Council Meeting

Thank you very much.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the folks in the hall here.

It's nice to see people back in the hall.

It's been been a long time that we haven't been able to have public in.

So I'd like to begin by recognizing the Lakwangan speaking people known today as the Squamalt Nation and Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

So for the people who are viewing and wish to call in tonight during public participation, you can dial the number on your screen, and there's the conference ID number there as well.

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

And then you can give us your name and address for the record and give us the benefit of your views further.

For the 373 Island Highway DP, there is a specific portion on the agenda for people to speak to that.

So both for people in the room and on the phone.

If you wish to speak to that, you can speak to that right when it comes up.

And I think with that, by participating in this webcast, you are consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

And so with that, I need a motion to approve the agenda, please somewhere there's item.

Did we add those two items?

Sorry, I missed those.

There, they're already on the on this agenda.

Okay.

Yeah, thanks.

Yeah.

Okay, moved by Councillor Lemmon, seconded by Councillor Mattson.

All in favor opposed that's carried and then we have minutes october 5th and october 12th adoption thank you moved by councillor rogers seconded by councillor koalowich comments corrections no all in favor opposed that's carried mayor's report i'm just gonna comment briefly on 275 curwood and and a petition that we have on our agenda tonight and and just for the folks who signed the petition, especially, I just want to be clear about a few things.

So when a development permit is issued by the town um it is staff's job to make sure that the plans are in compliance with what was approved at the council meeting.

And like any building project, you know, like building inspections, there would be times when there would be inspections done to ensure compliance.

And if there were problems, those would be flagged, and staff would deal with those accordingly.

And I think it's really important to point that out that it's every property owner is entitled to fair and due process and orderly conduct of business.

So in this case, there are some questions by the neighbor of whether or not their develop their other neighbor's development permits is in compliance, and those will be dealt with in due course.

But it's not a public process, and we won't be talking in a public meeting about bylaw enforcement on an individual property in View Royal.

Staff will bring back a report in the future on it if there's a need to, and then we will look at it.

But I will say, because I was on this property myself this morning, and the petition mentions that the walls are twice the approved height at over 10 feet.

There's no wall on that property that is even close to 10 feet.

So that is just simply inaccurate.

And I think it's unfortunate that information like that was put in a petition.

You know, the it's a difficult situation.

Staff are working hard, and everybody's rights are important, both the neighbors and the people who are building next door.

And we will ensure at the end of the day that what was approved was built.

And I did send an email directly to one of the neighbors right at the beginning that I personally would make sure that that happened.

So I don't understand the petition suggesting somehow that the town is not doing its job.

And frankly, I don't think it's fair.

So that is all I have to say about that.

So we will carry on to petitions and delegations.

And we have Mr.

Copathorne, I believe.

So come on up to the mic if you like.

Thank you, your worship and council, counselors.

Do you mind if I take my mask off?

I think it's fine given where you are.

Yeah, it's hard to represent the strata uh Gibraltar Bay Strata.

I'm president of strata council, and with me tonight is Barb Severin.

She's our vice president.

We're here here, we're here this evening to ask for your assistance in maintaining a mutual walkway from the Palmer Station Cul-de-sac and Gibraltar Bay to the uh gazebo on the waterfront.

Uh Gibraltar Bay Strata and the uh town of Fu Royal back in 2010 uh jointly built the walkway from Palmer Station to the gazebo, and it became an attraction for people in Uroyal, both in the strata and outside, to walk up the walkway and have a viewpoint there.

And it's it's very, very nice place.

Um we've we've had some expenses over the past few years with with our walkway.

Um we've replaced tiles.

Uh there's a handrail that was installed originally that has had to been painted.

The gazebo at the end on the water, we've repainted it and we've re-roofed it.

And we've picked up those costs.

And in 2009, they've identified that due to settlement tiles loosening, rocks shifting, that sort of thing, that they've estimated that about $4,300 will be required to pair repair the walkway.

Uh the handrail again will have to be repainted in the amount of $2,700.

And in 2029, which is about 20 or 30 years after the gazebo was built, it will have to be replaced for a cost of $15,000.

So the Gibraltar Bay strata is asking the town of Uroil to participate with us on a 50 50 basis for these uh future capital costs.

Uh, we we went with the walkway together, uh, and and we're hoping that because it's a town viewpoint and that residents of all residents of U Royal uh use it and come out there, that you'll share with us in the strata in these costs, uh, we find that probably more people come up View Royal Avenue from View Royal to view the viewpoint and to go up that way than than the residents do.

We are 72, but uh uh there are a lot more people than we use it in the summertime.

Uh one of the things that's become a problem the last few years is because of the use in the summertime.

A lot of people come up View Royal Avenue and they bring their dogs and their their pets, and uh unfortunately they leave their coop bags behind.

Uh so our our council pays our gardener to look after this, pick it up and that kind of thing.

But we're hoping that we might be able to talk uh the town into putting a garbage container at the Palmer Station entrance to the walkway, just so that uh people when they come out or with with their dog bags, et cetera, can deposit it in the container.

And then we're not asking for anything more than what would be at a normal bus stand, and maybe it could be picked up at the same time when they do the the bus stands.

But uh the other thing that we'd like to talk to you about as well is liability insurance.

Um we we we have found talking to your engineering department that there was never an agreement put in place over the maintenance of this walkway, it was just a cost-sharing thing.

Um, and we're concerned about liability insurance.

If somebody gets hurt from View Royal that's not a resident of Jilver Gibraltar Bay coming through, uh who pays for for that?

I mean, we we all get sued, but but does the town have insurance?

I know we do, but we we were hoping going forward that we could make sure that proper insurance is in place because it's all residents of View Royal that get to use the cacibo, not just those that live in Gibraltar Bay.

Um that's that's my my presentation.

Um we've thank you for your participation up till now in in helping us build that walkway.

It's been great for the community, and uh we're just looking for some support going forward.

Uh we've paid all the costs on our own to this date, the first 19 years of of Gibraltar Bay.

And with this depreciation report coming forward, uh, we're just concerned that there's some costs there that that that should be shared by by all the user.

I'm open for any questions.

Okay, thank you questions councillor lemon well I have a question actually it's probably for staff and what the original um agreement when when it was built was it 5050 cost share or nothing probably don't no one was here then except 2010 I believe from memory I can answer that oh okay I'll ask it was 5050 it wasn't uh the construction of the walkway was twenty five thousand dollars and it was filled 5050, and then the handrail after that was uh eighty five hundred dollars and the town paid for that, and and the Gibraltar Bay strata paid half that back.

So we're we're close to being in for $35,000 original costs.

Thank you.

Okay.

Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, um, I would uh move that um uh we uh ask staff to work with uh the strata uh for that uh purpose of uh 50 50.

Um I think it's in good spirits, and and uh I you're absolutely right.

Um all of you all um harbor area really enjoy that, and I think we have a responsibility to help you with those costs.

Thank you.

So I think so moved.

I can second that.

Yeah.

Okay.

So then let's discuss it because I personally don't think that's the best course of action.

I think we should be referring it to staff.

Um, but at any rate, the mover and the secondary can go ahead and speak to it.

I'll I'll add to what I said.

But like any viewpoint, we've um we have we bear um responsibilities and ensuring its safety.

Um I the point that I would like staff to uh certainly so I'm I'm certainly interested in in and supportive of maintenance and and repairs and so forth, we and replacing the gazebo.

The liability, I think uh we probably need more of staff's uh assessment on.

Um uh that's an unknown to me, but the rest of it absolutely makes perfect sense.

Councilor Lemmon.

Yeah, I I I think like so many of our um our waterfront access points, it's a gift and it it's a it's a real jewel, and I can understand how um it's become um certainly burdensome for you in but when it comes to dog owners and irresponsibility.

So um I yeah, I I would be supportive of us paying half the freight.

Thank you.

Yeah, personally, I think I need to send this to staff and have some comments, and I guess that we'd have to also need a discussion in terms of you know how does this fit in in terms of a town's priorities, and even if we wanted to do this, uh you know, you know, would we want to build a would we want to say rebuild the gazebo or and pay for that, or is just a lookout with the bench sufficient?

I mean, there's a lot of questions that I think you know we should get information from staff before we make any sort of financial decisions, not the least of which is the cost and what takes priority in terms of all our parks plan.

And and there is uh I'll let Councillor Kowalovich go, but there's also just a very, I mean, we cannot commit a council in 2029 to funds.

So I mean there's a very basic practical approach as well.

Counselor Kowalovich?

I just don't know enough about it yet to really to really make a decision.

I think um I've been there and it's it's absolutely gorgeous.

I mean, we can all agree on that.

And yes, it's it's probably uh an amenity used by a lot of residents, and then I'm interested to hear staff's take on it um with uh due course.

So I I guess for me, I'm actually going to vote against this motion, but I'd be happy after this to support a motion referring it to staff.

I think you've got several.

I mean, you're asking about the insurance and the garbage can, and those should just be referred to staff for for feedback.

We can't fetter another council, so I mean it would be wrong for us to promise you uh the funds and for you to plan on that.

So staff need to think about that and factor that into what we can do.

Um, but I I do fully support the the concept that we should be prepared to help the strata, but I don't think we're quite there tonight of approving doing that.

So I'm gonna call the question on that motion.

So all in favor okay, and all opposed.

So counselors Matson, Mayor Screech, and Councillor Kowalowicz opposed.

I'd like to move that we'd send this back to staff for a report.

Second.

So it's being referred to staff to report back to us.

Okay.

In speaking to that motion, I I didn't actually ask you yet, Councillor Rogers.

Counselor Madsen.

Um I have nothing further to say in terms of you counselor Kowalowicz.

Nothing further.

Okay, Councillor Rogers.

Thank you.

Uh yes, I I I certainly hope that um we can work out something.

The uh the idea of fettering a future council, we have so many uh um agreements and and commitments to all sorts of agencies.

Um so this this is um uh not a case of fettering, it's a case of ensuring that uh the town as a whole, the harbor and all of the residents um can enjoy this because otherwise, you know, I I think um you know the side has every uh every case to close it.

Well, they don't actually, but I mean why would you anyhow?

Let's not debate it now.

But this council cannot agree, it's just simply impossible to advance funds in 2029.

It's outside of anything we even the town runs on a five-year financial plan.

At any rate, staff will look at it, um they'll probably engage you in discussion, and they'll bring it back to us, and I'm sure we can figure out a solution that works for everybody on it.

Thank you for coming.

So thank you.

And it is nice to see you here in chambers.

So next up we have public participation.

So I'm going to go to the people in the room first, but for the people at home or on the telephone, this would be the time to call in.

So you're going to dial 778-402-9227.

And then when prompted, you're going to enter conference ID number 683 714 037 pound.

And for folks in the room, this is your opportunity to speak to any item that is on the agenda tonight, with the exception of the 373 Island Highway.

No.

So is there anyone who'd like to speak?

No.

I I spoke last week.

Right.

Okay.

Were you all?

I I was rapidly paying attention at home.

Yeah.

Shouting at the computer monitor.

Okay, then.

Is so okay.

So is there anyone on the phone staff?

Your worship, we have one caller with the last four digits, five, four, nine, three.

I think that's our our person who likes to listen, but not to so, but I'll try caller with the last four digits five four nine three do you have anything you'd like to contribute five four nine three no thank you your worship just listening again okay thanks very much okay and so and then if there's no one in the room then we will move on to staff reports which is the development variance permit for 373 island highway and I didn't sense much concern about this at that committee of the whole.

Um, so we'll be we need to go through the process and just give the public the opportunity.

Thank you, your worship.

It's Jeff Chelsea your planner.

This is uh an application for development variance permits to change the definition of grade for a detached dwelling at 373 Island Highway.

And uh this air photo shows the subject property, which is one of uh part of a three-lot subdivision that was approved earlier this year.

Uh, this particular parcel is at the low point of the property adjacent to Island Highway.

And the air photo shows a number of contours that shows it's it's um in a bit of a hollow around the surrounding properties and the uh the existing dwelling at 369 Island Highway.

It's also adjacent to High Bank Park on the uh on the west end.

Uh this site plan shows that the driveway is accessed not off Island Highway but a shared driveway for 369 Island Highway.

And as a result, the driveway rises up the property up the slope, uh, but the site of the building is actually uh under the existing grade is lower than the uh the grade of the slope driveway.

The building permit has been submitted for a 278.2 square meter two-story building over a crawl space and includes a secondary suite.

Uh the request is to change the definition of grade from the weighted average of the existing or finished grade, whichever is lower, to uh 13.53 meters geodetic or finished grade, whichever is lower.

This illustration shows the current scenario where without the variance, the relationship of the proposed building on the right to the to kind of a representation of the existing building on the left.

And the blue line shows where the where the main floor of the proposed building would be.

So this drawing shows that the building would still be lower than the existing building.

This is a photo here that shows site photo that shows the uh property entrance of 369 Island Highway where the shared driveway is.

There's a yellow line that shows the proposed main floor elevation and shows that is now the photo here shows um shows the extent of the proposed main floor elevation about the site that's already been excavated.

So the extent of the variance is not as great as shown here because uh because some excavation and site preparation has already been done.

And at the far corner of the site is um it's the uh the existing the where the where the excavated area is about 1.4 meters below the uh the natural grade.

The approval of the variants would reduce reduce the uh steepness of the access from the shared driveway.

Um the application can be supported in this case because the main floor elevation would still be lower than the main floor elevation of the existing dwelling.

The owners of the property at that property uh that would be the most affected have provided a letter and support, and the building would have no direct visual impacts on other adjacent dwellings because those are all uh farther away and further up the slope.

If the application is approved, a condition is it's recommended that the development variants permit include in condition to um to restrict the height of the crawl space um between the floor and the underside of the floor just above to not exceed 1.5 meters at any point.

The intent of this is to raise the entire structure up as opposed to having a taller crawl space.

So the recommendation is to uh approve the application um to vary the definition of existing grade to 13.53 meters geodetic or finished grade, whichever is lower, and include the condition that we just spoke about.

That concludes the presentation.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chow.

Next questions?

Move staff's, recommendation.

Just hang on half a sec.

Okay.

We've got to do the public.

We have to go through the process, yeah.

So there's no questions for staff.

Okay.

Does the applicant wish to make any comments?

You don't, I don't think you need to.

Okay, thank you.

And there's so is there any public who would like to speak to this, either in the room or on the phone?

Staff, do we have any callers on the phone?

So no, your worship, we have no new callers.

Okay.

So I think we can probably move on.

So there's no correspondence.

So yeah, if you'd like to make that recommendation, Councillor Cowalowicz, would you remove the recommendation?

Yep.

Okay, moved by Councillor Kowalowicz, seconded by Councillor Matson.

That's carried.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Thank you.

And next up we have nine Erskine Lane Soil Roval.

And something tells me this one's not going to be quite as easy as the last one.

Thank you, Your Worship.

Uh, my name is James Davison.

I'm the community planner here at the town.

It's very nice to be back in the room with you all.

It's been a while.

Uh, this uh this report is presenting a soil removal permit for nine Erskine Lane.

So any excavation over 500 cubic meters in volume in the absence of a building permit uh requires council approval.

And and the expected removal is just shy of 23,000 uh cubic meters.

So the applicant submitted a building permit which did not sufficiently meet the development permit that council had approved earlier this year.

And as such, they do not have an approved building permit in hand.

Typically, such things as tree removal and soil removal are managed in conjunction with a building permit, such that no separate permits are required.

In this case, the the applicant wants to prepare the site, and they do have they have gone through the tree removal permit, and now they are requesting soil removal permit process.

So the proposed removal is consistent with the approved development permit.

The issue here is that our soil deposit removal bylaw wasn't drafted with this scale of removal in mind.

That is, there is a maximum $10,000 limit on security for the depositor removal activities.

Whereas staff anticipated somewhere covering the cost of putting back material to the existing condition would be somewhere close to a million dollars, we suspect.

To remove the town's risk, staff is recommending that the permit carry the condition that the town receive security for 120 percent of an estimate uh provided by their contractor to return to this the site to its existing grade.

And that estimate must be acceptable to uh director of engineering or director of development services so uh the recommendation is that council approve the soil removal permit uh with a condition that that security of 120 percent of a estimate that is acceptable to uh directors is received thank you okay jib just so we're clear so in the scope of normal business if if they were issued a building permit this would all be incorporated within that building permit.

That is correct and and would there be the same need for that that security at that point or no?

This this is because of the fact that they they they're not asking for a building permit.

That's correct.

The risk is that the town is left with large holes in the ground.

Right.

Director Rosenberg?

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship.

I was just gonna comment that uh part of that building permit process requires a servicing agreement with the engineering department, which generally would be in the million plus range, and that also helps carry that security for the work to be completed.

Right.

Okay, thank you.

Questions, Councillor Matson?

Yeah, I'm just curious.

23,000 cubic meters, it seems like a lot, but so how many truckloads are we talking about?

Probably about 23,000.

Really?

What?

Good part.

Divided by 10 is 2300.

2300 thanks, Jenny.

Yeah.

So my my follow-up question is uh so are we having there's going to be requirements for the loads to be covered uh so we aren't getting debris on the road etc.

So 2300 trucks again seems like a large number how do we accommodate that with the existing traffic and not totally destroying the road and you know safety all those other good things I think for the most part it'd be pretty innocuous.

I I know it sounds like a lot.

You wouldn't fill, I mean the size of hole that that takes would not be filled in in a day.

That that would be a month or two's worth of work.

So you know they they'd be delivering a hundred trucks a day to the site kind of thing and they'd have to compact that work.

So you would I mean you'd see the hundred trucks but you know that's throughout the day you take an eight hour day that's you know uh 10 or 12 trucks an hour coming in um and leaving the site so um you would notice it but certainly not on the roads other than on Erskine would uh you see it but but they would have to comply with our rules of of not dirtying the roads certainly once we undertook the work then they have to have a uh a permit to do the work, they'd be required to clean the roads if they were muddying the roads.

It's it's wouldn't be a fast process.

Um, we'd take deposits.

I mean, assuming we were doing the works ourselves, then we'd be hiring the contractor um and so on.

And if not, if they did, then they'd have permits they'd have to apply for, and then we'd have various bylaws to hold them to.

My last question is to staff on this.

So given the narrowness of the road, um will there be you know people at the road constantly to make sure that the all all safety issues are dealt with and not running into pedestrians and getting in and out of that road properly?

I wouldn't anticipate the need at um eight or nine trucks uh an hour.

Again, that's you know, that's a truck every five minutes, six minutes.

Um, I I wouldn't see that need, but again, at the time when it was required, we would look at those types of things and see if that was a need, but I wouldn't anticipate it would be.

I um uh thank you.

Counselor Rogers.

You know, is that did they give any reason why they haven't put in uh or they did put in a building permit, but apparently there's enough disparity that um staff want more details.

Is that how I read it?

Through your worship.

Um the the building permit needs to meet the the drawings and the requirements of the development permit, and the building permit did not.

There was some discrepancy with bicycle parking, uh, with the design of the building in terms of balconies and some retaining walls, and the applicant needs to come back with a development permit amendment, which they have not done yet.

Yeah, my my concern with this um uh jumping, it's kind of like jumping the gun.

Um if there was a building permit, then all the things the contractual wouldn't um have to go through this process, they wouldn't have to be putting in uh the uh financial security.

Um, and um I think the road cleaning contract would be part of that.

This would be um uh the safety personnel is and when required.

Um it seems like we're um we're doing the uh the folks a favor, but um it's it's you know hope and a prayer that uh everything goes right.

So I'm not really um and I uh the other two questions I have is um there's a lot of very valuable soil being taken off.

And I would imagine that when it comes time to replanting uh the trees that uh that they're committed to replanting, um one would think that they would stockpile this very valuable soil and uh replenish the uh the the trees that um you know for those trees rather than this you know for lack of better term, um problem garbage uh soils that we uh we we bring into V Roll.

Um is there a commitment of being able to move this soil off-site for to keep for later and uh restoring the uh the the landscape and the vegetation?

So we wouldn't have that requirement uh as part of the activities.

We don't direct them on how to do their business um so that wouldn't be part of the process well i i guess i you know since they're asking for the favor I think we could uh you know reciprocate with the uh the expectation um i i think we need to focus council with respect on on the issue that's before us rather than on peripherals and well the roads the safety the soil i mean if if that would all be happening as a regular course of business yeah director chase thank you your worship i just wanted to reassure council that your your existing soil deposit and removal bylaw already includes provisions with respect to repairs uh of damage uh cleanliness um and and the like.

So those are those are all things that are are part and parcel of that bylaw, which is why our report doesn't specify those as conditions, because that's an expectation of a permit being granted should it be granted by council.

So I just wanted to provide that reassurance.

Anything more, Councilor Rogers?

No, I'll reserve my comments later.

Councillor Lemmon, did you have something?

Well, just a question, thank you um are in in those 2300 trucks, will that include, and and this is I just simply don't know this.

Will that include soil alone or will it include blasted rock uh the material they're um removing would include blasted rock uh the material they would bring back to fill in the hole i it's anybody's guess what it would be okay thank you James thank you your worship to clarify our our soil in terms of the soil uh deposit removal bylaw does include rock and and so soil and rock right my understanding of why they're asking for this is simply because they they are aware that the of what they need to fix with the building permit and that is going to take a little while to get those in place with staff and this allows them if it's approved to continue working on the site basically um until that but it but it also it requires them to put up a monumental sum of money for that that privilege of of continuing to work on the site did you have anything counselor qualovich no no okay um you we should be made made point of the um amount of money how much would the security B.

My understanding is it's in the area of a million dollars, but I don't think it's been determined yet.

Yeah.

Do we have a sense?

Is it is it around a million?

I would say for sure, 2300 proposals.

So what's council's pleasure?

Second.

Okay, so it's moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Kualovich.

Any discussion?

Good.

I'm satisfied with staff's assurances.

John?

Yeah, no, I'm I'm in in some senses I'm I'm okay with it, but um in the regular course of business, uh, we would have a building permit um which would take care of um all these things.

So um no, I I think a building permit is still required beforehand.

Okay, fair enough.

I I have some missing.

I'm gonna vote in favor of it, but I I have some misgivings as well because I would prefer to see a building permit, but I also know how anxious they are to get the project underway and if this facilitates doing that in good faith.

Yeah, right.

On my left, anyone no?

Okay, so all in favor, opposed.

Council Rogers, both opposed and in favor.

Yeah, uh I'll make up my mind.

So moving on to the Chilco Park, we just need a motion to receive from last week.

So moved.

Second.

So that's moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Kwalowich.

We're not gonna go into a long explanation of this one.

You not no, I think it was pretty clear last week on the the meeting.

Yep, yeah.

I'm prepared to receive it and and um because I don't I agree.

I don't think Choco Park is the right location.

Um, but um as um I hope members have seen um the the letter from um uh from the neighborhood uh does um I think shed light on uh a very very um distinct possibility and and hopeful that we could um um work towards getting that uh off leash park um on what we terminally at this moment call the Theous Lake Goldflow uh parking lot.

Um so I I have prepared some notes for for the council.

I don't know if you had a chance to review it, but um, you know, I would certainly hope that we would um because in in looking at yeah, so before we get too carried away on that, I mean we're not going to debate tonight the merits of putting the off leash park on Atkins Road.

Um we can certainly receive the report and we can refer this document that you prepared to staff as they work through the process of identifying off leash possibilities within the town.

So I think that would be the best thing.

So if you want to amend the motion so that the Chilco Park could be received and that this document be prepared be referred to staff for their consideration, I think that's fine.

Yes, that's still moved.

Okay.

So that's the amendments moved and seconded by Councillor Lemmon.

Okay, so all in favor of the amendment.

And I'm a opposed.

And I'll say you want to vote against the main motion.

Well, and I also wish to have the opportunity just to make a comment on the main motion.

Yep, go ahead.

So you're speaking to the main motion.

Yeah, just um, I mean, so what we had was 68% of the people who were signed a questionnaire wanted it.

And of those 62% of that total, 62% lived in the Chilco area.

And because we've had some people who don't like it who happen to live close to also within that area, we're now just forgetting to, we're just going to ignore that whole questionnaire and the wishes of the 67 or 8% of the 430 people who uh signed or who put in for the the in the questionnaire.

And I just think you know, when we go to the trouble of actually getting input from the community to just simply ignore it the way we have in this instance, I think that's the wrong message to send to the public.

Yep, yeah, fair enough.

I um I don't know if anybody else wishes to speak to it, but you I'm certainly happy to say a few words.

Counselor Kwalowich.

Well, I won't necessarily repeat everything we said uh commemorate the whole, but um to Councilor Matson's point, I mean, I think there still is some value in that survey because what it does is it lets us know that there is some desire to have a dog park in that area.

So uh we know there's support there.

Uh you know, clearly we we've come to a conclusion but that uh it won't be in the Choco Park, but we know that that area wants some type of a dog park.

So I I I still see value in it.

Councilor Rogers.

And I I will say I I understand um again what uh counselor Matson is saying, and and I don't think we ignored it.

I think we carefully considered um uh the aspects to it.

And I I believe residents have inspired us to uh to look for an even better solution that is even better for the entire community.

And I guess from me briefly not to belabor it, but I mean that park to me and that development surrounding it is such a success story.

And it's loved and it works, and I just don't know why we would want to interfere with that.

And I think there are possibilities to put an off leash area probably not too far away.

And we can make it work.

And I do think on surveys like that that the people who directly border the park, I mean, I don't know if you give them 10 points as opposed to someone who lives in Nursery Hill, one point, but I do think the people who are most impacted, you need to pay, you know, to my way of thinking, they they get extra weight in the process.

And certainly from what I could hear, they they had a lot of very credible concerns.

So with that, I'm gonna call the question on the main motion, which is just that this be received and and John's document on the Atkins Road be forwarded to staff.

So all in favor, opposed, councillor Mattson's opposed.

Um the next is the financial policies review.

Okay, thank you.

Second okay, that's all good.

All in favor, opposed.

That's carried.

So the these now, watching this last week, the this whole thing of the budget initiatives was really confusing, and I'm not sure that these motions that were about to pass are even more clear.

So my understanding was that I got the impression that the idea of at least finding out what's involved and what the cost might be of doing extending the bike lanes on six mile road did actually have support around the table.

Is that not true?

Yeah.

Okay.

So that was item number one on that list.

I think just hang on a second.

Yeah.

Um, I don't have that list in front of me anymore, but I think it was item number one.

So my my suggestion would be that we we pass a motion saying that you know item number one is is endorsed for costing and to be referred to the budget process.

Actually, I thought we said in terms of what we decided last week was not to do that.

Well, I mean it was put it on the list, but not for this fiscal year because we couldn't afford it.

Yeah, well, no one no one's talking about doing it yet, but just simply exploring what would be involved and what the costs would be.

Director Rosenberg.

Thank you, worship.

That currently is in that uh corridor study as uh an item to be considered.

So, in in theory, council will have the ability during the uh five-year financial plan that's coming up to push that particular item forward if they wanted to.

So it will be in there.

It it is currently in that study, and it is part of that long-term plan for that corridor.

So council could have that discussion at that time during uh the five-year financial plan.

Okay, thank you.

Well, that's fair enough.

Then that's what you wanted to have.

Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, uh that that was my understanding as well for number one.

And and I thought we'd also uh again, uh members can help me, but I thought we'd also um directed the second one, which was um the sidewalks on on Burnside.

Um, just after staff have now got the active um transportation plan.

No, as someone watching, I can assure you that that didn't seem to be the consensus.

That staff did say that there was a a study in a plan for Burnside that already exists, which does show sidewalks on both sides, but that there's no intention at this point of including it in the financial plan.

Yeah.

So then if that's the case, then I think this recommendation is but the the whole game road.

So why don't we move the first part for a good will someone move the first block that the committee recommend to council that the four items identified not be included in the 2022 to 2026 financial plan.

So moved.

Okay, so that's moved by councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemmon.

Yeah.

So everyone's okay with that.

We know that the bike lanes will be there anyways, and the other ones at this point, we're not putting into the financial plan.

That's carried.

Okay, so all in favor?

Opposed.

So the the last one, I mean, to me, should be the staff report back at a future date of opportunities for an off-leash park and a playground in an area bordered by Erskine Lane and Watkas or something to that.

Yeah, rather than specifying which park, etc.

etc.

So does that make sense?

Councilor Lemmon?

Um and staff is already um looking at opportunities for off leash parks throughout the community.

Would this be an addendum to that?

Or yeah no that that'll be yeah it is an addendum to that because we may have the opportunity with the the the handy dart to be getting some land that would be provided for an off leash park.

Right.

Yeah yeah so then the recommendation would be the staff report back in the future with opportunities for an off leash park and a playground in the in that vicinity between Burnside and Hills can line okay yeah everyone's good with that okay yep okay all in favor opposed that's carried okay thank you.

So next we have 8.3A.

So now, staff, just before we get into this, are you gonna bring this whole report back to us again now with these recommendations so that we can then decide on the whole issue and whether or not we want to include these at that time, which might be better than having a separate debate now.

Yes, your worship.

The plan is to bring a comprehensive report back for committee of the whole in November.

Okay, thank you.

So then all we really need to do at this point is receive these and you will incorporate those in into your report.

So moved.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All in favor?

You worship.

Yeah.

Um, so so we're also removing both um the aspects um uh the discussion on the community CICs and uh the recommendation uh about the regional trust housing fund.

I think we could have that discussion at the same time.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, so that was moved and seconded.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

So that I would move or see the minutes.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, the minutes are moved by councillor rogers, seconded by second, councillor Mattson.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And now we have the the parks.

So now in terms of the the tree bylaw, again, I would presume that staff is going to be bringing that forward at some point, and you will bring these recommendations forward then, and we can make final decisions regarding the tree bylaw at that time.

The report is coming back after it's had legal review.

We haven't got it to the lawyer yet.

We did discuss both those points during that presentation at that time.

Right.

So they're currently neither is included in the bylaw that you'll see that gets presented back.

So it doesn't mean that you can't change what you see when you when it comes back and have that discussion.

But currently, based on the meeting that we had in May, both those items um it was decided at that time not to go forward with.

So when staff brought this to committee of the whole, what John's saying was we did discuss these two issues at that point and decide not to do that.

So that's the three to one replacement and the and did we talk did we actually discuss the the maintenance period one as well?

We did your worship.

Just as a quick reminder, basically what's happening now is from a capacity standpoint, we don't actually check um the two year maintenance period to see if the trees are there.

We do rely on uh individual residents to just adhere to the bylaw, and upon um complaint, we go out and check, or if they call and say we've planted our two trees, can you check?

We do, but we get well over a hundred permits a year, um of which there's no specific timeline for them or requirement for them to say we've planted our or we've removed our tree, we've now planted our replacements, set the clock started.

Um, and if they did, we would have an issue capacity-wise to try to get it somebody out there each and every time to get that done.

So staff was suggesting that at one year we might have the ability to track them a little easier than two years, because with two years, you've got you know, two to three hundred uh permits that are outstanding.

And with one year, you'd have, you know, around 150 to 100.

So it'd be a little easier to try to keep track of from a staff perspective.

So that was a conversation that we had at that time.

Did do you think the preact was referring to that sort of case, like individual residents, or referring more to say a development like Erskine Lane, where there might be more of an expectation for them to maintain for a period of time.

With regards to developments, we do uh development services does take a deposit on those and uh as part of the landscaping plan, they are they do follow up with those.

Yeah.

Counselor Matson.

So besides the three to one, they also wanted, which I thought we were already doing, was to include the trees that were within the building site that were chopped down, knocked down to include as the trees that had to be replaced.

And I thought in our discussions when we talked about ensuring that the trees were still up, that rather than have staff go to 100 places, we would just require them to send in a picture to show where the tree, you know, to show the tree, so at least there'd be some sort of record that there still was a tree on the on the property.

And to show that it had been planted.

Yeah.

Counselor Rogers.

Yeah.

I I could guess a couple points.

One is that uh staff have now got a BF system that allows them to be able to record um things and places and and things to monitor and check for.

But I I I agree.

I think we could have this with the onus on um the people that um were responsible to plant the trees, and that they would uh uh be required by contract to report back and and prove that that this tree has been or these trees have been maintained adequately.

Uh when you consider that we're we're going through um you know drought conditions and so forth, um, you know, trees by on private properties on boulevards and and um in and developers all of this must do uh uh take a far greater effort in ensuring um a survival and maintenance of of these trees so I mean this is kind of what I was worried about I think it's really difficult for council or committee uh to debate these points in the absence of the bigger picture which is the new bylaw um so I think it's just better if these come forward when staff bring the bylaw forward with a notation that these were the recommendations from the parks committee.

And we can then decide on the whole thing at that point.

Does does that seem like a sensible path forward?

Yeah.

No, I'm fine.

I just I just wanted to point out those are my recollections from the various discussions as opposed to debating anything at this point.

Right.

Yeah.

And I I don't mind your worship.

I I agree if we um, but I I definitely would want um to these to be brought back so that we could have that full discussion when we see the bylaw and and um yeah, I do think it's better to have it in the face of at committee of the whole when we are focused on the tree bylaw and staff can run.

We can look at the whole thing again and see how it all fits in.

So Director Rosenberg.

Thank you, Your Worship.

Um, just a a note for Councillor Mattson's comment about the um building envelope that is included in the bylaw.

And council did make that decision that uh all trees on the site, regardless of location, would require replacement of two to one.

With regards to the other items that you're discussing certainly if we decide to put some kind of mechanism in there it'd be easy to put a a small notation within the bylaw so it's a requirement but what staff would do is put it into um the actual permit application which would be an appendix outside of that bylaw so that we would be able to um have some flexibility with regards to how we receive the information knowing what council's requirement is so the bylaw could be strict with regards to our requirement to uh confirm maintenance after two years had been performed, but then leave it to staff on what was the best way for us to be able to handle the capacity and sustainability issues that arise from that.

Um, and we could do that through uh a form which is part of that uh permit form or application form.

We can uh put that within that.

So it might be a little easier, and then it gives staff some flexibility with regards to how to maintain that.

Counselor Rogers?

Yep, uh that that certainly sounds fine if the staff can bring back a sample permit that would uh show these uh stipulations um when we look at the bylaw, I'd be happy to consider as a whole.

And and I think with the three to one, two to one ratio that what Director Rosenberg is stating, I think one of the reasons we felt that maybe leaving it two to one was was fine, was because we were including the building envelope trees in that as well, which is is already a significant increase over what we're doing now.

So okay.

So can we just get a motion to receive the recommendations and then staff will bring them forward at the appropriate time?

I'll proceed again.

Okay.

And step I I thank you.

Second seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Okay.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

And then a motion for the minutes.

Your worship.

Yep.

Just a question.

Did we miss the one above that?

No, I received that as well.

Oh no, I don't remember that.

Well, it's part of their recommendations.

Yeah.

Um, but they they were making that's a there's a yeah, another yes, and we received it.

What would you like us to do with that?

I'm sorry, I didn't re I don't recall receiving it.

We just didn't miss it.

Well, I received I asked for a motion to receive the parks committee's recommendations, and that is one of their recommendations.

Yes.

Well, I don't know.

I I think we only discussed the the tree planting, and I don't recall having any okay.

So if you would like an opportunity to speak on the um, but I I personally again I don't like us speaking about something completely out of context.

We've already referred this to staff earlier in the year, and um, and in that meeting we discussed the idea of potentially hiring commissioners in the summer weekends.

So I think we should let staff report back in in and do process due time on it.

So okay, just as a point of clarification, your worship, uh the question through to you to the staff.

So are um for some reason they uh the committee was recommending the CRD's um auxiliary bylaw offices.

Are we planning to indeed uh budget for commissioners in the 2022 budget?

No.

Are staff going to be bringing back a report as such so at the moment what we have on the floor is a motion to receive the parts committee recommendation.

Are you suggesting that you would like to turn that into an action item and direct staff to hire CRD bylaw officers on the weekends?

I would uh I would ask you know to get seek some clarification on on uh what options um you know staff have for us and what we could bring back uh into action for the uh and and we did have that long discussion not long ago at all about this whole issue and staff did undertake to do that and to report back so I'm gonna carry on it is being received um next up we have the minutes of the West Shore Parks and Breck Society September 9th minutes move adoption thank you received seconder for receipt any comments questions yeah questions go ahead thank you so um uh questions the um infrastructure grant of 627 000.

Uh what's what's that uh for um i think it was the child care center, wasn't it?

We I can pull it up, but I um I know we did receive two federal grants, uh one related to the upper ice surface at the WandaFuca, it's called the Wanda Fuca Ice Arena.

Um so we received a grant for that, and we also received a grant for the child care center, which is also in the that same complex.

Okay, thank you.

And and because I was confused that there right thereafter was uh the the whole concept of the skate park uh for the 652,000, uh and it talked about the remaining six hundred and fifty two thousand.

So there's a so that the funding, the 652 in the first part is really talking about skate skate park is that right we have um the the skate park has has been uh still in the in discussion from um bush or parks and rec there have been some setbacks in regards to um the grants we've supported it as a society in principle but not committed any further funding than what the municipalities have promised in the past okay uh there was a robust discussion regarding uh you know building materials and labor increases as time elapses.

Uh, the prospect of not receiving grants were also discussed.

So we're taking a very cautious approach with the skate park uh to ensure that you know we're carefully considering the uh taxes of constituents moving forward with any extra projects for the society.

Great.

Thank thank you for the explanation.

Okay.

One more question.

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um there was a comment about um uh the LIFE program and and ensuring that the First Nations are able to participate in that.

And it was interesting, it seemed to suggest that um they weren't, they don't have the ability to apply, and and yet the board wanted uh to have that available to them.

Was there any barriers?

One of the initiatives that has been brought forward in the strategic plan is diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Every month, West Shore Parks and Rec reports on notable diversity, equity, and inclusion highlights.

This appears to be uh that month's highlight.

Uh, we're reaching out to uh different groups to make sure that they're aware of uh these programs and receive some of those groups uh they receive special invitations.

And and certainly if um cost is an issue for particular groups, uh we have funds set aside to make sure uh they can attend.

So does the um the West Shore service area include um Songhe's and Esquamo Bands?

No.

Well, I think the definition of the West Shore in general is subjective.

In regards to the West Shore Parks and Rec Society, the two uh indigenous bands you're speaking to don't contribute financially.

That's the question.

Okay.

Yep.

Uh I just also want to say that uh I was really pleased to see the Indigenous Support Physical Activity Council involved.

I think that's wonderful.

Thank you.

Yeah, it's it's something that as a board we're we're pushing for uh inclusiveness in the West Shore.

So uh thank you for uh for noting that.

Yep, I'm gonna finish the call the question.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

So we've got a lot of correspondence here.

No, most of it just for information.

So I'll move uh receipt of those items.

And so you're moving receipt of A through whatever it is.

K M here.

K, yes.

Since we already said that.

Oh, right.

K K, yeah, through M.

Okay.

Right.

Second.

So receipt is moved and seconded.

Just to comment your worship.

Yep, go ahead.

Um, I I have a concern with uh B, um, which is the provincial response.

Actually, it's not a province's response, it was the um uh convention uh executive response um on our motion, um, home heating, oil spill prevention.

Um, that you know it wasn't even considered, it's been referred to the executive.

Um, I would like council's um support to um follow up with the executive e the scene executive and the exec oh as uh so they've endor endorsed it as amended so what what is your but the the amendment was um really just to uh automatic referral to the exec to the executive no but then the so the convention decision was to refer it right and then it says the executive decision is endorsed as amended and what we actually have here is the provincial response.

So the province has answered it.

Yeah, okay.

All right.

Yeah, I see.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Also, I'm gonna call then receipt on all of those.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

Um, and so then we're into bylaws.

So we are losing yet another grinder pump from our view royal inventory of grinder pumps.

So we need a first, second, and third reading of uh bylaw number 1079.

I'll move first, second, and third.

Seven.

Thank you.

Do you look instead?

Do you want a mini explanation?

Yeah.

So why these particular homes?

Why why one unknown is a good one?

Actually, I'm gonna let Director Rosenberg explain rather than myself.

Thank you.

Worship, these are just homes that um when they were built, they're lower than the road, so they don't have a gravity service line uh like typical homes do that flow directly out to the uh gravity main.

So all of these houses have small little miniature lift stations um for each one of their homes.

So their entire house goes to this little lift pump, it then goes to a low pressure main out to our gravity pipe, and then it flows into our gravity pipe and then into the sewer pipe.

So um as each home um changes hands, these once owned by the town then become owned by the individual citizens, and we've gone from um I think around 60 or seventy at one point to the few remaining left.

So I doubt in my time we'll see all of them off, but eventually the burden will be back on the homeowner as it should be rather than the town.

So what may I ask one more question?

Yeah.

And so are these are these homes forever to have grinder pumps or will they are okay.

So so many, many, many years ago, staff brought forward a report that the town should just cease to deal with grinder pumps on private property, period.

Okay.

Um and there was at that point, as Director Rosenberg notes, quite a few.

Um and so needless to say, a whole lot of residents who, when they'd hooked up to sewer, had been promised that the town would continue to maintain the grinder pumps.

So they were rather angry.

So the compromise, which a gentleman you know was quite involved in designing, was that as the home sold, they would come off the list.

So that was the compromise that was reached.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll tell the gentleman.

Right.

Yeah.

So that's first, second, and third is moved and seconded.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

We have adoption of number 1074.

So moved.

Thank you.

Moved by Councillor Rogers.

Seconded by Councillor Lemmon.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

So for anyone watching at home who's thinking they would like to call in on question period, and question period can be on anything.

Um, this would be a good time to call the number on your screen because we're going to be at question period almost immediately.

So 778-402-9227 and then conference ID 683 714 037 pound.

I do have just a question related to that.

Do we have proxy votes?

You're not going to be in at a meeting.

You can No.

Do we want to consider that?

I think that'd be a good way of dealing with uh somebody who's ill or something.

Well, you'll be able to as now with the adoption of the procedure bylaw, you'll be able to attend electronically up to three times a year.

So if you're ill, you can turn off your camera so we don't have to look at you, but you can still participate in the meeting.

I'm trying to get a few, you know, an opportunity for those really important critical votes that would people.

Well, we wouldn't do it.

Have done your three.

Yeah.

Well we then we wouldn't hold the vote.

We'd make sure that we put off the vote until all of counsel was present.

Can you say that again?

So last we have adoption of bylaw number 1078.

So move adoption.

Okay, that's moved and seconded.

All in favor?

That's carried.

And lastly, we have question periods.

So staff, are there any callers on the line?

Your worship, we have no new callers.

Okay, thank you very much.

Anyone in the room who'd like to ask a question?

Come on up.

Stranger.

It's been a long time.

You should probably for the Linda Pecos 336 Glenarley Drive.

Do I give need to give my name and everything again?

It's nice to see everybody really healthy and back here and I'm glad to see everybody that they are.

Things haven't changed that much.

Not as not with a complaint but a request uh we've had a property at 328 Glenarley Drive that we've had on the books now for probably 12 years.

And if I may, I've prepared something for all of you.

Which is the picture we got to look at very quick.

Is that the way?

I know it's definitely a bit of a stretch, but it's not very nice to be unpleasant to the public when they haven't been here for so long.

So as you can see, the picture that on the front page, there's eight cars in that driveway.

The three people that live in the house are out at the moment.

Their cars are not even there.

We've had an ongoing thing with the bylaw officer, repeated bylaws, there's a number of them.

Um I just talked to the new one the other day named Jim.

Somebody who wants to deal with this.

And my request tonight is can somebody in the hall please let this man follow through?

Okay.

Well, how about Linda if we we have a meeting with our CAO next week, which is an in-camera meeting, and why don't you have an undertaking from myself that we will bring this up with him during that meeting?

Okay.

I just wanted to add a couple more things to it.

Um I've the the correspondence I gave to you, every time I come to the to the council or I complain on behalf of other people on my street, by the way.

I tend to be been there a long time.

People come to me.

I get retaliated against by this person.

You can remember Doug Robinson.

Yeah.

This person put a hose in his bedroom window and turned the hose off.

So you want to remember that we you are.

I know, I know, sorry, but right.

Uh I just I'm it's just it's frustrating.

It's very frustrating.

And now you have another problem across the street because the people are doing the same thing.

So five cars, camper, a boat, a truck, and in the half of it's on the boulevard.

So uh that's just my request that you know, please let's get it dealt with, just just for once.

The man, I'm not gonna say out loud because you are we are beating anyways.

I just think it's very funny that the man's talking about Gibraltar Bay tonight being 19 years, and I remember being on that committee that first sat on it.

So I have been here a long time ago and I am a pioneer.

So fair enough, Eva.

Leave it leave it with us and thank you for your question.

Okay, thank you very much.

And I like I said, it's just my question.

Here, I thought you were just here because you wanted to see us in person.

Well without the bat.

So we need a motion to terminate, please.

Before we do, so look, when are we meeting with Kim?

Isn't isn't our CAO meeting next Tuesday?

That's correct.

Yeah, it should be in your calendar, Councillor Mattson.

Okay.

29th at 5 p.m.

or 5 30, something like that.

Yeah, so you can be started at 5 30.

Yeah, dinner.

Dinner at 5, yeah.

26th.

All right.

26th.

Next Tuesday.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Good.

So we've all got that in our calendars and we're all set up for next week.

Okay, good.

Can't wait.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you, staff.

Thank you for being back in person in chambers.

It's good to see staff and public.

And let's go home.