Council Meeting

Good evening, folks.

I'll call the council meeting to order and start with a territorial acknowledgement.

We recognize the Lakongan speaking people known today as the Esquimal and the Songhees Nation and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

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

If you wish to provide your comments to council regarding the development variants for 81 High Street or the environmental development permit for 297 View Royal Avenue, there will be a specific time to speak to these applications when they are considered in the agenda.

For members of the audience, the council is a safe, respectful, and inclusive space, and it is the seat of our local democracy.

I would just ask that you treat councillors and each other with due respect.

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

And when prompted, enter conference ID 690-598-015 pound.

You will be immediately muted once admitted to the meeting.

Please do not unmute until you're asked.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will then announce the last four digits of your phone number.

Ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback.

Ask you not to use your speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and ask you to then unmute yourself by pressing star six.

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

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

This meeting will re be recorded by participating in the webcast.

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

Can I get a motion to approve the agenda?

Moved by councilor Mattson, seconded by councillor McKenzie.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

None opposed.

Motion carries with the approval of the agenda.

Uh the minutes and the adoption of minutes.

Can I get a motion to adopt the minutes of the special council minutes and the council minutes for the last meetings?

A move by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councilor McKenzie.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed motion carries.

Mayor's report.

We've got a full agenda, so we'll be very brief.

Was very happy to present one of the awards for the best in bloom for View Royal and very much thank Councillors Lemmon and Mackenzie for organizing and uh judging and handing out the awards.

They certainly were hard to select because there's lots of nice gardens.

I, however, did not get a selected and I'm a little upset.

Not even nominated, but um but that will be mine to bear.

We also uh last weekend had uh a wonderful experience of being able to host uh our incredible uh View Royal volunteers that do everything from clearing invasive species to um chairing our committees and sitting on our committees that uh enable council to do its job effectively and uh supporting uh our emergency services and our our communications and uh along the list of activities.

So it was wonderful to recognize some of the very long standing um volunteers that we've had in View Royal that really make View Royal the place that it is.

Uh and I will already look forward to next year's.

Uh that moves us down to petitions and delegations, and I believe we have one here, sponsored, I believe, by the View Royal Climate Coalition.

And Mr.

Gage, would you like Jane first?

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

My name is Jane Devonshire.

I'm a representative of the View Royal Climate Coalition.

Not everyone realizes yet the damage caused by climate change is already impacting us financially.

For example, DC Hydra reports the increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather, wildfire, and water-related events have caused greater damage to assets than was previously seen.

In the past five years, the average number of individual storm events BC Hydra has responded to has tripled.

Why should we, as taxpayers, have to bear the brunt of these and other climate related costs?

Big oil should pay their fair share.

The View Rural Climate Coalition strongly supports the PREAP recommendation that council endorse the Sue Big Oil Climate Action Lawsuit.

To that end, we have invited Andrew Gage from West Coast Environmental Law to explain in more detail how this is achievable and how it will benefit our community.

Andrew has been a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law for over two decades and is currently project lead for the organization's climate change program and part of the Secretariat for the Subic Oil campaign.

Under his direction, West Coast Climate Work has focused on the legal and professional consequences to industry, government, and professionals of failing to address climate change.

Andrew was an expert witness before the parliamentary committees considering the Canadian Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act, enacted in 2020, and has published extensively on environmental and climate change law, including academic articles and most recently a book chapter on climate litigation and loss and damage.

Andrew dedicates his work to prevent and minimize the impacts of climate change to his two children.

Thank you.

And I'll turn it over to Andrew now.

Thanks, Andrew.

Thank you, Jane.

Thank you to the V Royal Climate Coalition for inviting me into her council for uh hearing this delegation and taking the time to consider this important topic.

Uh as Jane said, we're here in support of the uh recommendation of the Parks, Recreation and Environment Advisory Committees on the Subig Oil lawsuit.

Next slide.

So the number one, next slide please.

The number one reason that I think all councils, but V Roll Council needs to consider this is a purely a financial one, a fiscal responsibility question.

Thank you.

As Jane said, the costs of climate change are rising.

And currently in one way or another taxpayers are on the hook for 100% of those costs.

We got a snapshot in 2021 of what some of those climate impacts look like.

The heat dome killed over 600 British Columbians, including about 20 in the uh South Island on the South Island.

The heat dome was 150 times more likely, according to scientists, due to climate change than it otherwise would have been.

Then we had wildfires and this smoke that accompanied them, and then the atmospheric river hit and caused massive flooding and landslides, and here, you know, disruption of supply chains were causing empty shelves and increases in costs.

Similar impacts are being felt around the world.

Next slide.

Local governments own 60% of public infrastructure, almost all of which was designed with the stable climate in mind that no longer exists.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada and Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that Canadian local governments collectively need to spend about $5.3 billion every year to prepare for the impacts of climate change or face even larger impacts.

Next slide.

And each one of these projected impacts brings with it costs, either directly or from the work of trying to avoid those impacts.

Increased storms and precipitation translates directly into flooding, road maintenance costs, maintenance and retrofitting costs for stormwater and sewage systems, along with many other costs.

And each one of those has those types of impacts.

In 2018, Mayor David Screech, with the support of council, wrote to 20 of the world's largest fossil fuel companies.

Next slide.

In that letter, he highlighted the costs that are were even then being experienced by View Royal and have, of course, only gotten worse since then.

Next slide.

And he challenged the companies that he was writing to to pay a fair share of those costs, taking cradle to grave responsibility for their products.

Next slide.

As he pointed out in that letter, the global fossil fuel companies are individually responsible for very large portions of the greenhouse gas emissions that are in the atmosphere.

Chevron, Exxon, Saudi Ramco, or Shell are all in the neighborhood about 3% each in terms of the emissions that can be traced back to their products or the their operations.

And collectively, there are 90 entities responsible for almost two thirds of human caused greenhouse gas emissions.

Next slide.

Thank you.

And that is that the world's governments have been unsuccessful in dealing with the cost of dealing with avoiding the cost of climate change, with dealing with the climate crisis.

In 1992, when I was 19, the governments of the world pledged to avoid this situation where you would have these costs and to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere in order to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Next slide.

And yet, this is what's happened.

The red area is the area of emissions, the annual emissions that occurred after the world promised to address the climate crisis.

And we have to ask ourselves why has the world been so spectacularly unsuccessful in dealing with this crisis?

Next slide.

And fortunately, in 2021, 23 academics from across disciplines tried to answer that question.

And they looked at the question of why haven't we bent that curve through several different lenses?

And in each case, the answer boiled down to power, and especially the power and influence of the global fossil fuel industry in actually standing in the way of those costs.

That's not to blame the industry particularly, it's basic economics.

Next slide, please.

Because as long as we have a system where the fossil fuel industry, their investors and shareholders, and the governments that support them make profits from selling oil, gas and coal, but communities pay the costs.

And there's no connection between those two.

There's no accountability.

They're just doing what we expect businesses to do, which is to maximize their profits.

And so time and again, sorry, click, sorry, the next slide, please.

What uh a class action lawsuit does, or this type of litigation does, is to bring those costs together and say, some of these costs, not all of them, I mean, we are all responsible for climate change, but that means the fossil fuel industry should be paying their share.

You know, some of those, it brings together those costs so that they pay a share of them.

Those will then show up on their balance sheets as well as being available to our communities to help prepare for the costs.

Next slide.

Uh, through that whole history, we've seen time and again what happens when the oil and gas industry prioritizes short-term profits ahead of the uh health of our community and without taking responsibility for the harm caused by their products.

Um, this is the actual or part of the actual text from the Global Climate Science Communications Plan that was developed by Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, and many other companies, where they actually said that their goal was to convince the public that those advocating for climate action on the basis of science appear to be out of touch with reality.

This is only one of many examples of what happens when you separate responsibility from the profits being made.

Next slide.

When global fossil fuel giants BP and Shell, which actually have been comparatively progressive on trying to deal with the climate crisis, announced that they were just making too much money to prove to move forward with those plans.

The reality is we can't solve climate change in this with the speed we need to when people are making an awful lot of money delaying action.

Next slide.

So the Sue Big Oil campaign asks you and all BC local governments to take action to protect your residents from climate change for a variety of ways, one of which is setting aside $1 per resident towards a fund to sue big oil.

You would hold it until it was actually needed, and then to join with other BC local governments to bring that class action lawsuit to recover a fair share of climate costs.

A growing number of experts, legal experts, say this is possible.

Next slide.

There's 28 law professors from across Canada that have called on local governments to bring this type of, or at least seriously consider this type of class action.

There are 40 local and state governments in the United States suing fossil fuel companies under a range of legal theories.

This is a picture of the successful lawsuit against Shell brought in the Netherlands.

It wasn't for damages, but it was to force the fossil fuel company to take responsibility for the harm that the product was causing.

And so increasingly, these you know, governments are being asked why aren't you bringing these types of cases?

Next slide.

We're proposing a class action lawsuit because that allows the local governments involved to pool their resources and keeps it fiscally manageable, and or financially manageable.

And in fact, the the class action legislation in Can in BC rather protects the parties from having to pay other sides legal fees if they were to lose.

So that's also an important financial consideration.

Next slide.

Next slide.

And so the benefits once the moment the lawsuit is filed, fossil fuel companies have to disclose to their shareholders and investors that they are being sued.

It gives them an incentive to take steps to demonstrate that they're acting fine responsibly, and I think changes the sort of government and investor view of the profit profitability of this industry.

And it invites a public conversation about these costs.

It also, one of the earliest stages in the class action is the certification stage, where the judge says, yes, this can be brought as a class action.

And as part of that, the judge will say, Yes, this case could be won, or not, in which case we know that at least.

But but the the judge makes a ruling on the applicable law and gives municipalities some confidence about whether they should proceed with it at that stage.

So that's sorted out early, and that also then sends a message, assuming we're successful, to the fossil fuel industry and their investors next slide and of course the benefits when we win is first of all your taxpayers aren't paying 100% of those costs there's there's a share being paid by fossil fuel companies uh but also those liabilities are then on the balance sheets and affect how this industry makes its decisions uh we can go after global companies because the harm occurs in BC it's not just regulating Canadian industry uh but that's that's so that's really important.

Uh next slide so this is already starting the city of Gibson's is the other is it is a municipality that has actually voted in favor of of um putting funds towards this.

We briefly had Vancouver, but there was a change in council, and unfortunately we they're no longer on board.

We hope to get them back on board at some point.

But um uh I think you know increasingly local governments are going to be asked to do this, and we hope that Vie Royal will take the leadership uh the uh in in moving this forward, especially in in the capital region.

Uh next slide.

So that concludes my presentation.

I don't have a lot of time left for questions, or I'm not sure how that works, but uh I'd love to uh take any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Gage.

I think we do have some questions, and I know that Councillor Brown might have a motion associated with this that will um defer to the uh pre act part of the agenda for the recommendation there.

But um uh Mr.

Gage, are you happy to answer questions?

Council?

Uh let's go with Councillor Lemon, then counselor macillor McKenzie, please.

Thank you for a really compelling presentation mr gage seems to me you have a you your daughter was was um recognized by the previous counsel for her environmental activism am I right uh she certainly presented to you on at least one occasion I don't uh recall um and and she yeah my my daughter Rebecca was uh one of the founders of the um uh the climate act sorry the uh Fridays for teachers strikes in Victoria um and um was uh a student at Shoreline school.

So uh was right known to you in that capacity.

Yeah.

Anyway, thank you.

I'm I'm wondering, have you any idea of the kind of sphere of dollars that are you're hoping to raise from local governments?

To to bring the lawsuit.

So as I say say, our recommendation is a dollar per resident to get to the certification stage.

Because at that point, there's no, you know, the it's clear that there may be additional expenses expenditures after that, but it's also clear that there may not be, right?

I mean, at that point, the the court will rule on whether or not there's an arguable case, and the municipalities will be better for informed to um about whether to proceed at that point.

However, there's also um you know ample opportunity for community fundraising uh and um support from private philanthropy, again, especially after we have municipalities that have signed on to the lawsuit, and we have a ruling from the judge that this is an arguable case.

So I I would never say that there couldn't be additional asks at some point in the future, but I'm hoping that they actually can be kept to a very manageable level.

Perhaps I'm wrong.

I thought the a previous Victoria Council voted in favor of this.

A previous Victoria Council sent a resolution to the UBCM at one point asking UBCM to look at um sort of options for this type of case.

They withdraw the motion because the law firm of RV family offered to prepare an opinion for them pro bono, and so it was no longer necessary to have the UBCM take that leadership role.

That opinion is available to local governments from RV family on request as I understand it.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councillor McKenzie and then Councillor Brown, please.

Thank you.

Um I've I've been in a few meetings now, I think, with uh uh Mr.

Gage and uh his presentations have always been informative.

I just have two questions for you.

My first one uh from those previous uh meetings, it was my understanding that further going beyond just raising the class action suit would require further funds.

And I believe it was also stated either by yourself or someone else that a payout is not super likely uh in in these cases.

So if if you want to speak to that one first, and then I'll ask my second question.

Yeah, I I think you're referring to the the talk that um was given by Rader Mogerman, uh class action lawyer, uh, to to a large number, or not a large number, but to it was it was an open invitation to counsel, a large number of counselors.

Um, and that's my understanding of what he said is he actually wasn't that worried.

He thought the law did support uh the idea that local governments could win this case, but that it would be some time before there would be the possibility of a payout.

Um he also felt that the local governments needed to understand, and I think he was talking particularly about the local government that actually ultimately acts as a lead plaintiff who actually has their name on the case, that they need to understand that there is a commitment of time and energy in doing that, um, as there is in any lawsuit.

Um so I don't think he said that there was no possibility of a payout.

He did say it was a novel case in the sense that we don't know for sure how the courts um will answer that.

But as uh the 28 law professors who have written about this have said said you shouldn't confuse novelty with uh a low likelihood of success.

It just means the courts haven't ruled on these issues before, and there's a um large body of legal principles that you can use to argue that you should get that payout.

And of course, the other side will be arguing that they don't support that, uh you know, the legal principles support the other result.

Uh so I hope that answers the question.

Yes, great, thank you.

And my second question is if the intention of raising this class action suit is to primarily send a message to big oil that their impacts on our communities will no longer be tolerated.

Could the same thing not be achieved through I I think you mentioned crowdsourcing instead of municipal funds?

So local governments have to be well, the the case can only be brought by a government or individuals who are harmed differently than the general public.

And local governments are well suited to do that.

They own 60% of public infrastructure.

They don't have a lot of options to raise funds.

So local governments have to ultimately be the face of the case case.

The sources of funding, there's some flexibility around absolutely, but it's our belief that if the local government's not willing to put one dollar per resident towards the cost of the case, then they're not very serious about the case.

And we need communities that will actually be serious about this.

As I said, our intention is not to just put the burden on local governments, but we can't do a lot of fundraising for a case that doesn't exist yet either.

And so there's this tension between trying to provide the support and saying what we think should happen, and also local governments having to be in the driver's seat in terms of uh uh seeing this go forward.

Counselor Rogers.

Thank you.

Or Councillor Brown, then Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, you always hope for a settlement, of course.

That's the ideal.

Yeah.

Um, but in reality, if they there isn't, and it goes to trial, uh, we could be looking if we join this, we could be looking at multiple years, even up to a decade uh in court.

So that that's the reality of that.

So it's not something that's gonna happen overnight.

No, that's I mean, that's correct.

That the the payout would not happen overnight.

Many of the I think the sort of broader implications in terms of um uh the the effect on business decisions, I think will have an it'll have an effect earlier than that.

Uh at least that's that's certainly the hope.

And there's actually a study from uh the London School of Economics uh the Grantham Institute that actually measures the effect on stock price of filing this type of lawsuit uh and and says even the action of filing it has an impact on stock price and then there's a greater impact if the cases are successful um but that being said I mean you the costs you are putting out for infrastructure are intended to be paid over multiple years or decades as well right and the infrastructure you're investing in now is intended to last for decades so I think it's very much in keeping with the time frame the local government often acts in.

Thanks.

Sorry.

And Councillor Rogers books.

Yes, thank you.

Certainly entertaining and and in informative to attend the um uh webinar um it also seemed like uh there was a possibility where regional districts and islands trust would be able to participate.

Is that correct?

Yeah, I mean we call on all local governments to do this.

Exactly who's included in the class action is going to depend on how the lawyers frame the class.

And municipalities, it's more obvious that municipalities will definitely be included in that class.

Regional districts, if they are involved in helping uh develop a case and playing a leadership role, we certainly would like them to be included in the class.

The Islands Trust needs will need to decide they're a unique body and and it will require some thinking about how to make sure they're included.

Yeah, my understanding is that the islands trust are anxious to be part of it.

The uh the province uh uh there are ways for province the province to empower municipalities and assist and I understand that uh Ontario is um um working in that regard to for legislation of some sort can you help us on that so uh I think you're referring to uh legislation the Ontario NDP uh introduces a private member's bill the oppos they're an opposition party a third party actually uh so uh you know the odds of that passing are probably not high unfortunately but they did introduce a I I may have the name slightly wrong but the liability for climate Related harms act um that uh would make it clearer uh that you know answer some of those novel questions in the affirmative basically uh you know we don't believe that type of legislation is required.

We think a judge can find in the favor of local governments without that type of legislation.

But we have in the past advocated for that type of legislation and there is value to it.

Indeed, it might be a um an aspect of resolution GBSCM to have that um climate cost recovery legislation.

So when you say that um Miss Belladies um um should contribute uh about how many residents of BC should uh would be a reasonable bottom line to have some confidence to approach a court.

I mean the the our ask in terms of having local governments sort of put in the dollar per person and participate serves a few different functions.

One is financial to actually have money for a legal team.

It wouldn't be West Coast environmental law.

You'd be wanting to hire lawyers who specialize in class action litigation and we don't.

The um it also demonstrates to a court that there is this broader support in this class.

Um 500,000 is very easily doable, but will require more community fundraising if there's not going to be additional um contributions.

So that that's uh you know it it's a gray area.

And in terms of the number of municipalities, uh, you know, I by the time you get to those populations, unless you have just the larger municipalities, you've demonstrated that there is a class, and and uh I think a court would take it seriously.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Counselor Mattson, please.

Hi Andrew, it's nice to uh meet you in person.

Um when the the last presentation or the discussions we had, my understanding was that the dollar, it's basically just a commitment for the town to provide a dollar should there be sufficient people uh and municipalities to that's correct, follow through with the uh yeah, that's that's correct class action suit.

And so it's not like the one of the concerns we had from some people is we just had a 10% tax increase, and you're gonna be spending more money now.

And the reality is that would only happen uh if and when there were sufficient people to and municipalities to undertake the class action.

I mean the resolution I think sorry the the Super Big Oil Declaration, which is a the document I had, or part of which I had up there on the screen, I think probably could be clearer.

We we refer to a community fund, and we had in mind that you would just hold the resources until they were needed.

Um so I think that's essentially right, uh, but we could have probably been clearer in our original language in terms of spelling that out.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, uh Councillor Mattson, and thank you uh very much for Royal Climate Coalition and uh Andrew for you for coming out this evening and informing council on an important initiative.

This item is on the agenda later on where council will have an opportunity to deliberate on a motion.

And I would say we could hold fire until that time.

And I think that brings us to our first public participation period.

And we'll go to the folks in the room first.

If you've got a question or would like to make comments and address council during this period, please have it not related to one of the uh development variants permits that are uh on the agenda.

But if there's anything else on the agenda, and there are a few things that people might want to talk about, you are welcome to do so now, and we'll start in the room before we go to the phone.

Is there anybody that would like to address council on any matter pertaining to the agenda?

Just please uh approach the microphone and just make sure it's uh activated and the first the top uh ring will turn red when you do.

How's that thank you very much, uh your worship uh counselors and staff?

Um, my name is uh Terry Hoff, and I represent West Urban Developments.

I just wanted to make a few comments um before the debate tonight on the mayor's um motion to have a six-month moratorium on rezoning in Vie Royal.

Um just wanted to make a few comments, please.

First of all, um as developers um coming out of the pandemic, we face uh a number of challenges uh in within the development community.

Obviously, we've just come out of uh over two years of a pandemic where we've seen unprecedented uh increases in interest rates from 0.025 percent to 4.25 percent, and certainly the Bank of Canada today indicating that we could certainly need to brace ourselves for further increases in interest rates.

Supplies, materials uh becoming more expensive uh across the a broad spectrum within our developments.

You know, when we come before uh councils uh to rezone properties to be able to develop them, you know, one of the first things that that we hear from elected officials is the uh you know, what's the going to be the uh the number of units in the building and what's the affordability model look like?

And I think that there's a little bit of a disconnect in that, you know, purpose-based rental, which is primarily what my company develops.

We've done one project already in View Royal and currently uh a big project uh on Nine Erskin that you see under development right now, which is 336 doors.

Uh the magnitude of a project like that is significant.

Uh the benefits to the community are also significant because we are creating homes for people that otherwise don't have them.

Uh rental stock is critical.

Um the township of View Royal has um participated in you know the critical housing needs assessment.

And I think we are all aware that that there's a big need for a continual housing.

The provincial mandate in the province of British Columbia is to continue to try to foster more development, not less.

And so I guess I'm here tonight, and with all due respect, we're just really concerned about the direction.

Uh View Royal has a current OCP.

Um, and then there was a new OCP that has had been commissioned.

And I understand we were nearing the public consultation uh phase of that.

And obviously, as a developer, we we want to work uh cooperatively with local government, and and we're happy to cooperate during those public consultation processes where you know we can certainly offer our opinions and guidance and our expertise on on trying to understand some of the concerns that mayor and council and staff might have with regards to development in the community.

Certainly, obviously they were still willing to do that.

And you know, I came tonight just to, you know, to just air our concerns and some of the issues that we might have with further delays as developers.

It's a fairly rigorous process when you take a piece of property and you rezone it.

You know, in some cases it can take uh, you know, two years.

Um, and then when costs go through the roof and we still have to try to come to market with a product that makes sense economically, uh, and then hit some of those affordability guidelines, it's becoming more challenging.

So I'm looking forward to to hearing the rationale behind your motion, obviously.

Um, but I but I but I caution you on creating um further delays or unnecessary delays to have discussions that I think your current OCP has in place.

Every single development that comes before mayor and council gets debated based on your your bylaws, your your development uh permit guidelines, and um at the end of the day it's mayor and council that make the ultimate decision on every single development.

So um I'll leave it at that.

Thank you for for listening and uh look forward to listening to your debate tonight on your motion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Hoffman.

Is there anybody else that would like to address council this evening from the room?

Going once, twice.

Carl, uh on the phone, is there anybody that would like to address counsel at this time?

Mayor Tobias, we have a caller.

Last four digits, 8881.

Thank you.

Caller 8881.

Could you please press star six to unmute and uh state your name?

Hello address, please.

Thank you.

Kathleen Gilbert, uh unit 68 at 14 Erskine Lane.

And I too would like to speak to the uh motion on the moratorium on um redevelop uh rezoning.

And I want to actually thank this uh council and certainly the mayor for this thoughtful, intelligent, and what I consider very considerate motion.

I think we all agree that it's important that View Royal do its part to increase housing.

But I think we must develop infrastructure before any dramatic increases in density here in View Royal.

It's certainly great to house people, however we must ensure that we are building livable communities, desirable neighborhoods, you know, put places that and that can't happen if we cram people into small spaces without building into the plan upgrading of roads and community amenities.

I I mean we need people, we need places for these people to gather and to build real inclusive communities.

And I certainly do not see this motion as being punishment to developers.

I think it really is just a thoughtful motion that says, let's slow down and let's look at what we're doing and make sure we have a big plan on how we're going to service all these people once we put them into View Royal and make sure that the quality of life is going to be what it is now.

So we can certainly do that with some thoughtful development.

And so I would again like to thank uh Mayor and Council for at least uh bringing this uh to uh to the table tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Gilbert.

Uh Carl, is there anybody else on the phone wishing to address counsel for this evening?

Mayor Tobias, we have no other callers at this time.

Okay, thank you.

And I think that brings us to a point of the agenda.

I don't believe there's business arising from previous minutes uh reports.

We do have 8 1.

I'll pass it over to staff for the development variants permit for 81 High Street.

I'd ask that we'll go and instead of looking at the motion, we will go from comments to the applicant, comments from the public, and then come to the motion at that time, if that pleases council.

Over to staff.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Jeff Chow, Senior Planner.

This development variance from an application is to consider requested variants to reduce the side yard setback for an existing detached dwelling at 81 High street uh from a proposed new lot line to prevent a two lot subdivision.

A subdivision application has been has been submitted and and is being reviewed by staff uh the background to this application is that the the 2480 square meter parcel is zoned R1 it's located on a slope and abuts uh Nock and Hill Park uh the original parcel was was larger it was 4099 square meters and in 2005 the current you know the owners of the property uh donated uh 1619 square meters to be incorporated incorporated into the View Royal portion of of Nockin Hill Park.

And my answer is not working.

Okay.

Oh, there we go.

Thank you.

So the the requested variance is to uh reduce the minimum side yard requirement um for for a building from two meters to 0.7 meters.

In this case it has to do with the location of the existing dwelling from the new lot line and the uh the illustration there shows in orange shows the uh the area of encroachment in the set the the setback of 1.3 meters so that um that variance is to accommodate uh an existing deck on the building that protrudes out and again is shown in in orange on the uh on the site plan above.

A small portion of the found building foundation is also within the uh what would be the two meter setback area.

Um the applicant uh would like to retain that that uh that walkway because it provides some egress to to the uh from the upper upper floor windows and uh and um in sort of uh to sort of balance off the separation between the existing dwelling and what would be what could be built on the on the next property, uh they propose a uh covenant that would maintain a four-meter separation between anything built on the on the new property.

And one of the items of concern has been tree impacts, and those would be dealt with through the subdivision process.

But those that are within the building envelope, even those trees would would have to be assessed to whether they need to be removed um whether they need to be removed and uh and yeah now the other the other issue on on this site is there is a uh kind of um the topography of it includes um at the front of the property there's an exposed rock outcrop with a number of trees on it at the back there is uh this property slopes up to a bluff in within uh knocking hill park um and uh the applicant is currently working with staff on sort of refining uh a smaller building envelope and with the zoning permits so that the rock outcrop facing facing high street would be retained, and basically there would be some clearing needed to allow driveway access to it.

And at the rear of the property, they would look at they're looking at ways to sort of minimize tree impacts.

the subdivision application uh the application before us is looking at whether um retaining those aspects of the uh existing dwelling are um appropriate for the site and uh staff's conclusion is that um the proposal is supportable because there would be a covenant that maintained a minimum four meter separation between the existing building and any new buildings on on the adjacent uh property uh there are some minor building code adjustments that need to be made including it has to do with roof soffits and sort of uh fire kind of enclosures um would permit the existing building to be retained and the applicant has provided a letter indicating why they uh you know how they wish to re you know continue residing in the building they have a number of personal reasons for doing so and it does not create uh the the building sighting does not create any additional neighborhood impact so the uh the recommendation is to uh just to uh support the application and uh with with a covenant for sighting of the existing building um to maintain a four meter separation to any new buildings on the site that was a great report thank you very much for that I've just got two questions before I go to uh my colleagues for this and that is um does the owner intend to uh remain ownership of the subdivision and and build there or is he intending to build and sell is what what's the current intention?

Yeah.

Um I I'll let the applicant kind of explain that part of it.

Um but their in their letter, they part of the reason for the variance is because they they would like to remain um at at that on that property as long as they can in the existing dwelling.

Thank you.

Uh Councillor Mattson and then Councillor McKenzie, Councillor Rogers, and Councillor Loman.

So so just for clarification, if the building was five feet narrower on the side where they're subdivid subdividing, well, then we wouldn't have had to come to that they wouldn't need a variance at all.

Through the mayor, that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

That's kind of to my same question.

I suppose if the applicant wouldn't have donated the the land in the back, I presume that the lot would not, there wouldn't have needed to have been a variance because the second lot would have been pushed back um beyond the current house.

Or could have been.

Yeah, through the mayor, uh has to do it's it is a kind of a um it has to do with the width of the lot.

So the proposed lot, the proposed lot line is to meet the minimum 17.5 meter lot width requirement, has to do with the building being located just a touch closer to the middle of the property.

Okay, thank you.

And and my other question, and this might be for the applicant as well, but uh does it if we approve uh this variance, um it doesn't necessarily mean it will be developed, does it?

It could be possibly sold for to the north um property to extend their property or it could actually be bought by the town to extend the park.

Is that possible?

When a lot is created um it could be it could be sold to it could be sold.

The applicant would again would have their own plans.

I think their intent is to sell that is to sell that lot yeah, thank thank you.

Looking at um uh the staff report page two, um there was a figure two proposed subdivision okay could you bring that?

Do you have that uh available?

Not that one.

It was um showing the yeah, that one.

Is that shaded area, the driveway?

So in with that, um I'm a little confused.

Um it seems like blot two.

Uh that is a the the darker uh the uh sort of the darker driveways kind of uh um yeah, as part of the subdivision application, um they are as part of their servicing plan that that's kind of how they're proposing to access the site.

Uh it's all finalized.

Right.

So uh yeah, if there's someone that the the proposal then that would be that driveway.

Um that would uh then m and it appears that that would be missing the rock bluff that's uh to to the uh north of that, I guess.

And um but the rear the proposed building um I guess going to that from the driveway would be 7.5 meters away from uh the lot line is that right in the rear from the rear lot line the rear the required rear yard setback is 7.5 meters.

And there's no variance of that.

There's variance requested of that.

No, they are they're they they're looking at examining, they're actually looking at um revising kind of the the the building envelope to to a smaller location to minimize impact at the rear of the property.

So it if if and this is very hypothetical, if in 2005 the Tetlows had not subdivided the property and taken one-third of it and couldn't donate it to the um uh to park 101 high street and the whole park uh dedication um then 7.5 uh meter setback you know if it was original lot with no park dedication then that would indeed have been up on top of the bluff rightly thank you so in the in a sense the tetlers have preserved the bluff thank you jeff uh in in looking at the property um the outcrop at the front is enormous and so i'm I'm I'm trying to picture what this would look like so am I hearing and perhaps this is for the the um applicant am i hearing that that the entire rocky outcrop would be maintained and retained and therefore ergo no blasting uh for the mayor um i think um the the layout that we see here shows a driveway that would um skirt that rocky rocky outcrop some blasting and re-graining may still be necessary but the intent isn't to retain the bulk of the structure and only kind of um you know uh have as much space as needed for vehicles to pass.

So the the rocky outcrop would remain, and it's big.

Would you even see the house behind it?

I guess not, hey.

And and therefore the uh the Gary Oak Meadow on top of the rock outcrop should be retained with the exception of those that are dying or dead, right?

That's correct.

They are proposing a covenant uh in the in the subdivision process to uh sort of protect the trees on that on that bedrott outcrop.

Okay, thank you.

Seeing no other questions, we'll go to the applicant if they wish to um make any statements uh and perhaps receive some questions if you're amenable from the council.

Mayor and council, my name is Glenn Davies.

And um I just wanted to, as part of my intro, is to let you know that I'm the lead responsible for this um application before you.

Uh originally, at the request of Brian Tetlow, I was asked to provide some estate planning advice.

Uh I was recommended to his father by his son Keith, who is here tonight.

During my review with Brian, I discovered that he also needed to address his financial obligations and not leave a burden to his family.

That's just a fact.

And frankly, the only solution was to subdivide High Street.

Kyle has altered my documents not to be so direct.

Andrea is in a care home, and Brian must ensure that his mentally challenged son is taken care of, which is part of the reason why we want to retain the walkway on the side of the property.

So the rest the question really comes down to how do we accomplish this?

How do we be sensitive?

Brian was aware that I had been involved in developing sensitive ecosystems in Cabra Bay.

In fact, I was the very first file that Jeff Chow ever administered.

So I thought, how do how do we or I approach the township of Uroyal to subdivide 81 High Street, knowing that it was sensitive property backing on to Kenokin Park?

That's the fact.

So enter Kyle Porter.

Our history, Kyle's and mine, is that he bought my home at 537 Prince Robert Lane.

I used to be a resident here.

Which led to Kyle and I together developing 15, 19, and 21 Quincy Road, and secondly being approved for a development permit for a six-log subdivision on Prince Robert Drive.

I have to state that in my dealings with Kyle and his family, integrity is paramount.

And that any proposal would also have to benefit View Royal as a whole.

So that is why we chose Kyle.

In simple words, he takes pride in View Royal, and that's why I brought him on board.

So I reached out to him and asked him to be the face of the proposal.

And he's going to speak after me and take your questions.

After meeting with Brian, Keith's son, and myself, he accepted to be our spokesperson because it was the right thing to do.

Not much more to go.

I personally have read all the letters from the residents, and to be honest, I was not surprised for the following reasons.

One, that the area is sensitive and it backs on to Canachin Park.

Usually, not all the fine print in the support document documentation is understood when you do a mail out.

Although this is private lands, to the naked eye, it looks like a park.

The residents might not understand the rights of the private landowner.

And some people just don't like change.

So Kyle, Brian, Keith, and I met to read the letters.

Although some of the comments hurt Brian's feelings, it was Kyle's suggestion that he does not take anything personally.

Don't be emotional, but our job was to educate those, all that were concerned about the variants.

Kyle said, or Brian, being a teacher, understood and agreed.

Then Kyle asked a very interesting question of Brian.

Kind of took me so by surprise.

He said, in Andrea's and your opinion, given the connection to these lands in Nockin Hill Park, what would be your best case, next case, and worst case scenario for the lands?

So maybe we should start there.

The answer was not surprising to Kyle or myself.

Here's the best case scenario.

That View Royal and possibly Sanjay purchased the land and add it to the existing park at fair market value as an unserviced lot.

That's the best case scenario in their mind.

The next case scenario, which is the proposal that we're doing with our subdivision application, that I, meaning Brian, subdivide the property, place certain covenants to protect the lands, at least with at least in private hands, the land would have certain government ship governorship enforceable by the town of Uroyo?

This proposed covenant that Brian is offering is at no cost, it's a gift.

The worst case scenario that the new lot and or the large existing lot is sold without any protection to a developer who could subdivide meeting all the requirements of the existing zoning bylaws, and that that deal that may desecrate the property that Andrea and Brian have so protected.

That's the worst case scenario.

So, in keeping with Brian and Andrea's vision, how could we provide the opportunity for the best case scenario?

Well, it's suggested that we provide View Royal with a registered on title right of first refusal to purchase the newly created lot.

And secondly, they give you a right of first refusal to buy the other lot when the family decides to sell in closing, I have a few observations that I like to protect the park.

This is a variance application.

The subdivision application will follow.

Brian has the right, you know, if you want, if they didn't approve the variance, it would create hardship and he could just take the deck away, alter the house, go on, sell it to the developer.

That is not what Andrea and Brian are about.

They're about bureau.

They're about the park.

They're about the Gary Oak Meadows.

The previous donation that everybody has to be mindful of in today's value is over $400,000, in my humble opinion.

Brian and Andrea continue to be the stewards of the land and they've provided civic gifts to the township to protect the lands, and they continue to do so.

So what we're offering here is one, please make it a park.

We'll give you rights of first refusal on both properties.

Secondly, when we do the subdivision, even though I don't believe we're obligated, a picture tells a thousand words.

And when Kyle gets up after me, we're going to put something up on the screen that's going to show you that 90%, I believe, is the number, 90% of that lot is going to be protected by covenant in its natural state.

Thank you.

And I'm going to pass it over to Kyle.

He's got the answers.

Okay.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Council.

Uh Kyle Porter, I live in Glenn's old house at 537 Prince Robert Lane.

And I think he's spoken enough about uh about um the proposal and about me.

Um that uh I don't know that I have a whole lot left to say.

I think he mentioned I'm the spokes spokesperson and he didn't leave me anything to say, so he did a great job.

But I'm more involved in the in the puzzle making and in how to make that site, try and make sense and and understand the site.

And we have uh taken months to redesign and and work with the civil engineers to rework that driveway.

It's still a work in progress, and locate the best options on where where on the site a building is is gonna make sense and reduce the footprint to a maximum amount that you can for protect those areas, but also make make sure that it's a buildable, a buildable um proposal.

I am a builder, you know, we're building step homes and and it's a good site for step four, step five.

Wouldn't be an issue.

I build on rock, and uh I believe Mr.

Mayor, I believe you today mentioned on the radio V Royal's rock.

And so, you know, it's just what we have to deal with.

We dealt with it on Quincy, we dealt with it on Lloyd.

We can build into the landscape beautifully.

You can you can really complement the landscape with uh with the right design.

Our limitation is that yeah, you know it's too, I don't recall whose question it was, the um the tetlows aren't in a position to build.

So we can't control what's built, but we can control where it's built.

Um, but the more restrictions you put on a site, then that's gonna have an impact on its value potentially.

So through the next stage, uh through the subdivision stage, uh granted that uh if this is approved this evening, is to continue going through that with staff and with the with the tetlows and with the um boroughs to the north.

There's been some discussions because you know, in imposing of views and privacy and all that, these are all things that we're trying to think about.

Um but when we uh read the letters, it was pretty clear, you know, that you yeah I think a lot large large large part of the concerns that people have are are that we haven't had this discussion first about here's what all of the plans are.

I believe Brian sent a letter out to the surrounding neighbors in December just sort of explaining this is what we're gonna be doing, going to be subdividing and there may have been an opportunity to to chat about that prior but hopefully we can at least put some of their minds at ease about the plan and what the intentions of the family are.

So I guess I'll just leave it there and and field any questions that I that I can.

When you were last here, Kyle, nice to see you.

Hello.

When you were last here, uh you I asked you if you had spoken to the neighbors to the north and and there's not a there's not a letter here from them.

So I'm wondering I'm one because they're they will be the most impacted by anything um that is done on this property.

And even if it's a park, you know it would mean um people you know parking in front of their place and then you know traipsing between their place and and the Tetlows.

Um, so where are they in this?

This is on here.

The um, so I believe it's the boroughs or maybe the bureaus, I'm not sure how to pronounce that best.

Um it's my understanding through Brian, and I I suggested that these are the most important people to talk to, set up a meeting, and and and unless I'm mistaken, he did that.

I wasn't uh wasn't invited to the meeting.

I wanted to attend, but I think that they just uh from what I understood, they were more comfortable just chatting with Brian.

And I believe they were that discussion was a little bit more about the sighting of the of the site.

I know he was asking for uh, you know, any letters of recommendation or or sorry, any letters of um what do you call it, support uh are great, and I think that's a tough thing for people to do when they don't know exactly what's going on.

And I think they did from what I recall, write a letter with the C with similar concerns that that were the uh didn't have their address with regards to the trees and blasting.

Those are the two things that continually come up trees and blasting.

So I believe they did did did respond with concerns.

And and I know you can't, you know, I mean it's I Mr Davies Mr Davies is you know presented a wish list of I I don't even know what to do with that.

Um but um and and I and you I the only person that could answer this would be Andrea and she can't but where would Andrea fall with this?

I you know I I know she was you know she was such a steward of of the park and so caring of her neighborhood and of View Royal and and she can't speak to this and I and I feel like there's a a real missing voice um in this discussion and uh so I'm at a bit of a loss that's all I have to say.

I could maybe recommend that Keith could could pop up and speak to that if she wanted to uh yeah, thanks for your uh your question um um I well, you know, my my mom is uh is now suffering from dementia and she's in hospital now.

So um and that's been going on for about three years or so.

And that's not entirely separate from the financial difficulties that my dad's experiencing at the moment as well.

Um it is kind of a it's an ironic thing.

Like I I know that my mom, her number one preference would be to give it to the park.

I mean, that would be the number one, or not give, sorry, to sell it to the park.

I mean, we have to get the money somehow.

So um so uh it's like a it's it's the best situation would be the V Royal would buy the property, and that would be her her highest uh aspiration.

Her and as Glenn said, uh the next uh highest aspiration would be to tightly control where a tasteful house would go and minimize the the uh impact on the environment and uh and the neighbors and so on.

And there is actually a place on the property that actually does fit this description where it's not blocking any views, it's off to the side, there's not a lot of overlook either because of the number the density of the trees and so on.

Um I know because I was around in 2005 when they um they donated the land, and they actually asked me for my permission to do so, um, in a sense, um being a son and being the heir to the to you know to the place, and it would impact me you know down the road.

And she asked me and my brothers if what we felt about it, and we supported it.

Um and but at the same time, we also understood that you know R1 zoning.

I mean, as I was an architect even back then, and uh R1 zoning, uh, we've got uh an acre, had an acre, gave 0.4 of an acre, gave 40% of the property away.

It wasn't easily developed, anyways, and it was on top and and it was beautiful and and it was easily accessed for the trail, actually goes right through that part of the of the park now, currently.

And um, I know that for a fact that they talked like you know about the future potential for development, knowing that it was the it's the largest piece of property on high street right now.

And so they knew that.

And my dad just hung on for years with it.

And you know, in in some ways, he's 86 years old now, and he should really theoretically be moving away from it, but he loves it there.

And so this allows him to um to stay longer and not be in financial duress.

And I think in some ways the points that Glenn Davies was making were the ones that we talked about as a group.

Like we're not trying to uh if we were actually trying out for profit, it would this would not be this application would not look like this.

Um we would simply sell the whole thing, they would build out the house, they would you know subdivide it at least two lots, and uh, and there wouldn't be a lot that anyone would say be able to say about that, and then put two monster houses on that without any permission, and that would be that.

Um, we don't want that, nobody wants that, right we don't want that for the neighborhood we don't want that for the existing house my dad wants to stay in with my brother and who by the way with my other brother who currently lives in England is going to be moving back and and taking care that's the plan of my older brother once my dad passes so it's kind of a family thing we want and that's this is the way to keep it in the family.

So that's uh I think and my no for sure that my mom would rather have that than than to basically sell it all and then I just like you know move to a uh a cheaper location or whatever and just uh you know take the money and run which we don't really want to do because that's not what we're about.

So hope that answers the question.

Thank you.

So Kyle, um I hear that uh you have a proposal with covenants um you know option two do you have a picture of what that looks like?

Uh yeah through the mayor the is that do I use that right yet?

I can I got that one.

Um the uh Jeff I believe has a uh an image.

We're sort of working on some draft areas just what call it massing if you will or call it locating shapes and sizes and amounts and that um this was one of our versions to sort of get an idea of percentages of protected lands and and how do we fit it?

What size envelope.

What we don't know is without getting into too much detail about how to Tetris these sites together.

But now you can be higher.

If you go single story, you need to be bigger.

You could be lifting up off the rock and working into the rock and negate a lot of blasting.

If you go narrower, you're gonna have more protected lands, but you it's good, the height variance or the height restriction is gonna force you down potentially.

And we wanted to show basically okay, if if we had an area to work within, what uh where would that be sited?

And then we just move this square around the site to sort of work with the rocks, work with the with the existing trees that are on site.

Um then from there we got into simplifying this a little bit and just saying I think we can accomplish a lot by a simple uh restrictive covenant cut covenant on the rear and on the front, just increasing those, essentially turning the set back from seven and a half meters to uh you know 15 meters at the back, and I think 16 or so on the front, and really trying to protect all those areas.

Thank you.

I don't see any more questions from counselors, and I think we have a um a list of correspondence that I think uh council has gone through.

Uh we need a second.

I'll second second for see the correspondence uh counselor mse uh all in favor receipt any opposed seeing none opposed so the staff recommendation um we need to have a comment yes sorry skipped comments from the public anybody that would like to speak on 81 high street and the um variants development variants permit i think the microphone is already on.

And to start just state your name and your address, please.

Dora Spiro, and I live at 89 High Street.

And we've lived there for the last um 52 years.

And Tetlows were there before us, and uh there was nine houses on the street.

They sold two properties.

One was the um the property across the road next to the Joneses, and the one down the street where they put the other subdivision in.

And so now there's about 30 houses on it.

I know Andrea and Brian very well, and I know Andrea's heart because I was there when Evi and her championed View Royal to buy 101 and make it part of the park.

She's always been a champion of the park and of all that goes on in it.

It's a very sensitive area.

Well, he lived in the neighborhood, Charles Kruzikov, who is an environmentalist, works for Royal Roads, and he did produce for Friends in Uncle Neil Park a plan for the park.

And it's really important for Bob and I to respect Andrea in Brian and uh all those that have lived on the street a long time to protect the integrity of the park and of the neighborhood.

My biggest thing has always been parking on the street, and I have written about it before to View Royal, and because it's a very narrow street, people are parking on both sides of the street all the time.

We have one entrance to Knock and Hill Park from View Royal.

And my heart would be is that you would purchase the property as a park and make it a place where people maybe could come and park a few cars there and walk up to the park and enjoy the uh all that there is to offer on High Street.

And uh I respect the Tetlows very, very much.

As I said, they have been our friends and our neighbors forever.

Our kids grew up together and played together.

But I guess uh uh from our concern, it'll change the dynamics of our property too, which we respect.

And we have about three-quarters of an acre on our property, which we don't intend on ever changing.

I don't think our kids after us will either.

But I thought you needed to hear our heart as well about that property and what's going on.

So I appreciate you listening to me.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public that would like to address counsel on the um 81 High Street.

This was never personal.

I live right across the street.

My letter was very simple.

And I just take offense to what you said.

Why is there a mortgage on the property, Keith?

You want to get personal?

Let's let's avoid any uh direct uh conversation.

This is that's not what it's here.

That's not why we're here.

We're talking about a uh a variance permit, and I realize there's sensitivities, but if you want to address counsel, then uh please talk to us about your letter or about your opinion.

I would love for you to buy the property.

If you want to put a fourplex on it, I'm fine with that.

I'm right across the street.

We're not against development.

That was offensive.

Name and address.

Your name and address, sir?

Thank you.

Anybody else like to address counsel on 81 High Street.

I think it's still on.

Um, I just have a general comment.

It's in related to development.

I'm not directly related to High Street, and I respect everyone's opinion, and more information has come out tonight.

Um, as a letter reader in the agenda, I don't get all the information.

We only see Gary Oaks fighting for the environment and things like that.

But what I wanted to say was regarding the development on High Street, I was happy to see that a good number of letters were received from residents in the High Street area, including one from the former mayor of U Royal, opposing this development due to the potential environmental harm this development would bring to the Gary Oaks and surrounding areas.

As one high profile resident, this resident stated in the letter there are more of us with these large lots in the area who could also benefit financially from development, but it seems like we should be considering the big picture rather than an individual homeowners's finances.

This is deja vu for the residents in the Harbor District, whose primary disagreement with the former draft OCP was the proposed rezoning of not one home on one lot, but instead the replacement of a neighborhood, just one block inside the Old Island Highway, without regard to the extremely mature Gary Oaks and the migrating birds community living within them.

If the big picture is to preserve our trees and lessen environmental impact, we should consider the impact for all projects, including those that conflict with the vision created by consultants who specialize in working with municipalities in order to reimagine what our neighborhoods should look like in a cookie cutter fashion when they obviously don't understand who we are and what we stand for.

And this is becoming more evident with more of these neighborhoods being impacted.

The constant rehashing of it in the media is not productive and it's not helping us move forward.

These conversations are very new on reinventing this OCP.

And there's just so many letters with when's it going to happen?

It should happen now.

What's wrong with this one?

Let's just stop talking about it and do it and move forward.

I think it's the most productive way to be.

On the evening of any meeting of the whole or council meeting, this room should be filled and letters received by those most affected by proposed bylaw or rezoning applications.

And council members should never minimize the importance of a single group of residents singularly affected because at any time it could be your neighborhood.

I guess we all at one time or another are saying to ourselves and others, not in my neighborhood.

No matter what your place is in the community, both past and present.

Second, on the proposed plan to put a moratorium in place for six months on rezoning applications.

I'm hoping every council member and people in the audience were able to have a chance to listen to Mayor Tobias this morning on CFAX 1070 because he explained in so much detail what this moratorium would mean.

It is not about not building in View Royal, it's about taking stock of what's going on right now with all the holes in the ground that are not being built and transportation issues.

We've got to take stock of where we're at and do it right.

I've never heard this council say they don't want to build.

And I just um wanted to say thank you for laying it out so concisely this morning because I understood better after listening to it.

And I think anybody who heard that would know that patience does not mean never.

That's all.

I can't start me.

Sorry, excuse me.

When you do Janet Darby, um 282 Palace here.

Anybody else from the public would like to focus in perhaps a little bit more on 81 High Street?

Specifically, yes.

Seeing nobody in the audience, Carl, we got anybody on the phone that would let us on the line about uh this agenda item.

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers at this time.

Thank you.

Uh I think now it's probably a good time.

We after reviewing uh correspondence we heard from the public.

Uh we could um start some discussion about it.

I'll move the recommendation.

Thank you.

Do I have a second or second?

Second for discussion.

So moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Mover, would you like to motivate?

Yeah, I I mean the reality is if they took down the deck, they could subdivide, and we could have one of those clear cut monster houses, lots built, and some and what they're doing is very reasonable.

Um in fact, and as we was talked about earlier, if the building was over a few feet, five feet, um this wouldn't even be coming to us for a variance because it would just be a subdivision application.

So I I don't see anything wrong with this application.

Um they're doing their best to preserve green space and trees and gary oaks.

Um yeah, so I'm I fully support this proposal application.

Thank you, Councillor Matson, Councillor Rogers.

First question to staff, please.

We've heard a uh a great presentation, and what impresses me is the willingness to um resize the building uh appropriate to the lot as well as um uh protecting what I heard 90 percent um of uh the area.

So would it be reasonable to make a a sub another uh condition or clause of the motion uh to include something in effect of um um staff working with the uh um the property owner, the developer, the owner, um to um sort out the uh covenant aspects um through you to the mayor um we are in the progressive doing process of doing that already so i i'm just wondering about um i would pref I would prefer to have a motion that um uh another clutch uh directing staff and um applicant to uh work on a uh a covenant protection further protection of um of the subdivided lot.

Thoughts.

Um through the mayor, this application is a development variance permit for the location of the building, and that's that's the main focus of the application.

So the tree impact for subdivision on other lot does not really relate to the sighting of the building.

Okay, thank you.

Pardon me?

I know I'm I'm still continuing.

Okay, so um speaking to uh I agree with Council Mattson.

Um this um um we heard an excellent presentation from uh the individuals involved.

Um, and I go way back, way back to uh the times um, and I think Council Mattson is the only other one, um uh this this council that was around, and we lobbied a development council to preserve 101 High Street.

It was a tough go.

We bought in TLC, the land, um uh Bill Turner, he worked miracles.

Um, 101 High Street dedicated this land to uh donate a permit in the will to the SPC in Ontario.

It was going to be a real horror show to do uh protect us and make sure it wasn't goodness knows, you know, the subdivision on top of the hill and in total blight uh to knock and hell.

So um one of the conditions of this development council was that uh they would buy it, they would agree, provided that there was a a restriction to subdivide a lot off it and get the money back.

In 2005, this is when Angela and uh Evie came in and gave us the land um, you know, to make it even, make it equal, and and tempt council just to write the whole thing off.

So the Tetlow's uh dedication is way beyond donating $400,000 worth of property to this park.

It's the bluff.

It's just as valuable as 101 High Street and what they preserved.

Andrea's dedication to the to the property and to Rexwell and his area and to the entire preservation of VRO is outstanding.

And I I think the um uh the option that they're providing, option two, is remarkable.

I really appreciate it.

The worst case scenario could have been they walked away, sold the whole thing, and bam.

You would have got the worst case scenario that we see in other places of Uroil where every tree is blasted out.

We have moonscapes in V oil that show that it's possible.

So we're getting the next best option and they've already given us the gift.

Green light.

I'm fully in support.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Is there any other comments on this one?

Councillor Nelly I I want to thank the neighbors for coming forward and clarifying for me.

That was that was a big question mark for me.

And um I my uh counselor Matson points out you know were the walkway not there this would be a non-issue so um I'm good to spite this.

Thank you.

Can I just say I went at uh Mayor screech's or Mr.

Screecher's recommendation?

I went to the back of the lot.

I saw the property.

I saw where the bluff was, and so I understood when I make this recommendation, it's because I read the letters and I seriously considered the input and I assessed it myself and I understand how this can be done.

So I think we've uh had uh the mover and the speaker and council of lemon speak.

We've had um I think we're ready to perhaps put this to the vote, and the vote would be uh uh that we're approving the staff recommendation uh and that it include the following condition that a legal agreement be registered to the title uh for uh building separation.

That's uh uh going on the recommendation of staff foe all in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries for agenda item 881.

Um yeah, if you were just here for that agenda item but didn't want to stay for the thrilling conclusion of the council meeting, you're more than welcome to leave now.

However, we more than invite you to stay.

Staff will turn it over to you.

Thanks, Mayor and Council, Sterling Square Community Planner presenting a development permit with variants for consideration.

The permit is for the consideration of construction of a multi-tier retaining wall for the purpose of stabilizing slope at 297 View Royal Avenue, shown in uh red on the aerial image on the screen.

Brief overview the site is 635 square meters.

Uh it's currently uh zoned uh R1, and uh the land use designation is uh large lot residential.

Uh neither of those are changing in this application.

Uh it is a waterfront property and has been experiencing over the course of years slope uh uh erosion, and that's part of the reason that uh the homeowner is looking to restabilize the slope.

It's also to ensure safe access and usable access to the uh to the waterfront.

So this is what the existing lot looks like currently.

Uh right uh hand image uh taken from the foreshore area upland of the property.

The image on the left shows the uh existing uh pathway and uh uh staircase down to the uh the waterfront.

Um the what is happening is over the course of the years with the uh tidal uh uh actions and uh storm surge events that do occasionally occur the uh the slope has uh slowly slowly been eroding and uh the slope is uh slowly moving back from the um uh the what is shown actually on that uh wall on the uh the right hand image and um the uh the applicant is looking to uh just ensure that the uh this uh doesn't uh continue to happen so the proposal is to uh remove the existing retaining walls shown at the top uh there uh remove the stairs and patio space uh the existing vegetation with the exception of any trees or any tree roots on the site uh and then add uh new retaining walls, a gravel pathway down to the waterfront, and new landscaping to re-vegetate the area.

This is a landscaping plan provided by the landscaper that is working with the applicant and it includes a variety of native species.

The question that came up at the previous uh community the whole meeting, where this was introduced in December of 2022, with some questions around uh the type of walls that were being introduced and their their longevity.

So I did confirm with the geotechnical engineer that the walls that would be introduced on the site, uh, as shown on the screen, are a flex MSC vegetated wall system.

Um, the intent of these types of walls is to be able to provide uh natural vegetation.

It grows quite easily on these walls.

The Gabian walls shown on the right hand side are to allow for stormwater runoff off the site into the into the harbor uh and allow uh natural tidal forces and and natural uh potentially storm surges to uh be absorbed by the wall without uh providing any uh or without allowing any erosion of the site.

So they work very well for for the site.

Um, in terms of uh lifetime, uh the geotechnical engineer said that they could uh expect, given the site conditions and the location that the the walls would last a minimum of 75 years before any uh maintenance would be required and uh potentially longer if uh they were they were looked at uh periodically um the proposed retaining wall shown on on site there is going to be uh kind of a multi tiered system and be better understood if I go to the next image so there'll be gabian walls at the bottom uh those ones with the uh the rocks uh and uh those will have uh uh vegetation inserted into them.

The next tier will have the flex MSC walls, uh, again a natural vegetative uh wall system, and then at the top of the slope will be uh a traditional uh retaining wall.

The applicant in proposing all this will require uh a variance.

So when we consider an application like this, because it's in the uh natural water course and shoreline areas uh development permit area.

We have to ensure that the application is following the development permit guidelines.

Uh, we also need to review how it's supportable with respect to the development or with respect to the zoning bylaw.

So, with respect to the development permit guidelines and the official community plan, uh it meets the following.

Uh the highlights being that there's no impact to any uh red or blue listed species.

Uh the uh application has been referred to both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of National Defense, both of them have provided uh conditional approval.

Uh the site uh or sorry, the the work is not going to disturb any site uh on-site trees or off-site trees, and there's not uh any noted uh native uh native uh species or uh uh animals that would be at risk for this development.

With respect to the variance, there's a single variance, as I said, and it is to uh locate the retaining walls within 15 meters of the present natural boundary, uh which is located at the rear property line, which is also uh where the uh the slope the is is located, or the the toe of the slope is located.

The reason that the variance can be supported is that uh it meets the intent of the OCP's guidelines.

Uh it's going to provide stabilization of the slope so no more no more erosion and uh there's not going to be any adverse impacts to the uh the surrounding properties.

So staff in conclusion have uh two recommendations for for council the first being the uh recommendation that the uh uh the permit be uh permitted with the reduction of the uh uh or sorry should reduce the minimum required setback from the present natural boundary of the sea uh for a retaining wall um from 15 meters to zero meters.

And then the second is that a uh a landscape security be provided, uh, and this would be uh collected as part of uh the development permit issuance uh and is uh a typical practice for uh uh landscaping works.

Uh and that is the conclusion to my presentation.

I will say the applicant is here tonight, um, but she has also brought her professional biologist, and uh if there's questions uh perhaps leaning towards the uh the biologist uh uh side of things, uh she can speak to that, and I can speak more to maybe the uh the geotechnical report or the um the arborist report uh that was provided.

And I I should I should clarify there was an arborist report for this, uh, then they provided uh sign off on the uh on the works.

Sterling, another excellent report.

So are you now the doc and and retaining mall guy?

Is that your specialty?

It seems like uh it seems like yeah, but you've done an excellent job on all of them.

So I'll commend you on that.

Um there are any questions for staff on on this one before we uh ask for the applicant.

So uh Council Rogers and Council McKenzie, please.

Sorry, with respect to landscaping, that's my focus.

So I guess that would be the applicant.

Thank you.

I have two questions.

My first one is from the image, the slope doesn't seem very steep.

So I'm not clear why it is necessary to extend into that protected zone.

Um, i.e., why can't the last retaining wall be within the the parameters that is the bylaw.

Uh through the mayor, uh the reason is partly for access to the waterfront, and the other reason is to ensure that the slope isn't uh erode.

That's that's the reason.

So the the requirement to have a variance goes from the property line at the rear, which is where the present natural boundary is, which is shown here, and the extent of that uh variance goes all the way to this area here.

The slope that the geotechnical engineer is working with is a two to one ratio, which is standard uh and doesn't require any variances, and they've spaced the walls in such a way that uh they meet the zoning bylaw.

If they were to reduce the amount of uh retaining walls, it would create a steeper slope and they would require more variances, uh, but they would also have to probably change the type of walls that they could be using.

Okay, thank you.

And my other question, it might be for someone else, but uh this would, from my understanding, would result in a hard shoreline at high tide.

And I recently attended uh intermunicipal climate action task force, and I was in that meeting, we discussed the um the hazards of having more hardened shorelines uh both to species.

It it actually increases the erosion over time.

So I was wondering if uh someone's is able to speak to that.

Uh through the mayor, from what I understand, reading the uh geotechnical report and the uh biologist report, um, I I think it's a bit different.

I think it actually supports uh uh coastal habitat um as opposed to this this proposal, the neighboring properties actually have a hard surface, uh concrete.

The OCP uh provides some feedback in this in this and guidelines in this in this area where the the worst case scenario is you actually are using that concrete gabian walls are considered a a moderate uh form of uh retaining um the uh of retaining the uh the slope but um if if there's maybe some more direct questions uh maybe uh uh lena can uh can speak to that thank you thank you other comments from counselors on this one uh seeing none um we could go to any comments from the applicant, please.

Okay.

Hi, I'm Lena Monquist from Sval Environmental Consulting.

Um, I'm the biologist that's working with the applicant, and uh I can answer, I'll try and answer some of the questions, and I could start maybe with the the choice of the Gabians.

Um I hundred percent agree, like Green Shore's approach is absolutely the preference where it's possible.

In the case of this property, we explored that with the geotechnical engineers, but because there's concrete walls on both sides of the property and the shoreline uh is eroding at a very steep angle, there's not the opportunity to successfully install something like a bioengineering approach here.

Yeah, it wouldn't survive.

And most likely what's happened is erosion has increased increased at this property because it is sandwiched between two concrete walls.

So what we've done is we've tried to take an approach that's sort of at a hybrid.

We're using uh the rock gabians, and then we'll be putting planting medium around the outside so that we'll be able to vegetate them with salt marsh vegetation on the bottom and then um more terrestrial vegetation over the top.

So it will help provide some balance between stabilizing the shoreline in this particular spot and um maintaining the shoreline habitat.

Council Rhodes.

Yes, so the Gabian wall would uh help rather than being a hard ricochet, it would be softening the ricochet and yes, it's it's much softer than a concrete wall or uh or a boulder stacked wall.

So it has um voids in it with from the rocks, and then also the vegetation will help to soften some of those impacts as well from um wave action.

Yeah.

Yeah, thank you.

I I read your report with great interest.

Thank you.

Um I was particularly uh um impressed with uh your uh focus on protecting the uh the native species, environment, uh birds, and so forth.

So um why don't we boost the native um shrub percentage from 67 to 90?

Well, part of my role is to work with the landowner to meet the development permit guidelines and to try and balance the the ecological um components of the property also with the the owner's uh intended uses for their property.

This is intended uses within the 15-minute natural setback.

And so technically, you know, we it would be if there were a bunch of trees, we would not want any of those trees out.

If it was uh all native vegetation, we would not want them clear cut out.

So why if I may, that's not what is there though.

What is there is existing retaining walls that are in extremely poor condition, eroding bank, and a lot of invasive species.

So it is a it's a great increase over what is there now.

And I think in terms of the uses uh the the applicant would need to respond to that part of it.

So it still doesn't speak to my point about restoring the natural habitat.

We got shrubs and no trees.

And that's, you know, I worked with the landscape architect to to try and create a vision for what the applicant is looking for while balancing the ecological.

So I'm not the decision maker on either side of this.

I'm I'm someone who's trying to make the best balance to meet your development permit guidelines.

Right.

So within the your the terminology that you use for preserving the natural habitat and the native species, songbirds, wildlife, and so forth.

Wouldn't trees that have been on both sides, and certainly we see as in the access going down to the water that we have, uh, trees would be a um an integral part of restoring the natural habitat, you know, for human abuse, let's call it that, over the years.

Um, you know, that's the way they've taken a 1950s approach of clear-cut.

Trees are certainly part of the shoreline ecosystem.

And if it was 100% a restoration project, where where we where we're where we were working in a park or something like that, that would certainly be part of the recommendations.

As I said before, we're trying to balance the use of the property for the applicant as well as meet the development permit guidelines.

Thank you.

I'm not satisfied.

Is there any other questions for the specialist or for the applicant?

Seeing no other questions, we could likely go then to um comments from the public.

Thank you.

Is there anybody in the room that would like uh to address the uh development variants for 297 View Royal Avenue?

Anyone in the room.

Seeing nobody, Carl will go on the line.

Is there anybody on the line wanting to speak to the variants for 297 View Royal Avenue?

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers on the board.

Move staff recommendation.

So moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Brown.

Discussion.

My only point is a huge improvement which currently is there and is going to make the environment better and sustain the shoreline.

Thank you.

Councillor Brown, did you want to motivate?

Any other comments?

Councillor McKenzie, then Councillor Rogers, please.

I actually uh just had a question.

I don't know if staff can answer this.

Um, however, uh the two neighboring properties with the cement walls, do we know how that came to be?

As if as that would have been a um in not in accordance with the bylaw as well.

Was that done a long time ago, I imagine.

Sterling, I think you're the man.

There's nobody else rushing for the microphone.

I uh unfortunately I do not have the history of uh with that.

I do know uh you know, there there is different uh different regulations that have come over over the years.

So um even working with the Department of National Defense, they they've flagged things from time to time uh that they don't have in their records.

So um it could be that those were built uh prior to our existing zoning bylaws, existing uh official community plan, but I'm sorry, I just don't have the history.

Okay.

Thank you.

And so if so if they were to need to update them or anything like that, would that need to come back to council?

Through the mirror, correct.

So all those those properties are subject to the same guidelines as as uh the subject property that we're talking to tonight.

They would be subject to an environmental development permit.

Depending on what they were doing with uh their property they could uh have uh variances and uh uh based on the walls that are there currently uh I would hazard a guess that they would likely need variances to the the the height of them but i can't say for certain great thank you we'll call it the new sterling standard for retaining walls council rogers yeah i'd I'd like to make a mo an amendment to the motion that uh the applicant uh be also uh required to plant um well some trees I guess that that it's a question of staff um uh to augment the and improve the natural habitat uh of that 15 meters through the mayor my only comment with that is that the geotechnical engineer has approved the plans as is.

If councils is proposing to add trees that may impact the design of the current walls, the walls that have been proposed and are approved by the geotechnical ear uh engineer uh take precedent over the the planting of vegetation in the sense that the the walls have been signed off for not having to retain uh weight bearing uh they're not they're not uh engineered, so they're not having to retain anything.

Uh and they haven't been considered with the uh the introduction of trees, roots, and whatever else.

So that would be my only comment.

There's no second or so.

We need a second.

I think if I can make a comment here, Councilor Rogers.

I think it's supportive of where you're going, but I think we're too late for this application.

And I I think we would have to have something in the OCP that would provide some guidance on there.

And right now we don't.

So uh I don't know much about geotechnical engineering, but some people do.

If sorry, if there's no second or that there's no discussion.

Correct.

So I'm just having staff and then we can have.

Yeah, uh thank you, uh Mayor Tobias.

Um I just wanted to um inform council of a particular design guideline that that does speak to that, and which states that for shoreline areas heavily impacted by previous development, target the restoration of ecologically appropriate vegetation for an average of 15 meters wide.

Um shoreline zone over 50 percent of the shore length, which I believe this application is meeting.

Okay, I'm not I'm not sure what you're saying.

Are you saying that it's trees are not allowed in this situation?

Um the design guidelines not speaking specifically to trees, it's speaking to vegetation, and we um we we um look at um the qualified professionals, so the qualified biologists to provide us with that guidance in terms of the best um vegetation um for that area.

Okay, we need to fix that.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

That could be a separate uh part, but not part of this.

Yeah, call the question.

Uh so we'll call the question now.

All those in favor of the development program.

Any opposed?

Uh noted that councillor Rogers is opposed to the development permit.

The uh variance permit passes.

Uh and I think we go to staff now for a signal re-timing implementation.

Ivan, I kind of thought it was you.

Tough crowd.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

Ivan the Young, Director of Engineering and Parks here.

Just speaking on behalf of this report that was uh written by Ben Luberts, our uh deputy director of engineer, and also uh uh he wrote the report and I was involved in design, so I'm speaking on behalf of himself.

Uh no presentation here.

This is basically to inform you of the traffic to signal timing um re-implementation implementation.

So the idea is to fully implement the trail crossing to have its own um its own phase, and in doing so helps uh mitigate and reduce conflicts with vehicles, uh, given the amount of growth we've seen, amount of usage that we've seen on the Gavin Goose Regional Trail.

Um it's in line with uh with us working with ICBC in the last couple of years.

Uh they are partially funding this work, and then the rest is done operationally, so no additional funds required for this.

Um, and happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Uh I've just got one comment.

Is there uh do we report back to CRD about this?

Because it's their trail, it's our roads.

Do we come up with the best practice or a standard whether you're on a trail on a bike or whether you're on a car, you'd expect to see the same behavior for that crossing.

Are we consistent?

Yeah, that's a good question, Mayor Tobias.

So we we certainly engage and consult with the CRD when it comes to the Gallup and Goose Regional Trail.

It's their trail, and there are a lot of crossings that um that many municipalities have through the Galloping Goose and the ENN.

Each one is generally different.

Uh the Burnside Waukes one is unique and um and is a challenging corridor.

It's uh basically acts as a conduit for the uh the the West Shore, which has seen considerable growth in the last five years, and that's the reason why we've had to uh adjust from time to time that intersection.

So uh long story short, yes, we do consult the CRD, and they have um basically agreed with us on this.

Counselor Brown, please, Councilor McKenzie.

I spent some time there.

I took a launcher and just kind of watched the traffic.

I'm very familiar because I walked through their lots, uh, drive through their lots and riddle a bike through there.

Uh I timed the the the walk signal, and you know how the walk signal gives you a warning like 10 seconds left and goes 10 nine down to down to zero.

But the bike one stays green for 10 more seconds uh on both directions.

So I mean bikes travel usually faster than walkers.

So I think that would confuse people.

People are turning left and they're seeing that the walk signals, you know, red hands up.

So uh they they they know not to turn or they can turn then, but then the bikes have the green.

So that's the biggest observation I made there was that 10-second difference.

I thought that was kind of weird, and and and both directions.

So yeah, uh Mary Tobias, that timing has changed and it now is uh more reflective with uh the pedestrian signal as opposed to the vehicle signal, which was what it was based on before.

It was like that last night.

The signals haven't changed yet.

Sorry?

Now I'm not now confused.

So the we have not changed the signal timing just yet.

Yeah.

Okay, we'll go to uh councillor McKenzie, then Councillor Lemon, then Councillor Mattson, please.

This is probably more of a rhetorical question, but um given that the update is required due to an increase in the use on the galloping goose, which is the CRD's trail, do they not also have some responsibility for the costs for this upgrade?

Okay.

Um yeah, thank you for the question.

Uh through the mirror.

Because it is our road, generally speaking, the answer is no.

The cost are borne by the municipality.

Um it's one of those ones where we we we should and shall consult with the CRD with respect to their uh the the trail because there's a lot of crossings, and as this as a result of that, there needs to be a certain mode of consistency.

Uh ultimately the given that the road right away belongs to the town in this case it is the town's responsibility to to make the upgrades council yeah thank you thank you Ivan um I've just a question uh around fresh and stale green lights and so just I'm just trying to to to picture it a fresh green light is one that's just gone green and a stale green light is you know on its way out, I'm guessing, but how does that affect um as it goes stale?

Help me understand how it affects traffic movement.

Yes, absolutely.

So uh a fresh green light is basically when flash is green, and vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists generally start from a speed of zero kilometers an hour to x kilometers an hour, depending on what kind of mode of transportation that you're in.

A stale green light is when the green light has been on for a while and that first slug of traffic has basically completed.

And what you're getting now is traffic that were basically 10 seconds ago from the from the light being just turning green, and there's instead of starting from zero kilometers an hour, they're starting from you know the speed limit it could be.

So, how the question you may ask is, okay, well, how does that affect the the traffic pattern?

And the answer to that is sightlines.

So when the speeds are the approaching speeds are generally higher, uh the sight lines required is also further.

So in this case here, if the and actually is this is what the town has done in the last few years, uh a lot of pruning of vegetation is actually taking place around the intersection because uh the the need to address the stale intersection was required in the sense that when a vehicle is going and doesn't have to slow down, they just go through intersection, they need to know where the pedestrian cyclones are at, cyclists are at.

And so, in order to meet those proper sight lines, we have to do some uh vegetation clearing.

Does thank you.

Hope that answers your question.

Yes, uh I'm I'm surprised uh that the town's taking the responsibility for the clearing.

That's really excellent because we need it at Camden, we need it at um uh Burnett.

In fact, when they were clearing in the Burnett, staff were doing that um with the contracted, they stopped.

They only did the town, they didn't clear the rest of the sight lines.

When and so yeah, I I'm really uh uh hoping that we get on with that, or the CRD does because the sight lines are terrible.

You know, with respect to this, um uh both the crossing guards and myself, we do um uh there a couple of times I do the bike count and I observe the cyclists and I observe the problems.

The problem is are we improving the signage, the information that's that's provided to pedestrians, motors, and cyclists.

Uh yes, that is correct.

There has been quite a bit of signage to help inform cyclists and pedestrians of how to operate the signal.

So uh for this particular case, um, cyclists don't necessarily need to press the button.

There are sensors there, and so what we do is have signage that basically blinks similar to what the city of Victoria does, it says, hey, okay, uh, this light's flashing, so the cyclist um uh phase will be in operation.

It'll it'll signal that bike signal.

So that will continue to be the case.

Um, in terms of signage, you'll notice that's in the reports that we're going to introduce a no right turn on red.

And so that has in the background been in the cards.

And the reason why it wasn't introduced before is because there were just weren't any around at that time.

It was very fairly new.

And to have it in a rural-ish area is it may lead to additional conflicts.

But now that we see a lot more of these signs around, San Anish and Victoria utilize them, now is a good time to incorporate that.

And that would uh basically mitigate the conflicts you'd see from right-turning vehicles crossing the Gallic and Goose intersection.

If I may so what we're doing is we're improving um the safety for trail users, so that's pedestrians, children, people, dogs, strollers, and the occasional cyclers, right?

So it's rock, stock, and barrel.

Yeah, it's all users at the trail.

The idea is to basically give them their own phase to cross without any vehicles crossing over.

And this is done in two ways.

One is to have that phase.

And the second signal, I believe, is that we're going to have a lead on a lead on uh signal, which means that when the signal goes for it for them to walk, that there's actually a delay from the traffic signals for the vehicles actually switching on.

And you do see that in the in Victorian Sandage as well.

So we'll be doing that.

Thank you.

I'll move uh staff's recommendation.

Second.

I don't have anything really further to, I think it's quite clear that this is necessary.

Any opposed.

So all in favor.

Thank you for the report.

Motion carries.

And I think we're down to mural themes now.

Sarah.

Great.

Hello, thank you.

Carl, if you could put up the slide, that'd be great.

So from May 3rd to the 31st, we had an online poll.

There were 771 responses on the nine themes that were identified at the May 2nd meeting of council.

So that's great.

A great response rate with 622 people uh indicating their support for the project to proceed, 90 people indicating that no, council shouldn't proceed with that, and 59 people that didn't answer the question at all.

Some people provided other themes, and that's provided in the report as well as an attachment, and other ideas and comments, with the comments ranging broadly from support and excitement.

They were commenting on the process and approach, style and design, and as well concerned for costs.

And so it's when you ask the question, you're going to get a broad range of responses, and we did.

And similarly, on the themes, some people did provide responses on the themes, and we've tried to aggregate them in the report around different uh areas, such as children, which were somewhat reflective, reflected in the nine themes identified, or some of the themes identified some of the nine themes identified.

Cultural, environment, fantasy, First Nations, heritage.

And again, as I said, some of these were already represented or discussed in the themes that were put out in the poll.

So these were getting a little bit more specific.

Heritage, marine movements, and causes, the nature and outdoor themes, other sport, transportation, tributes to different causes, and wildlife.

So again, a very broad range of thoughts and ideas that came forward.

But the slides you see in the report, and again on the screen in front of you, shows the ranking because it was a ranked poll, so people could move the different themes that were provided.

The first choice being trees or forest type of theme.

And again, you saw that come up in some of the other, you know, nature and outdoor themes that people articulated when they filled out their own ideas or thoughts.

You know, some native plants and flora and fauna coming out.

And so the first choice, and so the colors are listed across the top, provided the numbers in the report, but this is actually a much easier way to see what the responses were.

I was like, when I looked at the numbers, I'm like, oh, that's very difficult to discern.

But when you can see this, it's so much easier to see.

Um, so trees and forest uh receiving the the most first place ranking votes that came in, uh, and and then um moving to the the bottom of the list, and and they are listed in rank order uh here on the left, Craig Flower Creek, Children at Study and Play, Waterfront Ocean Harbor, Coast Salish First Nations Heritage, Multimodal Transportation or Active Transportation, a map of View Royal highlighting notable places, and View Royal's three sailboat logo received the least number of first um first choices in the ranking.

And so, and then the colors moving blue is you know moving down the ranking or the or more, you know, the ninth place vote.

So you can just see the the volume of votes based based on the colors and so before you uh the the the one that did get the most number of votes for the first ranking is trees and forest but the other item I did want to circle back to is an item that came up at the May 2nd meeting and that is uh would staff please reach out to ICBC and the RCP so we've done that and the RCMP have indicated um no no comments or concerns and ICBC uh quickly got back to us and both parties did it was great and uh indicated um they they they did have some feedback on the northeast side and and provided some comments of things we could we could do just to um come up with something on just the northeast wing wall uh for the approach and so we will be incorpor be able to incorporate some of that feedback into the call for artists and so um just so that people don't get lost in the in the color scheme or in any design so they stand out more uh crossing in that location so and again that actually and and we we had thought of that as the public had thought of that too in their comments and feedback when I mentioned they'd commented about um uh approach you know people had commented well try and keep the you know the theme fairly clear and and not too distracting and keep the colors, you know, fairly clear and and don't put in too much detail.

So we we will keep that in mind in the call to artists.

And of course, council does have, and and um as does the ICF uh get to weigh in on what the final is.

So we will be moving forward.

But next slide, you will have the the motion in front of you in your agendas and also on the screen.

And that is that um the the most responses for the trees and forest theme be the one that that is the basis of our call to artists that go out uh for the app uh for the mural.

Thank you.

Uh Council Loven.

I think this is great.

Thank you, Sarah.

I'm thrilled with the the responses.

Uh it's it surprises me and really pleases me that so many people got back.

Um I'm a little surprised that trees and forest was number one, but that's that's what we got.

And I have, you know, you you need to put the call out pronto.

So I'm prepared to um move the staff recommendation.

I'll second it.

Thank you.

So uh moved by counselor Lemon, seconded by Counselor McKenzie.

Uh I had my own comment that just looking at it the other day, it is prepped and ready to go.

And my fear is that if we don't select artwork for it, artwork will be found on it that we don't choose.

Uh and uh and so I think it's important to move one way.

And I uh a comment to the public that this is being funded, I believe, out of casino revenues, which doesn't mean your taxes go up because we're paying for a mural on on this.

It comes out of our our revenue uh from the casino.

Uh and and the other concern I think folks had was on on choosing the theme.

And I think we've done a thorough uh examination and opened it up to the public for engagement on that.

I think we actually had more participate in that and the feedback on our taxes.

So that's saying something.

So that that's where we sit.

So we got a mover and a seconder mover, would you you've already motivated a little bit.

Um Councillor McKenzie, would you like to say anything more?