the building to their form and character uh development permit.

Okay, thank you.

And um at one point we were talking about um examples of other municipalities where the fire hall will actually they won't turn on their sirens for a certain length so that these people aren't always hearing sirens.

Is that something that we can request too?

And who I guess who would do that kind of discussion negotiation with the fire hall.

Thanks, Julie.

Uh yeah, through the mayor.

Um those are conversations we could have with uh uh Chief Hearst in terms of um just those operations next door.

However, I would point out, Councillor McKenzie, that that entering onto that highway is probably even with the light there, probably one of the most dangerous things they do for a fire truck.

Uh any other questions at all?

Because we're going to move to comments and then figure out what we want to do with the staff recommendation.

Uh go to you, Councillor Brown.

I I think I see you motioning on the line.

I'm not sure what time it is there.

It's late.

Uh I just wondered, I I thought that the primary source of heating was going to be uh uh usage of heat pumps.

Am I incorrect?

Put that back to you, Sterling.

Uh through the mayor, um, I I don't uh I don't know if that's ever been discussed at uh committee the whole.

Um as previously noted, the building would have to be built to step code too.

So there's no current requirement for heat pumps.

Could the developer answer that question?

Because I I I think we're gonna be able to do that.

We're waiting on it now, Councilor Brown.

I hi hi, Councilor Brown.

Yes, I think we had chatted at one of the open houses.

Uh our plans are to use a uh heat pump system uh similar to our Aspire development.

Yes.

Perfect.

That's thanks for confirming that.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Any other questions for the applicant or for staff on this?

Any comments?

Yes.

Let's please have them.

So we'll go with Councillor Mattson and then Councillor McKenzie.

Yeah.

So first off for the developer, I mean first proposal we saw with was was, you know, my opinion pretty horrible.

And uh this one is a lot better and it includes a lot of amenities on site.

But it two things.

One of them, the normal strategy when a proposal comes to us, it's normally they're quite willing to drop four or five stories from what they asked for or a few stories or something because they put something forward that they can then improve upon and make it sound as if we're they're doing a really good thing as opposed to this is what they wanted anyway.

But a number of really good amenities on site.

But I also wanted to point out these are amenities for the people who are going to be living there, and certainly have nothing, they won't be any advantage at all to the residents.

My other more general comment is for proposals, say like Eagle Creek, there was a huge amount of money given, which in additional to whatever amenities that were needed, just simply because there was such an increase in property values, and so I didn't see that here.

Sort of more nitpicking thing.

If there's if this goes through in the the related town costs or road widening on Prince Robert Drive or traffic calming, I mean the only reason we'd be doing this is because of this project.

So those sorts of costs should be covered by the developer.

Again, back to my point is, and it shouldn't be out of our amenity fees, it should be something separate.

So I I and I do have some issues with this project.

I know what happens when traffic gets full, even now.

People go zooming down, you know, through the harbor, down uh View Royal Avenue to get to the next next light or something.

So I do see issues coming up, especially with all the development that's gonna go on.

We're gonna be adding huge number of cars just from View Royal, to say nothing of everything that's happened back uh Langford and Calwood.

Again, no affordable housing.

We got a high end development to ensure, and rents are going to be at the high end of the market.

So we're not doing anything good in that respect.

So again, more traffic and not what we had sort of envisioned, and sort of you know the walkable communities, because this certainly isn't part of a walkable community.

I've already mentioned about the increase in property value and the town's not getting the proportion.