Council Meeting

I'll call the uh council meeting for the town of View Royal for the 17th October uh to order, and instead of reading the normal uh territorial um acknowledgement, uh I wanted to speak a few words that uh we heard on Saturday at the Council of Councils.

Um, as part of it was specifically about um saying territorial acknowledgments.

So the Council of Councils were all CRD uh councils were represented.

This year it was uh hosted at the Songhees Wellness State uh uh uh center with uh a number of First Nations.

Um uh Song He's, of course, hosting it.

Uh and they had some genuine concerns, and uh their speakers talked about a number of things I'll just point out and highlight.

Uh one was there were concern that there's increasing um issues with their traditional harvest, particularly of camas, um, a local flower uh that they have to prepare for up to 16 hours for their um to make them uh digestible.

It used to be a commodity of trade for them amongst the Salish uh coast people.

They're concerned about the loss of uh ability to grow that, particularly in uh and around the CRD with the loss of land and development.

They were concerned about uh the loss of shellfish and areas to collect shellfish and the pollution associated with um having that as a lifestyle.

They uh saw that reflected in their increase in diabetes amongst uh all of the coastal Salish people.

Uh they were also quite concerned about um the government's new densification.

That just isn't the new housing targets, but they were very concerned about the densification that was going around them and more people and more pollution and um its effect on them.

Uh so rather than a territorial acknowledgement, I thought I'd repeat some of their concerns and and legitimate, I think they are.

And we'll, I know, be working toward uh ways that we can increase our dialogue to help support the two nations that if you're not aware, we provide services to uh both uh First Nations of uh the Songhis and Esquamble Nation.

So this evening we will hear from the public who uh telephone in for the public participation and question portions of the agenda.

If you wish to provide your comments to council regarding the development of variance permit for 25 Chancellor Avenue, there's going to be a specific time on the agenda to do that.

Um members of the audience, uh again, uh you've been great so far, but the council is a safe, respectful place where we're all um considered uh that that's the hallmark of our democracy.

So if you wish to provide comments by telephone, you can call uh 778 402 9227 and when prompted enter conference ID 919 937 77 pound.

And I think that everything else we've just gone over, but I'll read the last four out of your um uh your phone number uh at that point and ask you to unmute.

Um can I get approval for the agenda, including the blue sheet?

Uh the late items correspondence, please.

I move approval.

Second.

Move by councillor Rogers, seconded by councillor Lemon.

Uh all in favor, approval of agenda.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Can I get a motion to adopt the minutes?

Moved by Councillor Brown, second by Councillor Lemon.

Uh all in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

Uh and Mayor's report.

I'm going to be brief and the most important thing on.

If you have not noticed the distinguished gentleman in the front row, it is uh former Mayor Hill, who is going to help me in a not so well, it is an arduous task, I would say, Graham, in that um we've got a chief administrative officer who Graham hired some years ago that we're going to, it's his last day on Friday.

And uh it would be an honor if Graham you were to read the um certificate and then we can uh present it with a pen.

Thank you, your worship, for the opportunity.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, members of council, your worship.

You don't like that, do you?

Sorry about that.

And uh Kim.

In our household, one of the favorite television shows to watch is British baking.

And one of the things that they offer is, you know, the honors that the that the judges will give for the competitions, for the competitors' offerings.

The most prized, the most prized um gift, honor, is a handshake.

Handshake from Per Paul, who is the chief of the of the panel who investigates and honors, gives the honors.

And a handshake from my recollection began some 3,000 years ago.

It was to prove that you were not armed, but also to give you an honor that stands the test of time.

When you and I first met, one of the first things we did was we shook hands.

And we shook hands to the benefit of the town, to the benefit of our staff, and to the benefit of our community.

And I have to tell you, you have not let me down in one way.

You've certainly not let down our town.

So there is some beautiful words comprised here in the Town of View Royal Certificate for Appreciation.

They were crafted by our mayor.

I can't do better than that.

Although I like words, as you can tell.

And it reads, for your selfless devotion over a decade to view over a decade to View Royal and a lifetime to municipal leadership.

You are the reason our level of services makes View Royal stand out among other municipalities, and your leadership and council have been invaluable.

You represent the very best in public service, and your commitment to excellence and professionalism has set an uncommonly high standard I couldn't say it better an uncommonly high standard so Kim from this man to you maybe we'll all get in this one looks like I'm getting in Kim one of the previous places whoops yes thank you so yeah, thanks.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

It's not an expensive pin.

I I give you that.

Um, but I've only given one gold pin note uh before, and that was to Graham.

Uh, so it's only seems fitting, Kim.

You get the second.

Thank you very much.

Some words.

You've always wanted to speak at these meetings.

I do thank you very much.

I I don't have a speech prepared.

It's been uh a pleasure serving the town of Vie Royal.

It's been 13 years here, and um one of the more welcoming communities that I've worked in.

It's it's been great working here, and I think that uh you can be proud of the community that you live in.

So thank you.

Bravo.

Thank you.

Nice learning you.

And that chair and not and not get involved in some kind of discussion over various things.

Why, I'm an amazing man.

Thank you, by the way.

Thank you again, uh Kim and uh Mayor Graham Hell for um for that.

It was uh it was uh wonderful to be a part of it.

And uh Kim, we're all very sorry for you leaving.

Um and uh look forward to having dinner with you to celebrate your retirement uh on Thursday evening.

Um and that moves us to uh petitions and delegations.

And uh to start off, we have Mr.

Laurette, who is the general manager of planning and protective services with the CRD, someone I work closely with, mainly on Wednesdays.

Um and he's here to help us with um any questions we might have about the CRD bylaw on land assembly, housing, land baking, and service establishment uh for a bylaw.

Through you, Mayor Tobias.

Mr.

Lorette, please.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, uh counselors.

It's a pleasure to be here.

I'll just wait till the uh appropriate uh presentation comes up.

Um, but I do uh appreciate the invitation today to uh to present to you the uh an overview of the Capitol Regional District Board's intent to uh increase our borrowing authority in support of future partnership opportunities to uh next slide please to advance uh um opportunities related to increasing the supply of affordable housing in the region.

Next slide, please.

So the Capitol Regional District and the Capitol Regional Housing Corporation have a long history of successful partnerships, and this slide outlines uh several of them.

I'll just touch on them briefly.

The Rapid Housing Initiative is a partnership between the CRD and the Government of Canada.

Uh, and we received $34.3 million in grant funding over the last several years to advance support of housing projects.

We have uh completed 202 units uh in four projects across the region, and that's with the CRD getting the capital, uh flowing that through BC Housing, who then provides the operational supports for the support of housing.

So very successful.

The Reaching Home Program uh is a uh program that uh the CRD is the community entity for the region uh in an agreement with the government of Canada.

We have a five-year agreement to uh and we've received $11.6 million to address homelessness in the region through programs and initiatives.

That five year agreement's coming to uh an end in 2014, but we're expecting another five year to follow through the government of Canada.

Uh Growing Communities Fund is a new fund that we received this year, $11.5 million that we received.

Uh and the board actually uh allocated more than half of that towards affordable housing projects.

4.2 went to uh 4.2 million went to a project in Victoria, uh Village on the Green, uh, to close an equity gap on that project uh for 140 units of affordable housing.

And 2.75 million went towards uh acquisition of land in the Southern Gulf Islands to support uh affordable housing project on Galeano.

Uh the Capital Regional Housing Corporation is an entity that uh we we uh operate 52 units of a four uh of 52 buildings, uh over 2,000 units across the region and eight municipalities, and that's really uh shows our partnership with BC Housing through our operating agreements that we are able to successfully operate those without a tax requisition, pretty much funding the operation through tenant rents and subsidies we receive through our operating agreement.

And then the final program is one that we're just coming to conclusion on, uh, the Regional housing First Program, or the RHFP we call it.

Uh, that is a partnership between three levels of government.

Uh, started in 2016.

Uh, each uh government uh brought 40 million to the table.

So the Capital Regional District, uh, the province through BC Housing, and the federal government through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh this provides a bit of an overview of where we are with that.

So we've had 15 approved projects.

Uh we're 111 million of the 120 million have been allocated.

So there's 9 million left to complete this.

And that not last 9 million is part of BC Housing's uh 40 million allocation.

And we're anticipating that they will be allocating that this quarter through their recent call uh for community housing fund uh applications that they've got out right now.

So, in terms of uh units, we've uh put 363 shelter rate units under this program, and almost 1,500 total rental units have come on board.

Um, in terms of this program, we were quite creative in how we uh implemented it.

Uh in terms of putting that 40 million through the CRD, the first 30 million we were able to put forward without an increase to the tax requisition.

And the way we did that is uh we had a requisition of a million dollars for the Regional housing trust fund.

And to borrow $15 million for this program, uh we are, as we bring the debt servicing on for that $50 million, we're we're ramping down the Regional housing trust Fund at the same rate to support that $150 million borrowing.

We also mortgaged one of our housing corporation properties for $5 million, and we're uh using the tenant rents to pay that off.

And then the last $10 million, we were able to we saw the requisition through the hospital district declining.

And so we're able to build up reserves and we created 10 million there for the last 10 million investments.

So pretty creative strategy to get 30 million without raising the tax requisition.

The final 10 million, we had to go out for an amendment to the service establishment bylaw and loan authorization bylaw.

That was successful about four years ago, uh, and uh unanimous uh success across the municipalities.

Uh next slide, please.

So the service that we operate under is the land banking and housing service.

This service allows us to undertake land assembly, undertake development and operations.

We we our housing corporation operates under this service.

We uh identify opportunities for redevelopment of lands.

Really, that's looking at our aging housing stock for uh development opportunities.

We do receive and administer grants that I uh that I spoke to, that the trust fund, the uh reaching home program, uh, etc.

And then finally, we have um uh we enter into admin and administer housing agreements with municipalities where a municipality may not have the specialized uh skill set uh where there's a development and they're looking at uh providing some affordable home ownership in there, and we take on that uh resale uh through agreements with the municipalities as those come up for resale.

Next slide, please.

So as our board saw the uh regional housing first program coming to conclusion, and as I showed on that previous slide, we're we're down to that last million, uh nine million allocation.

Uh they asked us to report back on what is the next affordable uh housing program.

What's what are we gonna look at for the next supply of affordable housing for the region?

And uh staff reported back with a white paper, uh, the future housing priorities and partnerships, and that paper really identified three streams to pursue.

Uh, the first one was an acquisition fund that would allow us to buy up uh naturally occurring affordable housing, also to buy up lands uh uh and be prepared to uh develop uh affordable housing projects.

The second stream was a rural housing, rural and remote housing strategy, and really the recognition there was that uh it takes a different uh program to develop affordable housing in the rural and remote areas, and so development of that strategy to advance affordable housing to the rural areas, and then the third stream was really providing that uh affordable housing for those with complex uh uh care needs, and so uh with that, uh we presented that last year.

Uh, as we went through our budget with the new board and finalized that in March of this year.

They asked us to look at uh what ways could we advance this next, they call it RHFP 2.0.

So the next generation, come back with some options.

Uh, and staff came back with a staff report that laid out various levels of borrowing ability to uh create the opportunity.

It was really creating that capacity to attract senior levels uh partner funding uh similar to what we did with the regional housing first program.

Uh next slide, please.

And so this slide really does just show you one of the tables that was in this in the uh staff report.

The the first column there, to the 2023 uh requisition shows a 1.4 million requisition.

Uh and that's what we've got built into the current uh budget.

Uh, as uh the the last projects get uh they're going through design right now and and rezoning, and once they get through construction and they come online, we'll be um allocated, converting those construction uh takeout financing to mortgages, and then we'll increase our requisition.

And we'll we will have maxed out our borrowing capacity that we we currently have uh up to 35 million that we can borrow inland banking and housing.

And we've we we will be have reached our maximum uh once we've complete the regional housing first program over the next couple of years.

The board asked us to pursue scenario C: that's the ability to uh secure up to uh a loan authorization for $85 million, and that really uh adds five more million requisition to the annual requisition stream.

And that showed $26 per average household that they would, once that's fully expended, that's what the implications are to the average household across the region.

Next slide, please.

So in terms of our process and what we're uh undertaking and where we're at, uh step one was really creating that capacity, and that's looking at the service establishment bylaw and uh creating the increase to allow that max at maximum annual requisition to go up by that additional five million.

If we're out for municipal consent and electoral area consent right now, uh requires two-thirds approval.

So out of the 16, we need 11 to enable us to proceed with this.

Uh, once uh if that gets approved, we'll go out with the loan authorization that will allow the borrowing of up to 85 million.

And then the step two process really is our our check in annually.

So through once we have that authority, we'll check in through our service planning and financial planning process, and it'll be very specific to a project or a partnership that we've identified where the board can weigh in on advancing the funds to meet the obligations of that future housing partnerships white paper.

Uh next slide, please.

So just uh in conclusion, we have maxed out our capacity under land banking and housing.

Uh, there is a significant opportunity in front of us to uh create the capacity that will allow us to uh approach senior level uh government funding through federal and provincial.

You know, we we were uh we were very successful uh under the regional housing first program to pretty much double uh we added 1,500 units of rental housing in the region over a short period of time.

And it took multiple years, uh decades prior to that, uh, before we actually brought that funding to the table.

And so this really does allow us to leverage and bring that additional capacity to the table.

So with us bringing any money to the table, we would look for the province and the feds to do uh to do a matching program.

Uh and then finally, that we we do have that control mechanism in place that allows us to uh um you know go through our financial plan and and identify the projects and the partnerships that the board uh has the opportunity to weigh in on.

That uh next slide, please.

So that um concludes the presentation, but I did have a chance uh to go through and watch your last council presentation and uh I can make a couple comments on some of the what I heard in the discussion.

Uh there was some uh comments around uh CRD CRHC uh being tax exempt, and it's true under BC assessment uh as a as a government agency owning and operating affordable housing.

Uh, I just want to confirm that we do meet that guideline for tax exemption.

Uh, there also was uh uh a question about what would happen if we didn't approve this at this point in time.

And you know, ultimately we have reached our capacity under land banking and housing.

We are completing that last uh uh program, the regional housing first program.

We'll we'll have a few years lagging where those buildings get built.

Uh, but we will really go back to where we were prior to that time, and that's you know, submitting applications annually to funding calls like BC Housing's call right now.

Uh, those are very hit and miss.

You we don't always get approvals through them.

And we would really look to uh redeveloping old aging housing stock.

Uh, we are finding that uh housing projects are much more harder to uh to meet the the equity required to make them workable right now with the rising costs.

Uh we do like to have some funding we can bring to the table, but also the critical component was that matching funding that was able to leverage that the significant investment that we make in the region.

And then lastly, uh there were some comments around the um the provincial targets that are coming out.

And if uh if those get put towards uh View Royal, which anticipation is that they likely will, uh any projects that we uh that we do uh through this program that land up in end up in View Royal would go towards those provincial targets.

So that's that's just a few comments I wanted to make, but I'll I'll pause and see if there's any questions from the committee council.

Thank you.

Great uh brief, uh Mr.

Larette.

Um Councillor Brown first, and then if there's thank you for your presentation.

You answered my question at the very end because uh with those targets are I don't think we're having viewers have any problem with numbers of units, but below market units, we just don't have that.

So uh that's good to hear that uh we get some uh good um uh uh possibly some acquisitions of property in View Royal to Bill Swindle.

So thank you very much.

You bet.

Councilor Rudd.

Yeah.

Um, um so how many um residents in View Royal contribute to this fund?

How many taxpayers?

Are you said all 450,000?

Uh every all 13 municipalities they're buying into the to the uh levy.

Uh through you, Mayor Tobias.

The uh in terms of the land banking and housing service that we have, it's a regional service, so all uh municipalities participate in it, so all taxpayers uh uh get levied that through that CRD requisition.

Okay, good.

Um, you know, the the the sticking point for me is taxes, and um you know quite frankly, V World has very little tax base.

We've got a casino, but our commercial, industrial tax base, unlike Victoria, Saints, Isquaimo.

You know, so when we have a project come in, and we uh, you know, in one hand, we welcome the project, but on the other hand, our other taxpayers have to pay for all the services that uh that you know happen.

So I would be really much more interested if CRD paid its share of taxes.

Yeah, through through you, Mayor Tobias, and I know uh I recognize the concern it's raised, it is through BCE uh assessments uh guidelines in terms of that we are exempt as a government agency.

Uh the only thing I can I can offer you is that you know we we do specialize regionally in uh housing, and it's much more effective to do it on a regional scale versus trying to do it through smaller municipalities and trying to do separate housing corporations I think we're much more effective in creating those opportunities through the senior levels of of partnerships that we would be pursuing with this so I I do hear your concern on the on the tax base.

And just let me add add a point um handy door it no taxes CRD water building no taxes the um uh hospital no taxes so you know we have a lot of land I think a per a significant proportion of um our land base with municipal provincial whatever and they're not paying taxes but they have they demand services so it's a there's an equity that um unfortunately I think Sierra falls into I I support the levy over you know from the beginning but um I know that our some taxpayers feel that we would be paying double once for the levy and two to pay the taxes thank you counselor rogers anybody else uh counselor quotes but thank you mr lorette I guess I was wondering should this pass?

How would you determine your staff uh what projects would be a priority?

And would our representation in this case, Mayor Tobias, uh what input would they have into kind of what comes next?

For example, I anticipate some communities wouldn't see a new project for many, many years.

Again, to Councillor Rogers' point, and probably all of us, that that can sometimes be challenging to message to constituents when you don't, you know, necessarily see something in front of you.

Yes, thank you through you, Mayor uh Tobias.

The um when we brought forward the white paper that identified those three prongs that we could pursue, uh, they asked us to develop a framework through this year uh and come back that that talks about you know how we would go about uh implementing something like that in all three of those prongs.

Uh we are working on that right now.

We have a consultant looking at the acquisition fund.

Uh we're also working with the Southern Gulf Islands uh on a rural and remote strategy and then having discussions with the Ministry of Health on uh that complex care.

So those discussions are going on.

We do anticipate reporting back to uh our hospitals and housing committee in in uh December, as well as the board.

And uh, if we get approvals to the through the budget to keep advancing this work, uh we'll uh once the consultants laid out a strategy on that acquisition fund, we'll then really work with uh municip with staff at the municipalities for available lands and flush that out.

But I can't really speak to what specifically is in the strategy yet, but that's that's the next steps, and then through the annual service planning and financial plan uh we will take forward through our hospitals and housing committee how we were would advance these three prongs and which partnerships and projects we would be targeting and the board would uh would weigh in on approval or not sir matzen please yes thank you i certainly have to agree with my colleagues that it would be much more fair if uh the CRD paid taxes on all these housing units and to the municipalities and then build everyone within the CRD uh a requisition amount to pay for them because that's a stance small municipalities like View Royal uh really do get the short end of the stick here in terms of having to pay way more than our costs especially when other municipalities will remain nameless uh refuse to have you know development in their communities just in general it it would seem uh and certainly nothing that that I've seen in uh as social housing so so that's my my criticism about uh the way things are done.

I do have a question you'd mentioned 11 out of 16 municipalities need to approve uh the borrowing bylaw.

And I'm not sure, does that mean at a council level you need 11 of 16 to vote in favor?

Or does that mean there's going to be some sort of uh CRD-wide uh vote on this?

Yes, uh, through you, Mayor Tobias.

The uh the loan, the service establishment bylaw requires the two-thirds approval to increase that borrowing, the maximum requisition.

So that requires we've uh can do that through municipal consent and consent of the electoral area directors.

So the 16 uh 13 councils, the three electoral area directors can provide that consent.

If that gets approved, we would then go out through for the loan authorization bylaw that allows us to borrow the $85 million, and that would be a region-wide alternate approval process uh where the pro that we would follow to get that approval.

Sorry, and then if you don't get 11 of the 16, would then you have to go to have some sort of uh uh you know uh CRD-wide vote?

Do the borrowing or yeah, I think uh through through you, Mayor Tobias.

At that point, if it fails, we'd have to report back to our board on the outcome and uh and get them to weigh in uh on you know our next steps.

I wouldn't I I wouldn't want to say that that that is an obvious next step.

It would really depend on what the board thinks of uh the outcome.

Thank you again for um your presentation and answering all of our questions.

I think uh we're better informed about it.

Um probably should have done that reverse and had you come and talk to us.

Uh but it was good.

Good that you I really appreciated the time.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr.

Left.

And don't feel obligated to stick around for the rest of the meeting.

I know that you've uh got full days so if you want to um you're certainly welcome and I think now we have uh Ms.

Odison uh for the Backpack project.

Nikki Odison, 3340 Machosen Road.

Honorable mayor and council members, thank you for the opportunity to address all of you today.

I have written notes which I will be reading, and I will keep my presentation to under 10 minutes.

And I thought I would share, I thought I would start by sharing a bit about myself and my organization.

I was born and raised as an uninvited guest on the traditional lands of the Lakwungan and Wasanich people.

I am grateful to be able to work and live on these lands.

I'm one of the few people left that can say I was born and raised in Victoria.

And throughout my life, I have lived in five out of the 13 municipalities in what is known as the Greater Victoria Regional District.

My parents currently live in View Royal and have been residents of this municipality for the last 30 years.

My husband and I are business owners.

We own a garden maintenance company, which has been in operation for over 20 years.

We work throughout the GVRD and have many clients in View Royal.

I also have an organization called the Backpack Project, which I started 15 years ago.

The Backpack Project is a local initiative which provides mutual aid and humanitarian aid to people in our community who live without homes.

During the first 10 years, the Backpack Project was geared towards Christmas.

I would collect donations of necessities and comfort items such as mittens, scarves, touques, blankets, toiletry items, and food items.

And with the help of volunteers, we would assemble backpacks to deliver to our communities homeless on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.

By Christmas of 2019, with the help of community members, we created over 200 backpacks.

These backpacks were then donated to nonprofits service, nonprofit service providers, such as Our Place, Kool-Aid, the Women's Transition House, and Sandy Merriman Women's Shelter.

Back then, I had donation boxes located in three of the thrifty foods locations, two elementary schools, and numerous local businesses.

But my community would constantly ask me if I had boxes in other municipalities.

So five years ago, I appealed to the mayors and councils of each municipality to host a donation box in the lobby of their municipal hall.

Last year I had donation boxes in 12 out of 13 municipalities.

Social distancing rules, I could no longer rely on volunteers to help assemble the backpacks.

And I could see that as a society, we were not prepared to help our most marginalized vulnerable community members who were struggling to secure the most basic human necessities such as food, water, sanitation, and adequate shelter and housing.

So I decided to put a call out for donations through my Facebook page, the Backpack Project Victoria BC, which currently has over 3,000 followers.

And boy, did my community come through.

I collected food, water, blankets, clothing, coats, and toiletry items.

There were people who signed up for our meal train, and I was delivering soups, sandwiches, and casseroles, water, juice, and hot coffee.

I delivered all of these items that were generously donated by people all throughout the GVRD to the people in our community who were homeless and living in our parks.

I did this by myself once a week, every week for two years.

I eventually took a break, but even last winter the need was so great that I collected and distributed donations for nine months, and I finally took another break last June.

I wish I could tell you that the problem of homelessness in our communities was getting better, but it's not.

We need more housing, affordable housing, social housing, supportive housing, student housing, seniors housing, and we also need places for people to be until housing is built.

Because housing is a human right, and the ability to provide oneself with shelter is a human right.

Each month, more and more people end up homeless or living in their vehicles or living in precarious housing.

The cost of living is skyrocketing.

And the truth is there are families in our communities right now who can't keep up.

People end up homeless for many reasons, and it takes a toll on our communities and our families.

As a society, it seems that we were 10 years behind in finding and implementing the solutions needed to solve homelessness.

But until we do, it's crucial that those of us with more help those who have less.

I believe that in a city as rich as ours, it is our moral obligation as community members who have more to help our most marginalized vulnerable community members secure basic necessities such as food, water, sanitation, and shelter.

And thousands of people throughout the Greater Victoria region agree with me and are willing to share their resources with our friends and family who live on the streets and in our parks.

And me, well, I'm just the delivery person.

I bring the generous donations from housed community members to unhoused community members and to outreach organizations who support the unhoused.

I collect and sort and deliver humanitarian aid and survival items to people in our community who are desperately waiting for housing.

And so what I'm asking from mayor and council is to be able to put a donation box and a poster, like the one in front, in the lobby of the View Royal Municipal Hall so that caring, compassionate people who live and work in View Royal will have a central location in their community to bring their donations.

I have been asking the town of View Royal for this space for the last few years, and I've always been turned down.

So I'm here to plead my case to you today.

Number one, I am not a registered charity, but I'm not asking you for funding.

I'm asking for a space to put a box and a poster.

Also, I have been operating for the last 15 years in our community, and I support and partner with many nonprofit and outreach agencies throughout the GBRD.

Number two, the Size of View Royal Municipal Hall.

I have been in the lobby of every municipal hall in the CRD, and I can tell you that the lobby of this municipal hall could definitely accommodate the space needed for this size of box.

In fact, the smallest municipal hall lobby would be the town of Sydney, which is the lobby's approximately 250 square feet, and Sydney has always been one of our biggest contributors.

The boxes are out from November 1st to December 21st, and they are checked once a week or as needed.

My contact information is on the box, so if it gets full, I can be notified and will come and collect the contents right away.

So now that you know a little bit about me, a little bit more about me and my organization, I hope that you will reconsider your position on hosting a donation box this year.

I know there are many people who live in View Royal who would be so pleased to hear that their community is now participating in this important initiative.

And more importantly, people who live outdoors without housing will be a little warmer, a little safer, and a little more cared for this winter because of the generosity of people and communities like View Royal.

Let's make 2023 the year when all 13 municipalities in the GVRD are supporting and caring for our communities homeless.

If you have any other questions about the Backpack Project, please feel free to ask me.

And I thank you for your time and your consideration of my request.

Thank you.

I got a couple of questions of my own before I go to you, Councilor Rogers.

One is do you have another place in View Royal, or do you just specifically doing municipal halls throughout the CRD?

I'm concentrating on municipal halls this year.

I do have local businesses that have helped me in the past, but I am only one person, so 13 boxes is enough for me this year.

No, thank you.

And and thank you not only for all of the work that you've done over the years, uh particularly through COVID, but your tenacity uh to come back when you weren't satisfied with the answer.

I really admire that.

Councilor Rogers, wait.

Yeah, I'd like to move that uh we support the program for November 1st or December 21st uh and have a box in the hallway.

I'll second that.

Okay, we got a motion on the floor for the discussion comments.

Counselor Bodge?

All for it.

Okay, so all in favor of um supporting the backpack project?

Anybody opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

13 of 13.

Thank you very much for your support.

Thank you.

Okay, back to our agenda.

Now we didn't uh actually have a discussion about uh the CRD um proposal, and that was one that was left over that we need to get back to them by a certain date, don't we, staff?

Uh for the CRD uh borrowing bylaw.

That issue for the CRD comes up again in correspondence, so we can deal with that matter at that time.

The next item on the agenda is moved up staff report eight one A with respect to the covenant for Erskine Lane Watkis Way roundabout.

Let's go there.

So staff, there wasn't a report with us.

I'm assuming seeing how we just talked about it, that will be the report that suffices.

So the staff recommendation is that the covenant be modified, establishing a signalized intersection be constructed instead of a roundabout at the intersection of Rickskin Lane and Watkiss Way, and the modified covenant referenced the concept plan attached to the report.

And uh that's something we just uh um received.

So I think this is a point where we um ask more questions or have a bit of a debate about it.

I will I will say one thing, and noting I read all the correspondence, one of the concerns was the speed on Watkiss Way.

So be forewarned.

I've let the RCMP know that that is the number one priority to um get an assessment of the excess speed.

Uh we council was um uh faced with an issue of traffic safety on Burnside Road where citizens were really requesting increased police presence.

Many of their neighbors received the first handouts of uh of uh both warnings and tickets.

So be advised and be warned that uh they will be out there and um uh and to look at that.

So um who would like to uh kick us off with any questions or comments?

We've I think done the questions now unless there's something else.

So uh so we got a mover, uh Don's moving the staff recommendation.

Do we have a second or I was shocking with an amendment?

How do I know what you're gonna ask for?

Well, it uh if I can uh ask the mover, um my my concern is the need for having both a left and right turn lane off of um Erskine Lane.

And uh I wanted to be sure that that would be uh included in the um uh initial design right off the bat.

So I wonder if the uh the mover would support that as a friendly amendment.

Yeah.

Okay, then I would second.

Okay, and you know, from that, I think um we got to build to the future, and we're later on the agenda, we're talking about a building permit of approval for Erskine Lane as well.

Um, and uh one of the things that I've I've found quite interesting is that um people are maximizing the use of their space right now for number of people living in there.

They're renting out extra rooms and whatnot.

So um our our our population will be topped up everywhere, especially with those apartment buildings and uh looking to the future, then probably a a left or right-hand turn.

I'd support that.

Um so with the amendment, we've got an amendment on the floor.

It's as it reads, with the inclusion of a left and right hand turn lane on the Irkskin side.

Um further discussion, Councilor Matson, I see your hand waving.

Yeah, you know, I just have a problem with adding that without staff reviewing it and recommending it to us.

The fact that it sounds like a good idea uh doesn't mean it is a good idea.

And I think we need staff to report back to us on that because there's probably a fair amount of funds associated with that decision.

So at this point, I I can't support the revised motion.

Okay, I think Ivan's got a comment here for you.

Um Councilor Matson.

Uh Ivan.

Thank you, Maria Taya, Tobias.

With with respect to a left through and right turn lane there, I would think that a through left would act like a through lane and a left turn lane, because not a lot of traffic would actually go straight from Erskine to Stone Ridge.

So you could probably consolidate those two lanes in there.

Um as mentioned before at the public hearing, the right turn maybe for the future, um, based on the analysis uh that was provided by the transportation engineer is not required now.

Um, however, uh what can be done is we can take a look to see if it is at least not an unsafe measure and go from there administratively.

That way we don't need to go back.

But ultimately, um I think that we don't need three lanes on there.

I think so.

No, now I'm even more confused.

So so I think I I think the issue is um if if we don't do this now, then it will be at the town's expense later.

And I think that's what the public concern is for as well.

If we don't build this toward the future, that the town will then be responsible and then people have sidewalks built and it's gonna be harder to build.

So kind of build it right.

Am I getting your drift, Counselor Rogers?

That's what you're concerned about in including this as well.

Uh yes.

Um uh if I understand uh staff's point, um it the it would be a combination of left and straight through, obviously, and not that many people would go straight through to storm rates, but obviously, and it's the uh so the the the point is, uh, Councillor Matson, is that when you look at the uh uh consultants report, traffic study, um, and it goes the build out of 2033, we would have in the AM peak hours um about 55 cars turning left and 125 cars turning right.

And as you can appreciate, the length of cars maybe not all happening at the same time, but it probably would reach to the crash and down the hill.

My concern, Councillor Rogers, is that Councilor Matson is that um in the winter time when the hill might be snowy or icy, um, it means more cars that are stuck on the hill.

And it probably would be a deterrent to those people that may want to rent on Erskine Lane, um, down number nine or number seven or number 10.

Uh, if they are worried that they're gonna get stuck and have to wait uh to uh get uh the only way out of their community.

So I I think it's uh not only anticipation of those residents that live there now in number 14, but also those residents that are about to come who will be probably demanding this amenity uh in a short time.

And Councilor Matson, I do not want the current taxpayers to pay for this when we have the ability to get and address this now.

I think the concern, if I heard it right, was Councilor Matson was more concerned about having staff.

Is this a doable thing via the justification for it?

So Councillor Quelch?

Sorry.

So my position is the staff reviews this and tells us it's a good idea and we should do it now, fine.

But unless they do it, I just have a hard time with the motion.

Like I don't think we on council should be designing intersections if staff don't think that it's necessary.

Point taken.

Thank you, Councilor Matson.

Counselor Qualit, please.

Thank you, and thank you, Councilor Rogers, for bringing up uh what I brought up in September.

And we've been thinking about this, of course, because uh we all would like to know the price difference.

And Ivan's been working hard uh on on that and given us preliminary reports of 20 to 30 percent difference, I assume uh less expensive for our traffic control devices versus a roundabout.

In spirit, I certainly would support Councillor Rogers' idea of adding the lanes.

I think that is uh something that we uh should strike while the iron's hot.

Uh we know that the constituents will be built up in that area.

It is an opportunity.

It's it's happening now.

Uh, I do agree with Counselor Matts, and I think perhaps tonight we may not solve this problem uh or come up with a motion that we can all agree on, certainly because uh we don't know what staff will say about that.

Will the price difference be too much procedurally?

How does this work?

Because we're committed to the roundabout switching to traffic control devices now, adding lanes.

Uh perhaps uh staff would have uh input on how how this negotiation would even take place.

So if I could just comment just a little bit further.

I mean, I'm quite happy with the concept of us even acquiring the funds now or but uh I I guess I think we need staff to come back to us with uh once they've had a closer more of an opportunity to review at it what the costs are and come back and talk to us.

Um I don't know if we have to make a final decision right now on the extra lanes.

I think the idea is that we're approving in general, a design and the that the developer is going to pay for it.

So what the final design is they will pay for, and the final design could be simply decided once staff has an opportunity to review this issue further.

Thank you, Counselor Mattson.

I think staff is just conferring uh here.

And uh Ivan, I'll look to you for um kind of a way ahead, or or perhaps Kim, is that I think there's not consensus, but there's some some support to uh moving toward a uh uh staff recommendation, but I think there's discomfort with um with making sure it's built for the future.

Ivan.

Uh thank you, Mary Tobias.

Yeah, there's uh we can definitely prove it out, and I think it was explained before that if it was to be done for the future, then that means that in the future it would be safe to do so, which would imply that if you did it earlier, it may not be unsafe.

So um staff can certainly work with the applicant to find out whether it is an unsafe measure.

And if it's not an unsafe measure, it could certainly be something that can be entertained.

The other option, too, is that uh staff can simply or the town can simply require the applicant to bond for it.

And so that way money is secured and then it can be done in the future.

Seems like a perfect solution.

Yeah, the only thing I'm concerned about not building it now is that other things get in the way between now and then, another tree uh that we have to take out, and then we're back to uh, you know, people being upset about something that we didn't include in.

I I've been in all kinds of developments that there's nobody at the intersection, even at eight o'clock in the morning, that are just built out and you've got three lanes in front of you.

There's no problem with that.

That's not a safety issue.

I'm not an engineer, but um, you know, you just have an option of three lanes to take.

That's uh it's uh i think a decision making problem more than a safety problem.

Um, so that's my put.

I'd I'd much rather go in with something.

Now the question I think on behalf of council is does staff need more time to assess what that's going to look like by adding another lane or can we pass this with another lane so we're we're hearing counselor matts and that there's not a really a safety issue i'm assuming um do we need more time to come back to council with um an analysis and table this until then i would think that the staff can work with the applicant administratively in the sense that if it is an if the opportunity to put one in now is safe and can meet the needs of the public, then we could work with them to get it done now.

But if there is a safety issue with that, then um staff recommendation would be to bond for it, secure the money now so that when a trigger point happens in the future, it gets done at that time.

And that would be under the the um applicant's costs.

Thank you, Ivan.

Uh Councilor.

Yes, I I'm I'm a little confused what the uh the safety aspects might be because we have we see so many examples where there are straight through and left turns or left turns at right turns.

Again, there's an example right out there.

And when we did the uh island highway design, we right off the bat, without a moment's hesitation, put in a left turn lane, you know, separate from you know the right.

And um we wouldn't need to delay Prince Robert Drive in the same circumstances, and we wouldn't need to delay Chancellor that has to make a left turn lane.

So I cannot see where a safety issue would be here.

And if it means that the applicants are happy to pay for all the expense of moving the sidewalk that is in again a year later, then fine.

Let's let's make sure that we understand there's a half a million dollars that's gonna be set aside so that we address all those issues because we couldn't make a decision now.

So I I um I'm I'm flabbergasted, you know, we've obviously obviously heard that a roundabout takes away the issue of a left-turn lane.

If we're not gonna get a left-turn lane, let's just go back to the roundabout.

So, you know, I'm I'm pretty frustrated and I hope that we can uh reach a common sense agreement now, considering the five, six hundred cars that are gonna be coming on this street.

Uh yeah, through the mayor, certainly understand that perspective.

Um, when it comes to engineering, every case is different, is what we like to say.

And at the end of the day, we want to make sure that the decision we make now doesn't require us to come back saying that it cannot be done because it cannot fit.

So um, based on what we've seen from just drawings, lines in the drawing, having two lanes, a through left and or dedicated right turn would fit.

However, I want to make sure that we don't go through this process again.

And we want to make sure that uh whatever design that we do fits and is uh meant to be used for the use intended, which is safety for uh the users of Erskine.

So why don't we just table this until staff can go back and review it and come back to us with the final design?

Yeah, that's fine.

If we can't solve it tonight, Councilor Brown.

Just a suggestion, maybe we can go back to the original staff recommendation, just whether we're going roundabout or or traffic life, just solve that issue and make another motion to get staff to uh research the the left and right uh turn lanes.

So it's two separate motions.

So at least they have a decision tonight on whether we're gonna go with the traffic late or the roundabout.

I would prefer to table.

I move to table.

Second.

Uh all in favor for a move to table uh with uh staff coming uh back with a report on adding a left turn straight through lane, leave it up to staff's discretion of how they want to word that uh for a forthcoming meeting.

Councilor Lemon.

I I think that we haven't addressed the issue of whether or not we want a roundabout or not.

I agree with Councillor Brown that the big question hasn't been addressed.

And it might be clear to everyone where this is going, but still there is a question that we haven't that we haven't voted on that needs to be addressed.

Do we want a roundabout?

I I think the concern is that if we say that now, then that would um negate adding a lane.

Right.

So I think what counselor Rogers and and uh others are are pushing for is building for the future and adding a lane.

Um, but staff isn't able to do that.

Kim, I'll go to you for guidance.

The last time I get to do it, so I might as well take advantage of it.

If council chooses to table it, um, we probably need to um table it for at least a couple of weeks so we can advertise the second public hearing.

Mm-hmm.

It is a process that will require a public hearing given the case law and the the notion that any new information that council gets jeopardizes this process.

From staff's perspective, we would think that a uh a resolution similar to the original concept following Councilor Brown's recommendation makes sense.

At least we dispense with the necessity for another public hearing, and we can address with a uh thoughtful process, the issues that Councilor Rogers has raised.

Yeah, I know you might be opposed to it, and that's where you're going, Councillor Rogers, but I think that's a decent way um uh ahead that we um uh probably go through and approve the first part because I don't think that's uh your concern is specifically on that lane and building it for the future.

Councilor Rogers.

So my direction, if I if I can get uh some assistance with staff, you see, we're going to amend this is a a motion to amend the covenant, and we're going to amend the covenant without any mention of the uh the two lanes.

Therefore, they uh I would suspect maybe we need a legal opinion, but I would suspect that the applicants would not have to um oblige or be responsible for the the year, whatever the cost may be for the lanes.

So I don't want to take that chance.

I think the um uh you know these these are the caught for the entire intersection for the benefit of the future tenants that are coming into number nine, number seven, number ten.

So I would um um, and it's also an avoidance of cost to our taxpayers.

So, you know, it's all or nothing going back.

That's my view.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

I'm just reading the the actual staff recommendation, and it's not as specific as an extra lane.

Right?

It's not, or we're we're not getting into that specificity uh with this motion.

We are just moving it from the roundabout to a signalized intersection.

So we can go ahead and approve that and then come up with another recommendation or put that on the floor which we initially had you had a modification to it but to staff's point we can't adjust it right now that is what we had the public hearing on i'll move the original motion council rogers so staff are we in jeopardy of losing the momentum and uh the uh applicant's commitment to doing the uh two right and left lanes if uh staff concur that it's necessary.

Mayor Tobias no no.

No risk.

We're not you're saying staff that you we're not in jeopardy.

Yeah, we got a motion on the floor right now.

And I think what we can do, Council Rogers, because I think there's there's an agreement that there uh probably will be a subsequent on on the how to.

But really what we're talking about is this is that uh be modified and establishing a signalized intersection be constructed instead of a roundabout.

We don't get into details about colors, lights, or number of lanes at this point.

So uh we've got a mover and a seconder.

So um unless there's other comments, we could go to the vote.

Councilor Lemon.

I just want to say I came here prepared to advocate for a roundabout because I believe in roundabouts, but I am convinced that the people who will be using this intersection who will be needing to get in and out, um they say it won't work.

They want to signal that works for me, so I'm prepared to support the motion.

That it was interesting for me as well that the there was a number of people that were initially um kind of went the way you are, once they see the engineering on the go.

There's a few lessons learned here all around about first impressions, detailed reports that you know uh that we can get involved in.

But when there's not enough room, um sometimes it it's hard to make it all work.

So uh I will call the question on the staff recommendation all those in favor thanks i have to put that up as well uh well uh like you councillor lemon i also was expecting more from the public on uh advocacy for a roundabout and i think a lot of us here wanted that i was surprised uh but that's uh the public has spoken i just want to make sure uh that i'm clear with this with staff because i'm hearing i'm hearing the word bonds and i'm hearing uh staff review uh so i'd just like to be uh some confirmation from staff that uh that when we that if this is approved, this recommendation that uh what the plan is.

For example, will another study be done?

And if it's determined that the lanes aren't necessary now, which it sounds like they're not, uh, will that preclude them being built?

Uh, how will the negotiation with the developer go for adding lanes?

Should it cost more than the roundabout wood, etc.?

I just I think we're lacking some of the details, and I just want to make sure that this isn't put through uh and and just kind of we've seen this happen in the past where we've missed our opportunity.

Ivan, I kind of think that was directed at you for response, but it could be Jeff.

You guys can wrestle each other to the ground about it.

But I think the concern is if we don't do it now, then it will be a uh something that we're gonna have to deal with later.

And I think it's council's will to um ensure that we have some consideration of it being done now and and instead of later.

Leanne, did you end up with this?

How do you end up with it?

I don't know.

No.

Uh but uh through the mayor, just to I am I can answer one part of the question um just uh because I did I did uh write a a note to Ivan about uh an opportunity regarding the comment around bonding for it.

So um one option could be is if it's not done now, um we could bond for it.

So um to if if it's so we didn't I guess get a cost estimate for for that work, bond for it.

And if we need to install it in the future, we'd have the funds to do that.

But I mean I think that perhaps further discussion with the applicant would be necessary because we just don't know the implications of of that.

I think we gotta have to come up with something else because I'm not happy with a bond right now.

I think what council wants is to see that's adequate and built for the future, and to have another lane there.

And if there's not a safety concern, then I think that's what we're looking to get approved.

And I think we might have to go to another public hearing if we can't come up with something to satisfy buildings for the future.

And uh for the need there, I granted full respect for your, you know, where you're coming from as far as the study goes, the people there are really concerned about traffic flow.

And I have to agree with them there.

Thank you.

Um so far, the the resolution addresses the change through a concept plan.

We can add a paragraph to the covenant to indicate that we're going to look at the requirement advisability of additional lanes.

And by adding that language to the covenant, we're open to adding that as a feature of the development of the intersection without really compromising the intended concept plan.

So if council can agree to that, then we'll make sure that that's added to the covenant.

And that you know, the the default here isn't bond.

It's like and part of this is disruption too, right?

We've got two neighborhoods that were on pins and needles about this for a while.

And if we put another lane in it, it's not used or underused, I think that's fine if it's underused, as long as it's not a safety issue, Ivan, to your point.

But you know, as far as capacity goes, who's determining that and and uh how how latency uh how much latency that presents to somebody's drive.

So I think that would be the issue that we're kind of looking for.

So, Kim, your recommendation is that we support the motion.

Pass the resolution that's described in the report with the addition of a sentence indicating that uh in addition, a paragraph will be added to the covenant describing the um process to have an additional lane inserted if required.

I I think of the if required part is the challenge we're at right now, Kim.

Well, I'm assuming that the uh the issue is safety.

And it's through that lens that we look at the necessity for additional lanes.

Council Rogers?

It's not just safety.

It's convenience.

So the the the individuals and who are gonna be in the number nine, right on on uh Erskine Lane, right by Watkins Way, they can't get out of their parkade because the um all the traffic's blocked up because we only have one lane.

I would think that the individuals with this completed building, they'd be more than happy to make sure that their tenants are gonna get out.

So because if they don't get out, they're gonna move out.

So I I really, you know, this isn't a safety issue, it's a convenience of an efficiency issue as well.

And I don't want to be limited by a feasibility study because I can see how that you know can turn around in the opposite direction.

We'll lose the words if required.

No, if there was a you know uh wording that the uh separated lanes would go in, that there is the bond, that there is the surety to the to the residents that live there and going to live there, then if we're talking about cast iron and stone, I'm more than happy to support that motion.

Yeah, I think through the chair, I think what the staff has just said that's we'll we'll look to add the other lane unless there's a safety issue in terms of putting that other lane in.

It's got nothing to do with safety or convenience of you know it it's just whether it's a s it's safety, it's a safety issue in terms of putting the other lane in.

Um if we make things unsafe, it's a bad idea.

And that's and also staff said we don't know if we have this sufficient road right away, etc.

And so those are the things we'll they'll come back to us with.

So I don't I just don't see how we're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

Uh yeah, I'd rather, you know, you you just keep it on this issue.

Sure.

Yeah, the the issue isn't just about safety, the issue is is because you know we have again look out on View Wall Avenue in front of our building here and going to the island highway.

It's not a safety issue that we got the left-turn lane.

We can stack it up all the way down the View All Avenue if we wanted, and inconvenience the four mile pub if we wanted.

But it was this and it wasn't a safety issue.

It was just effective traffic management.

So if you know, if if we just hinge it on safety, it's not gonna happen.

If we hinge it on convenience and saleability and people that want to live there, then it should happen.

So, Counselor Rogers, again, you're missing the point of conversation.

Matson, just hang on a second.

This is not between you guys.

We're not gonna go back.

Uh Counselor Quell, which was the next one online, please.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Uh I mean, I actually think Counselor Matson raises a good point in the sense that uh if the study reveals that it is unsafe to add that lane for whatever reason, I'm certainly not an engineer or traffic expert.

Uh, then you know, perhaps we should take that advice.

On the other hand, what concerns me is if the result of that is as such, uh, we've heard the 30% decrease in cost from the developer to change from roundabout to a traffic control device.

I'm just advocating on behalf of our constituents.

What happens to that 30%?

You know, who's responsible for looking at that?

How does how does that look?

How do we solve that?

Because I've had people talk to me about that already as well, saying, Well, um, and certainly I'm not I'm not saying that this was something that was uh sought out by the developers to do, because I'm sure they don't want to be involved in this conversation right now if they could possibly help it.

But here we are, and we've got a 30% savings, uh, which uh which some constituents can see.

Uh there's certainly more to the issue, but that that's my concern as well is that where do we uh recoup that uh amenity per se?

Ivan, please.

Thank you, Maryor Twice.

Just a point of clarification.

The 30% uh and that uh um public hearing presentation was not a 30% savings, it was 30% either way.

So the cost estimate that staff has been trying to get from the applicant has been uh did not meet staff's expectations.

And as a result, we have to go through and uh determine what's in and out.

There were some discrepancies, and that was why we didn't want to put it in the report.

Uh so for just a point of clarification, the 30% is the variance plus or minus.

Did you uh want to clarify or apply?

Well, I I guess you know it it certainly raises more questions as to the unknown.

Uh certainly we if we found out that our study verified that it was 30% over, we would certainly accept uh the developer paying for 30% more of the fees.

However, if it was under, we would have a different opinion.

So I I'm kind of feeling like I don't have enough information if we were to leave the caveat of um if the lanes were implemented, if that makes sense.

Counselor Qualit, Councillor Brown, please to repeat myself, but I would prefer we just vote on the first whether we have a roundabout or late, and you can make subsequent motions uh on the turn lanes.

And there may be a number of them.

One may be costing another one for for lanes, but um I would second that and that's it, I think.

Yeah.

So I think we've got an so the motion on the floor is uh that exactly as the staff recommendation, with the intention that we would add uh subsequent motions on the that would satisfy our concerns for another public hearing, which isn't about expense to me, but it's also about the expense to the public, uh, and taking more time to come up uh with the benefit.

I think what we've heard from the public was that they were generally in support of uh the light uh vice, the uh roundabout once we had a full summit um um explanation of it.

Uh and I think the two concerns on the table now are the cost differential between roundabout and uh signalization and what happens to that delta.

And the other concern was um adequate lanes uh both for left and right hand turns coming out of there.

So we can deal with that with subsequent motions.

So the question on the floor right now is a staff recommendation.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, none opposed.

Let's deal with the first thing first, and that's cost.

Have you got words in your head, Counselor Qualwich, about some explanation coming back to council about uh what that breakdown uh would look like that would be publicly available?

I would uh recommend that staff work more with the developer to determine the exact overage or under uh for the project and present that back to council when appropriate for for further decision making.

Councilor Rogers.

I would second that.

Um I was just wondering about another motion and you know that the staff bring back a plan to achieve the left and right turn lanes and a bond to secure the costs uh for the future.

And so it does not matter whether there's a plus or minus.

You know, what we want to do is staff bring back a plan and ensure the there is adequate bondage to cover that cost, whether it's um tomorrow or five years from now.

Okay.

Uh that's an ad uh that's an added motion.

Let's deal with that separately uh right now, and we'll add that as a separate motion because you're not uh modifying that.

Uh any other comments on the motion on the floor, which was staff to report back to us on the uh on the cost.

Council quality.

Just to further motivate uh point taken, Council Rogers, but I think logically this may be uh the first step because if staff comes back and says, you know, hey, we're we're over 30 and these folks are still gonna build it, I really doubt they're gonna add two more lanes.

And and they probably shouldn't have to at that point.

Let's clear that motion and I'll make another.

Okay.

Uh all those in favor of the staff report on costing the plus or minus.

Seeing none opposed, that passes.

Okay, that passes any opposed.

Now we can get back to your uh thought on a motion, Council Rogers.

Yeah, I'll move that to staff bring back a plan to achieve left and right turn lanes uh from Erskine Lane and Security Bond to uh cover those costs uh from the applicant.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Do I have a second or council rogers motion?

Well, you know, it's it's a left, you know, having thank you.

So motion uh for uh addition of the lanes is on the uh floor, and that's addition two.

Uh any motivation?

Yeah, the uh again uh members, I um uh I think this is a a significant um requirement because we we don't know.

It's probably not now, but we um in the future when I read the uh um the traffic report, uh again I remind you that uh the uh the projections for AM uh is 55 cars turning left and 125 cars turning right.

And uh in a two-hour period, that the implications of um of blocking um in the intersections for portions of number nine, maybe portions of seven, and the the challenges even for number 10 to get up the hill when those uh when that is is built.

I think the implications are that we want to make sure that the costs are covered um now, uh even if it's um uh sometime in the future.

It's this is obviously a a uh a requirement of the developments as a whole.

Thank you.

And if I could just add, I I'm okay with overbuilt highways.

I'm really okay with them.

Um they're building to the future.

If you go to Shanghai now, you've got eight lanes either side and maybe two cars on them, the same with the airport.

Um and they're not building for today.

They're built building for much in the future.

So adding another lane to me just would make logical sense, so I would support it.

Uh councilor Matthew I mean at at this point I'm quite confused as to what this next motion is.

It sounds as if it's it's staff create a plan to put in the lanes as opposed to what we talked about earlier that staff is going to review the whole situation to look at the safety and the whether it was safe to put another lane in at this point in time and whether there was room etc and then come back to us where then we could make a decision on you know whether we want to put in an extra lane but I mean I I don't want to start I I can't support a motion to vote to put in an extra lane before staff has come back to us with uh their review.

Thank you.

So we've got a motion on the floor.

We've got some opposed, some dissenting ideas, but uh if there's no other comments, then I'll call the question and that is with the addition of um of lanes.

Do you want to read that back so everybody's clear, Councilor Rogers?

Yes, certainly.

Um does that bring back a plan uh to achieve um a left straight through and a separated right turn lane and uh secure the necessary bonds to uh cover the costs uh if it's not uh immediately achieved in.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Councilor Quell.

Uh I unfortunately won't be able to support this just because I think it's a little out of order uh and contradictory to the motion we just made.

I have supported in principle counselor rogers and then okay we'll we'll see how it flies yeah yeah but it will i i guess my concern is that um this council probably isn't um fully aware of what the implications are for the residents that will be living on the street uh and i think um i we really do worry that uh the cost will be to the taxpayers thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Councilor Lemon um i i don't think in um i not i don't i'm not negating um Councillor Rogers' point.

I think it is a point that once we've heard back from staff, that motion might well be warranted.

But I'm not prepared to support it yet.

My bet was we're gonna tie it.

That's my bet.

Just saying.

So all those in favor uh betting uh um the requirement for staff to come back with the lanes for straight through and left and uh right.

All those in favor, um show of hands.

All those opposed, and we have three on three.

I told you it would fail.

Um so in principle, staff, I think you're no, you know, where we're going with this, and then once we get more information up, it's less about I I think, of course, safety is um uh primacy, but um the main concern about all of this was uh getting in and out of your Irkskin lane for the people that live there long before everything was built.

That was their concern.

And I think uh oh, just a question to the chair.

I know we've defeated the motion, the motion's defeated, but can we table it till after staff report?

Because the motion again, as was pointed out, it's perfectly fine if staff report is in sync with it.

I don't think we have to table it.

I think Councilor Rogers has a long memory, and I am sure he will bring it back for us.

You can bet on that.

Um so staff, did we do everything we needed?

We um approved that one, plus we added some homework for you to come back on costing and depending on that, then of course we'll come back with counselor Rogers.

Did I keep that relatively on a straight line?

Obviously, not in a straight line, but it wasn't a roundabout.

Too soon.

Um so I think that brings us to public participation period.

Would anybody like to address counsel?

And thank you, gentlemen from West Urban for coming out.

Uh it was a longer process than I'd thought of, but I'm still learning.

And uh, would anybody in the room uh like to address counsel on any topic now that that's out of the way with?

Um guess please.

Thank you.

Uh Linda Pacus, 336 Glenarley Drive, and I would like to follow up from my letter to the Cal last week.

And I wrote it down because I don't always remember.

So good evening.

I would like to follow up my letter to Mayor and Council, which was submitted to the Cal meeting of last Tuesday.

I and others are wondering why the town of Vie Royal is treating this issue in a punitive mission punitive manner.

As the perfect purpose of this change, as stated in the staff report, is to encourage type 2 permit holders to bring their suites up to code.

Would a better way possibly be to provide some information on how to do so instead of increasing their fee 100%.

Providing information with the requirements together with an approximate cost to do so would maybe maybe persuade people in a less confrontational manner.

It would be interesting to know the number of the 245 type 2 suites the town thinks are noncompliant.

I am sure the fire chief and the building inspector have a rough idea.

It seems that you are punishing the people who are compliant, which I feel is the greater majority, instead of the ones who don't.

If you could supply the number of suites that your staff has inspected, that would be helpful also.

When the secondary suite bylaw was first implemented, two very active gentlemen in our town diligently watch for suites in View Royal to be advertised to make sure they were on the permit list.

And when they were not, they reported them to the town.

They even went as far as visiting some of these suites as prospective renters to make sure they complied.

The result of this diligence was the town coming out with a new rule that the complaint had to be come from someone who lived within 200 meters of the suite as they complain that they complained.

It was too much work to follow up on the suites being reported to them.

Finally, they just gave up.

To counsel Counselor Rogers remarked that the town wanted to originally charge $500 for the permit fee.

You were right.

The permit fee was originally presented as an infrastructure fee, as the town felt that suites would be adding to the upkeep of the infrastructure, more showers, more cars on the road.

It was pointed out to council at the time, which included Council Roger, that it didn't seem fair to charge a suite holder like myself, who had a total total people of three people living in my home, that amount when the people down the street, not suite owners, had six to eight people living in their home having showers and using the road.

If this policy passes and there are no more permits for secondary suites, how will you know or keep track of the condition in the bylaw that states that the owner must live in the house?

If all the conditions in the bylaw are no longer to be enforced and the requirement for off-street parking, parking space parking spaces might be on the property, but majority of the suites in my street have their tenants park on the street.

Why is it even necessary to have a bylaw?

Once again, with affordable housing such a large topic in the whole of the province, why would you add another 100% increase of a fee to the people of the town?

I, for one, keep my rent low to provide a person with affordable accommodation.

Lastly, Mayor Tobias, you campaigned on open communication.

As one of the few people who reads the agenda on Friday for the upcoming week.

If I had not brought this it to the attention of two type two permit holders, how would these people have known about the change?

Your staff is asking for three readings of the bylaw tonight.

What part of an open communication does this uphold?

Why the rush?

Why not what would it not improve the situation if you sent information to the permit holders with their renewal letters telling them what would be expected to bring up their suite to code and perhaps telling them that the change would happen in a few years instead?

Thank you.

I have a copy for everybody if they'd like one, but thank you.

And I'm frankly am going home to listen to the rest of the meeting from my chair.

Thanks for your points.

Seeing nobody here, Carl, have we got anybody on the phone?

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers at this time.

Okay, so I think that brings us to conclude the public participation and uh brings us to staff reports on the development variants permit on 25 Chancellor Avenue.

And the reason why we're seeing this again uh is because we had a glitch in our uh system for the webcasts that we weren't able to replicate.

So we that we had gone through this, we had gone through the council the whole, but uh the public participation uh part was just not available for us.

So um staff.

Thank you, Your Borship.

So um given the number of people in the chambers, um, this is gonna be a short presentation.

Uh the proposal is to rebuild an accessory building and the variances are for the length of the building and the separation of that building from the from the uh principal dwell dwelling um the uh the proposal is that the building be 9.15 meters instead of 7.5 meters long and uh that it be 2.8 meters from the principal building instead of three meters um staff have no concern with the proposal because it doesn't uh really affect the neighbors and recommendation is to uh is to uh approve the application move staff recommendations second so we've got a motion on the floor right now but we still have to go through the motions um and i appreciate the applicant isn't here tonight Jeff because they've been here for two meetings um so uh what did you have anything more to offer from the applicant okay so we'll go to comments now from the public is there anybody in the chamber that wants to discuss the variance permit for 25 Chancellor Avenue seeing nobody here Carl, we got everybody on the phone for it, and I'll wait a bit of time.

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers at this time, but we had one uh that was on for a few moments.

So if maybe if we give them 10 seconds to give them one more chance just in case they call back.

Did you have anything else, staff on that variance permit?

Just and do we have correspondence on it, sir?

Um Mayor Tobias, we don't seem to have had any callers uh come back on.

Thank you, Carl.

No correspondence.

Ready to move to uh a vote right now.

Um we've got no correspondence on it, so our we've got a mover and a seconder.

All those in favor of approving the 25 Chancellor Avenue variance permit.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries that uh passes.

Um and now we're down to the development permit for Ten Erskine Lane.

Um, and I know now why you haven't moved, Jeff.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh this is uh development permit uh 2002 2210 for 10 Erskine Lane.

The purpose of this presentation is to consider a development permit application to construct a multi-unit residential building consisting of 43 units.

Uh the property at 10 Erskine Lane is 2,774 square meters.

It was rezoned to CD 12 in 2008 for 30 multi residential units.

Of Watkiss Way to the site and from the site to the galloping goose access, and the Galloping Goose access would be improved as well.

The additional the community managed contribution for the additional 13 units would be in accordance with the community amenity contribution policy, which is $4,000 per unit.

As part of the rezoning, a road dedication was also required to widen the road allowance because Erskine Lane was the road allowance's substandard, and on this on this property the average was about 4.8 meters off the frontage.

From the previous council to this council and the neighboring townhouses at 14 Erskine Lane, those units were closer than you would ordinarily see to the property line.

In this case, the applicant addresses that by it's a it's a five-story building that uh that steps down to three stories adjacent to the townhouses at 14 Erskine Lane.

In addition to that, the applicant is proposing some uh aluminum screens privacy that would improve privacy between both uh developments and as well as a as well as uh vegetative screening.

Uh the project itself includes a number of units of the ground floor that have individual entrances.

Uh the parking on the site is under building and surface parking behind the building.

This is the landscape plan that shows this one's inverse or skin lane is at the top and the rear of the property is at the bottom.

The property backs on to Ministry of Transportation Financing Authority land that includes basically a low-level area that's essentially captured stormwater that separates the site from the Galloping Goose Trail.

Some uh sort of the parking lot would be at the back, and there would be a uh a viewing area at the back.

In terms of tree retention, because of the um the amount of land that's being dedicated for road and and the configuration of the building and the parking, uh there is a small corner at the uh sort of southwest corner of the building at the bottom of the screen.

That uh uh that would be that would be preserved, and but the majority of the site, um trees that we removed would be subject to the tree protection bylaw.

In addition, um the proper land between the um east of the site to the Gallup and use access would be uh is is an area that's that's kind of slopes down from the Earthskine Lane Cal de sac.

And so that's our our standard for landscaping is is essentially uh mostly grass and some boulevard trees every every square meter every few meters in this case on a sloping site that slopes down to a stormwater dependent detention area um the applicants agreed to sort of uh to do native plant restoration that that will be kind of low maintenance but also natural uh rather than having grass on a slope that's difficult to maintain uh the application was last uh considered at the uh may committee of the whole meeting uh at that time a bunch of information was was requested the applicant has uh responded to those and that we'll cover that in the rest of this report uh that includes um bicycle access and parking uh space dimensions a lighting plan uh screening for waste and recycling facilities uh fan specifications tree and further information on tree impacts confirmation of uh rooftop mechanical equipment and um hydro dimension of the viewing deck so that applicant information has been provided in the package um then those were just kind of details rather than kind of substantive elements of the uh of the proposal uh the key items that the committee was interested in uh included some renderings to better to get a better visualization of what the building would look like in terms of its form and its massing and we'll show that in future slides.

Um the other question was about uh about sound and noise impacts.

Uh those are not um items of consideration in a in a development permit because the the it's more about the form and character of the development.

So sound is not uh a development permit um uh not not an item for a adjudicational development permit but the applicant has has conducted a little study on the noise in the area and and that's shown in the next one of the next slides.

So these are the renderings of the site from Erskine Lane, and this shows the front view of the property.

Again, how it's showing how it descends from five stories down to three stories, then down to two stories on Erskine Lane where the land actually starts to rise.

So it's not just a big rectangle, it's it's kind of a it's a building that has come some articulation to it and some stepping.

This is a street level rendering from the townhouses next door.

Again, it shows the relationship of the building to the street and to the next building.

And kind of a bird's eye view that gives you a better picture of the kind of the 3D shape of the building.

Other uh illustrations are within the uh attached to the report.

Uh in terms of the noise study, they also showed uh one of the one of the questions was about what the uh cross section was like from the site to the highway.

And it shows that there's actually a kind of a rise in the land.

There's a uh kind of a six-meter berm with with some trees on top of it that provides some uh screening for the building.

And the applicant has um conducted a little a little noise study that um that I'm not an expert in that matter, but um, but what it indicates is that stuff from 70 decibels and more are is considered the kind of a um annoying noise level.

Uh in this case, the the highest noise level based on elevation of the building and the highway and the distance uh is the ambient noise would be in the 55 percent 55 decibel range.

Um I should note that as buildings as we move to work through the energy step code, building envelopes will be improved with better insulation.

And in the future, when we are at step five, um uh one of the typical ways, typical requirements at that level is triple pane windows that basically reduce conductivity of the heat, which also includes conductivity of the sound.

So uh we can look forward to a future where there will be buildings where they will automatically have that higher level of um of noise abatement.

However, um the reason it's a step code is because it takes time for the infrastructure and supply to be able to uh to economies of scale to make it affordable.

So right now, if you were to if you wanted a triple pane window, um it would be quite expensive.

And the hope in the future is that it will become a standard and therefore more affordable.

So in terms of zoning, uh this is a site-specific zone, uh, and such it complies with the zone, complies with the fishing community Plan.

There are no variances required, and hence uh and um in terms of development permit area guidelines.

Um staff consider the compliance with the guidelines.

The building has a transition down to the from five stories to three stories to two stories next door.

Uh trees will be planted along the western property edge, would provide some additional buffering.

Uh there would be privacy screens on the balconies facing those townhouses to prevent overlook in both ways.

Uh the building is articulated with um with through its form and through balconies, uh, incorporate some recessed balconies, some setbacks, and vertical breaks in the massing as well.

Uh there's a roof, the varying roof line, and uh there's no blank walls on the site.

Exterior cladding has a variety of colors and textures, and uh the street level units will have individual units that that create more of a sense of connection with the uh with the neighborhood.

So uh staff can consider that uh that the development should be issued because it's in general compliance with the development permit guidelines.

The options, the alternatives are either decline it or defer the the development permit.

In both cases, you would uh council would have to consider why the proposal does not meet the the uh the the general intent of the development permit and guidelines.

So that concludes the report.

And uh the recommendations is to approve the application.

Uh two conditions is a security deposit for on-site landscaping be provided, that is standard.

And the second was for screen fencing or other screening along the southwest property line, abbutting facing the galloping goose trail um to the satisfaction of the director of development services.

Thank you, Jeff.

I had one question before I go to councillor Lemon.

Um, when is the applicant um assuming completion uh given um an approval for a building permit?

Um for you, your mayor.

The um the applicant is present and they can they can sort of address that question.

Thank you.

Um yeah, and I think we'll have some opportunity for them to chat, but I'll go with counselor lemon first uh before I ask them to comment.

Thank you, Jeff.

And uh thank you to the applicant for much improved rendering so we can we have a much better idea of what what we're looking at here.

My my question is regarding the green screening between um number 14, those those townhouses that are you know as you said quite close to number 10.

And what I see in the in the rendering is uh there's there's the privacy screens that are on on the units, but there's and there's two trees.

Those are two existing trees.

Through uh three worship.

I don't believe so I think the vegetation will actually new because there is some excavation that maybe needs to be done for foundation work.

So that that would there would be a strip of greenery that would um that would be new.

So the two trees that I'm seeing here are to be planted.

Well then if I would like to see more than two trees then um of of that size that would actually provide privacy.

So if we, you know, if there were six trees I I I think if if that was viable, um I'd be much more comfortable with that for the neighbors.

Um Brew um the there is a limited space.

The applicant is coming up here.

Um I'll I'll note there is some limited space there because there is some um a kind of a parking box kind of in that area.

So in terms of uh tree volume, uh soil volume, there may be some limitation, but I'll let the uh applicant uh provide some comment.

Thanks, Chip.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um through the mayor, the rendering just didn't show the complete landscape plan with those two trees.

So on the landscape plan, it would be a whole row of of full-size trees there.

So there will be full screening along that side.

Um, and just go to go back to the first question as well.

Um, we're looking at uh achieving building permit next summer with about a year and a half build out.

So probably by summer 2026 would be the the goal for project completion.

Thank you.

And council may be wondering why I'm asking that question.

And that is with the housing targets that are coming down the line, that is to be built within five years.

So um I've been trying to I and I know that might slip uh things happen, but at least if we have some idea of it.

Um, one of the the common problems to counselor lemon's point, and thank you for your answer, um, that I had when I was walking around less than a year ago, more than a year ago, uh for the campaign was strata's now complaining about the privacy from other stratas.

So it was strata versus strata because we didn't allow enough setback with trees between the stratas.

So now instead of stratas are used to like ratting each other out and and you know having that contest of not being compliant with things, but now they were actually calling each other out because they could see there wasn't any setback there.

So with enough you know privacy I guess from the other strata so it it became a whole other other issue that um that we're having.

Um the other question that I got, Jeff, this is for you.

One that we're dealing with now is adequate enough green space um with a high density area, like we've got off a six mile that we've got, you know, a little space there that is now up for toss, whether it's going to be a park, little small little park where and then people are bringing their dogs to pee.

And now we've got people that are smoking.

There's just like with all of Irkskin Lane, I'm really concerned with where is the green space that is right there?

People aren't gonna get in their car and drive to Langford so their dog can pee if they could find a place to pee there.

Um so just have we got a green space area like for the whole lane, not just by unit that that we can look at and so that we're not uh here in two years or three years time saying, Oh, we should have thought that before.

Yeah, um your worship.

Uh the projects across the street on on the east side of Russian, most of them will have strong um spaces for kind of community gathering for you know, hang out with your dog or your kids.

Uh on this particular site, uh again, each site has their own kind of communal gathering spaces.