Council Meeting

Good evening, everyone.

I'll start by acknowledging our friends and neighbors, the Esquimalt Songhees Nations.

This meeting is being held tonight under the auspices of Ministerial Order M192 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the public health officers' orders prohibiting gatherings in excess of 50 people.

This evening we will hear from the public during public participation and question period portions of the agenda.

We will also hear from the public, the public that's on the line for the 275 Kerwood area or Kerwood issue.

There is a portion right within that segment of the agenda that we will hear from you.

So you don't need to speak to that in public participation.

You will be given the opportunity when we get to that in the agenda, both on item A and B.

A being the dock and the ramp, which is one issue, and then B being the retaining walls and the stairs, which is a separate issue.

So that's for the 275 Kerwood.

But for public participation is the opportunity to speak to any matter on the agenda.

So if you wish to call in, you call 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 913-102-300 pound.

And all that information is on your computer screen on the town's website.

So it's easy to find.

At the appropriate time, I will ask you or announce the last four digits of your phone number.

I'll ask you to mute the live web webcast to avoid feedback.

I'll ask you not to use speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

And at that point, if you give us your name and address for the record, you can give us the benefit of your views.

We do try to keep the speakers to a five minute maximum.

If you're providing comments through the chat feature, that feature is open during the public participation portion of the agenda for your comments and the question period portion of the agenda for your questions to counsel.

Again, we ask that you provide your name and address to begin your chat feature comments.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast you were consented, consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

And for those of you, we have one petitions and delegations tonight, which is about smoking and vaping in public places.

When you can sense that that is winding down, that'll be the time that you would like to call in for public participation because it immediately follows that.

And then for the Kerwood issues, you probably want to be calling in then for Kerwood as well, because it's it's going to come up very quickly after that petition and delegation.

And with that, I would ask for a motion to approve the agenda, please.

Thank you.

Moved by Councillor Mattson.

Seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

We have minutes from October the 6th.

Move adoption.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Kualowicz.

Any comments, corrections?

All in favor?

I don't have anything under the mayor's report.

And so we're going to go straight to L.

Hagen and M.

Bergstra.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

And thank you for the opportunity to present this evening.

Again, my name is Marilyn Bergstra, and I am the BC Policy Specialist with Action on Smoking and Health.

Also here tonight is the Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health, Les Hagen.

Welcome.

Doesn't look like my screen is responding on the presentation, and I'm not sure why.

Okay, there we go.

Action on Smoking and Health, also known as Ash, is one of Canada's leading tobacco control organizations.

And we have staff in all four Western capitals, including Victoria, where I am based.

Founded in 1979, Ash is Western Canada's leading tobacco control organization, and has provided local, provincial, national, national, and global leadership on tobacco control with a primary focus on increased public awareness in education, prevention, and the advancement of public policy measures.

We work closely with other prominent health organizations, including the Canadian Cancer Society, Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Lung Association, the BC Clean Air Coalition, and other Western tobacco Control Coalitions.

Tobacco use places an enormous burden on our health, our quality of life, our health care system, and our economy.

Tobacco and nicotine kill 47,000 Canadians annually, which represents about 20% of all deaths in Canada.

One in every two long-term smokers will die from an illness resulting from tobacco use.

The economic impact is estimated to be 15 billion annually, according to the Conference Board of Canada.

Secondhand smoke is also harmful and it kills about a thousand Canadians annually.

There are thousands of chemical compounds present in secondhand smoke, including dozens of carcinogens.

Health Canada and other health regulators have declared that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

We applaud council for taking steps to protect residents from smoking in public places.

Over the years, CRD has maintained one of the strongest smoking bylaws in Canada.

However, the region is now falling behind other Canadian municipalities and other municipalities in BC.

We would like Council to consider placing further public restrictions on smoking and vaping to better protect children and youth.

There is a need to reduce social modeling, especially in light of the explosive rise in youth vaping and legalization of cannabis.

Both issues have the potential to renormalize public smoking and therefore to reverse gains made in reducing tobacco, especially among youth.

Modeling is an essential element of childhood development.

Social modeling can be just as influential as parental modeling.

To a five-year-old, smoking is smoking, whether it involves smaking, involves vaping, smoking, or toking of various substances.

The more smoking impressions that a child accumulates as they are growing up, the more likely they are to become smokers themselves.

Comprehensive public restrictions on all forms of smoking and vaping are needed to help keep youth tobacco and nicotine free for life.

Smoke-free bylaws help to reduce social modeling to children and youth, and they promote healthy communities.

Restrictions on smoking and vaping need to be aligned to protect youth, to maximize the public health impact, and to simplify enforcement.

The public smoking restrictions in View Royal have been largely established through the CRD smoking bylaw.

The View Royal Parks bylaw also bans smoking in local parks, but this is also accomplished through the CRD bylaw.

View Royal Council can implement a new bylaw that goes further than the CRD restrictions, or it can urge the CRD Council to update its bylaw to provide better protection for the entire region.

Perhaps council can do both and become an exemplar for the entire region and island.

Omissions in the CRD bylaw include public events and public markets.

The CRD bylaw bans smoking in public squares, but not all events and markets are held in fixed public squares.

Children and youth frequent public events and markets, and they should be fully protected from smoking and vaping in these public spaces.

Another omission in the CRD bylaw is an absence of a smoking ban in group living facilities.

Residents of group living facilities should not be forced to breathe secondhand smoke in their own home.

These residents are often elderly or have health conditions that are aggravated by exposure to secondhand smoke.

The COVID 19 pandemic demonstrates the need to provide residents of all group living facilities with extra protection from public health hazards.

The CRD bylaw also admits smoking in hotels and motel rooms.

Several Alberta municipalities have banned smoking in hotel and motel rooms, including Canmore, which is a resort community in the Rocky Mountains just outside of Banff National Park.

People who work in hotels and motels deserve to be fully protected from secondhand smoke.

Many hotels and motels have already gone smoke free, but uniform standards are required to ensure that all workers are adequately protected.

Fortunately, the CRD bylaw addresses all forms of smoking and vaping, including hookah smoking.

This will prevent the establishment of hookah bars on the region in the region, which is an issue other municipalities continue to grapple with.

Cannabis retailers $7,500 annually for a cannabis sales license, and liquor retailers are required to pay $300 annually for a liquor sales license.

However, there are no fees assigned to tobacco or vaping retailers other than the general commercial business license fee.

Licensing these products pays recognition to the unfortunate reality that tobacco and nicotine continue to account for more deaths than any other form of substance use combined.

In fact, smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable deaths in Canada.

Council should also echo federal and provincial laws by placing restrictions on the sale of these products, such as the elimination of all signs and displays in stores that allow minors.

The fees collected from tobacco and vaping retailers can be used to enforce restrictions on sales to miners.

Dozens of Canadian municipalities licensed tobacco retailers, including Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, and Lloydminster.

In 2017, Lloydminster became the first Canadian municipality to license vape shops.

The fees collected from tobacco and vaping retailers can be used to offset enforcement costs, including special enforcement activities to detect and prevent tobacco sales to minors.

Funds can also be used to offer retailer training to ensure that bylaws and other related legislation are understood and effectively enforced.

Council can also back federal restrictions on the sale of these products, such as the elimination of all signs and displays and prohibit price discounts in stores that allow minors.

In summary, we urge View Royal Council to implement further restrictions on smoking and vaping to better protect children, youth, and other vulnerable populations from these very serious and real health hazards.

AHS, or ASH, maintains an online resource hub at ASH.ca with a variety of useful materials and documents to assist municipalities with bylaw development.

These resources include a model smoking bylaw, charts comparing all smoking vaping bylaws in Western Canada, and an inventory of all smoking vaping bylaws and various fact sheets, guides, and backgrounders.

My office is located right here in CRD, and I am very willing to provide support that is required.

We welcome your questions.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Mattson.

Yes, thank you very much for your presentation.

I certainly agree with uh many of the points that I've heard to say.

Yes.

Sorry.

Sure.

So I was wondering, uh, we don't have a at least I didn't receive a copy of the presentation, so would it be possible for you to send us a copy?

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

And that's my and and that's that's my doing because we were late getting everything ready for today's presentation.

So I I apologize for that.

Yes, thank you for the uh presentation, and I and I agree with Councillor Mattson.

Counselor Rogers.

I'd like to get a copy of your report.

Um have you presented to the CRD yet?

No, but we would be happy to, and I think we've got a number of um we want to approach city councilors in the entire region um to to get some momentum going.

Yes, and indeed, and it's it's worthwhile for us to hear this, um, but um uh I think CRD is is um really taking the regional consistent uh control across uh all municipalities.

And uh I'd be very interested to hear uh Dr.

Stanwyck's uh uh thoughts on this as well.

So uh I'm assuming you heard that I did.

Good.

Okay.

So uh dial in with Dr.

Stanwyck.

On my left, everything.

Thank you, Marilyn.

Uh I was going to ask with the CRD as well, but I also just want to echo some of my colleagues' comments.

I think this probably would be best suited for a regional approach.

I think a lot of your points are very valid.

I support them, and I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes.

Yeah, thank you for coming.

I I too would encourage, I mean, uh I I would never support municipalities doing one-offs on these regulations.

I mean, with the reason we've been successful in our region is because the CRD was indeed a leader and still is actually, in fairness to them, in smoking regulations across the country.

And we were told that at the CRD board as recently as last year when we expanded the clean air bylaw to include um vaping and cannabis.

So I think the CRD has done a good job, and the staff there have done a remarkable job working with Island Health.

And I would encourage you to respectfully engage with them and see what could be tweaked to possibly improve it.

So and I appreciate those comments.

Thank you.

Um, but I I would also like to echo that your support or the support of this council even if we do go through the CRD to have that backing even if it's just verbal sidebar, it's critical to building that that supportive base that you sometimes need to get some changes on the agenda.

I mean not to prolong it but my advice to you would be if you want to get the CRD on board, is to talk to the CRD rather than you know, and I'm not saying you were, but but the perception that you're possibly criticizing the CRD bylaws being not strong enough.

I don't think I don't think going around to councils taking that approach would be as productive as going right to the CRD and saying, this is what we would like to see happen.

How can we make it happen in the region?

I'm working with Dr.

Stanwyck.

If you can get him on board to further your cause, it it's going to be a lot a lot more productive, I think.

So that's just you know, from someone who's been sitting around all the tables for a fair number of fair amount of time now.

Thanks.

I appreciate those comments.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming and and presenting to us.

So public this is now public participation period um for anything on the agenda other than 275 Kerwood.

So if you're thinking of calling in now is the time to do so or to send something on the chat feature.

Do we have anyone on the phone at all, Don?

Uh currently your worship, no we do not.

Okay.

And is there anyone on the chat feature?

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh there are no comments on the chat feature.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, I think we'll carry on then because I think most of the people probably are going to be more interested in 275 Kerwood, which is which is coming up.

So I will close off public participation period.

I'll go right to 7A, which is the Ministerial Order M192.

Did you want to talk to this briefly, Sarah?

Or welcome back, by the way.

Thank you, your worship.

I would be pleased to.

On July 7th, Council considered Ministerial Order M 192, which talked about open meetings and public attendance act, open meetings of council and the committee of the whole.

Having since that time now added advisory committee and the Board of Variants, the deputy corporate officer and I looked at the council resolution and uh made some adjustments to it to better reflect what we are now doing.

And so that's what this is, and it adds then the component of the advisory committees and the board of variants and also then reflects the participation and activities that happen at those meetings in the discussion points below items one to ten.

So it incorporates Cal, Council, Advisory Committees, and the Board of Variants, their various participation points and attendance options for the public at the various types of meetings, and it changes the receipt time for correspondence to committee the whole, moving it back to what we did have originally as pre-COVID pandemic, as 1 p.m., I believe it was set at 3 p.m.

Um, but because that meeting begins at 3 30, it was really quite a crunch.

So we've we've decided that 1 p.m.

would be moving it back to what it was, uh, a bit more realistic and keeps 3 p.m.

for for the other meetings.

Um, and also with webcasting now, rather than uh one of the earlier points that we had was just to get out our draft minutes as soon as possible after the meeting.

The public can go in and the live webcast.

Well, it's not live then at that point, the webcasts are put up on our website.

Typically, I think all but one week have been posted the same week as the meeting.

So if anyone has any questions as to what transpired at the meeting, they can just go into the the town's website and um go in, and it's all chaptered as to the different topics and find what it is they may be interested in finding.

And so that is a much handier and often faster tool to find the information than than what they're looking for so we've left uh put put that in and then instead as posting the recorded webcast meetings as soon as possible after the meetings uh less reliance on draft minutes coming out and and more reliance then on that so we've we've suggested then as a staff recommendation that we use this as the council resolution great thank you any questions counselor rogers uh yes, thank you very much for for this.

Um just just a clarification.

Um uh let's see, number six, uh petitioners and delegations.

I'm assuming that the the time frame in which um individuals want to uh provide or register and provide um video presentations time frame before the meetings is still the same amount of time.

No changes.

Uh through your worship, that doesn't change.

So if you are uh wishing to participate as a petition and delegation, you would still pre and post COVID the rules requirements still sign up and and participate in the agenda in the same manner that you would have before.

So that isn't addressed as part of this.

This is more in terms of just uh the ability to provide access to those people and how we provide that access to people who wish to participate, as you will have seen tonight with um the group from Ash that just spoke and signed up.

Thank you.

Everybody's good.

Okay, so I just need a motion for the staff recommendation.

So move.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Kualovich.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

And so we go down.

So the the first one on 275 Kerwood just for the public.

So we're going to run through a process here, and then there is the after comments.

The staff will start and then comments from the applicant, and then will be the opportunity for the public to speak.

And the first one is for the dock and the ramp.

They are two distinct applications, so we should try and keep them separate.

And so you'll certainly have the opportunity to speak to both if you wanted to, or just to one if that was what you chose to do.

So staff will go to the 275 Kerwood.

Thank you, your worship.

I trust you can hear me.

We can hear you.

Great, thank you.

So uh I'll try and go through this quickly.

The the this came to uh committee of the whole the last uh in in in um in September.

Really, nothing s significant has changed with these uh presentations and the the associated reports uh this requested variance is from 15 meters to zero meters for the the dock the ramp and float that extend past the the natural boundary really nothing has changed with the exception of the staff recommendation uh and and the the issue is similar with both applications in that the applicant is asserting that the boathouse that is on the property straddling the property uh is lawfully non conforming uh staff and and uh staff disagrees with that and our our recommendation is based on the fact that the total impact on the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties and the visual impact on the shoreline is too much, including the boathouse and all the other proposed amendments.

As far as meeting the town's private dock development guidelines, it does.

Thank you, James.

Councillor Lemmon.

Are there any questions for staff?

Thank you.

Um, thank you, James.

Have have we any um examples of or um historical memory of similar variances being required along that within that neighborhood?

There have been a number of of variances for docks, and uh each each dock is is taken into uh into account on its own merits.

You know, each each variance is considered separately.

Uh I wouldn't say that it was um there is an exact comparison here.

Okay.

Um one more question, and and just refresh me, please, on the variance itself uh requiring a zero um a zero setback.

That's right.

This is uh if if I may.

Yeah, please.

This is a standard variance that we have used for a very long time, um close to 10 years, for uh for docks for ramps and floats when they cross the natural boundary.

Our our special setback to to the sea is described in our zoning bylaw as 15 meters.

That is no structures are permitted within that 15-meter setback.

Uh this is a structure within that 15 meter setback, so we require that variance to zero meters given that it does uh cross or extend beyond the natural boundary.

Okay, um good.

Thank you very much.

Everybody else?

No.

Okay, so we now um have the opportunity for comments from the applicant.

Is is the applicant on the line uh your worship the applicant has chosen not to speak this evening i talked to them earlier today oh okay thank you so next we will go to comments from the public so don are there any public on the line wishing to speak to this currently your your worship we do not have any callers oh wow okay well thank you um so there's quite a bit of correspondence to receive, so maybe we can receive a through E.

Thank you.

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by second councillor Lemmon.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And then there's a memorandum from the planner, which we should also receive.

Move received.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Mattson.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And then I guess we need a motion on the floor.

Go ahead.

Yeah, thank you.

Your worship, I I had um, you know, when I got my package earlier, um I had received all the details from the applicant, and I had a great deal of information with respect to um you know the the dock constructions and and all the paperwork from the various uh federal authorities and I don't see that in my um package anymore I can't help you with that staff.

Do you have any?

Do you mean when you say earlier?

Do you mean when this came to committee of the whole?

Uh no, when I was looking at it uh this afternoon, um there was a um a great deal of you know I've got the staff presentation here.

I see the staff presentation.

Do you guys both have the package and the staff package presentation or just staff presentation?

No package.

Just the staff presentation.

Yeah, so earlier um there was um uh Well, no, what you need to do is is click on the top link, the environmental DP.

Pardon me.

There are yeah, that's okay, that's right.

Good.

So um yeah, it wasn't clear.

Okay, thank you.

That that's that's helpful.

Um so I think we need a motion, unless you have questions for staff, we need a motion on the floor.

I move staff's recommendation.

Okay, thank you.

So it's moved by counselor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Mattson, the staff's recommendation, which is not approving the environmental development permit.

Okay.

Would you like to speak to it?

Uh yes, please.

Okay, Councillor Rogers?

Yes.

Um, you know, while I don't have that much concern um about the dock and the ramp per se, um staff's point is is uh very much taken in that it's um the amount of shoreline development is so excessive that cumulatively I have a great uh problem with um what's being proposed um by the applicant.

This is um yeah so it the the natural shoreline um does not seem to be all that natural anymore and and uh certainly if uh we were to proceed with with this um um request okay thank you um okay on my left if you wish I you know I I I it's one thing to you know have um have the T's crossed and the I's dotted and have it within the you know what is essentially allowable and it's another to be a good neighbor and to be a welcomed and desirable resident on that street and um I I think my my feeling is that this is simply too much and and it will be um a a difficult neighbor comes to sight lines to have and counselor kovovich uh i'm concerned that approving this would set precedent in the future for similar properties and i'm also supporting staff's recommendation uh because i don't see any extraordinary reasons to go against them for this particular application okay thank you and i i guess for me i i agree with everything that's been said our our ocp clearly states that the shoreline is to be kept as natural as possible um and the cumulative effect has has been already said with of the boathouse the the dock the ramp the retaining walls the staircase it it's just far too much for me so I I cannot support it on on that basis.

So with that I'm going to call the question all in favor unanimously that it be denied and we will now go to these the second part of 275 Kerwood which is for the the retaining walls and the stairs and the access so staff would you like to speak to that uh I can very briefly.

Basically, here the issue is the same uh the the retaining walls and the other landscaping stairs and associated things do not require variants other than the variance to the prohibition on retaining walls constructed within the setback.

That's the only variance required.

But the issue here is the same that the cumulative impact uh it staff believes is too great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions for staff?

Counselor Lemmon.

Um thank you, James.

I I know we're not talking here about the boathouse, and I recognize that it will be the subject of future reports, but there is a line here that that um in your report it speaks to demolishing the boathouse and building a new one.

Was are you was it demolished?

Um has it been demolished from your um viewing of it?

Uh and is there a new one?

I'm sorry I missed that last part.

And has it been replaced with with has it been rebuilt?

So according to the local government act, our building official our building inspector uh is the one who makes that determination.

And he has provided us with a statement indicating that uh it consistent with the uh legislation that um 75% of the value of the structure was destroyed.

Uh, he agrees with that, and as such, staff excuse me, staff believes that uh it it should be considered a new structure.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

No.

So thank you, staff.

And I'm gonna presume again that the applicant is is not wishing to speak, and we do have the opportunity for comments from the public.

Is there any public on the line?

Your worship, we do have one caller with the last four digits six six eight seven.

Okay, thank you.

So caller with the last four digits of six six eight seven.

This is your opportunity to speak.

If you can press star six to unmute yourself and give us your name and address, please.

Hello, this is Barry Saladana, 279 Curwich Street.

Good evening, Barry.

Uh hi.

Um first of all, uh thank you providing for providing this forum during the extremely difficult times we've all been experiencing for the past eight months.

Some municipalities don't have this functionality up and running even yet, I'm told.

In um in the context of the variants for the dock, first of all, um I don't think anyone living in this neighborhood is opposed to a dock uh being constructed, and uh in some respects um it might provide a breakwater for the rest of us during some um storm conditions.

However, in the totality of the entire site, which is only in old speak uh 50 feet wide, um that's an awful lot going on in one 15-meter setback zone.

I think it flies in the face of the OCP in terms of uh environmental uh values being given primacy in that zone.

Uh when you look at the plan, there's an awful lot of concrete and boulders.

I don't see an engineering report which says that um a significant or any slump is likely or probable.

I question the environmental report, particularly when things like a three-sided concrete wall, a bench, and I assume a concrete pad for that bench are inside that environmental zone, that 15 meter setback.

What happened to the primacy of this being an area where we're trying to maximize environmental values?

I have to agree with the planner who says in the totality of the overall site, there's a lot going into that small space.

Um for the past 30 plus years, a simple staircase has sufficed to go from the top of the bank down to previous versions of the current new deck.

Um and I'm not sure why that um wouldn't be sufficient today.

I think that's about all I have to say.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr.

Saladina.

Are there any other callers on the line, Steph?

There are no more callers at this time, your worship.

Thank you very much.

And nobody on the chat, I'm presuming.

No.

No.

Okay.

No comments on the chat feature.

So again, we need a motion to receive correspondence A through E.

Moved by Councilor Rogers, seconded by Councilor Matson.

So moved.

Thank you.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And then a motion to just receive the planner's report again.

So moved.

Move by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councilor Mattson.

All in favor, posed, that's carried.

And again, we need a motion for the question.

Okay, thank you.

Second.

So move by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Kualowich not to approve the environmental development permit.

I think we've all spoken to it.

Yeah.

So I'm going to call Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, I you worship that I think uh I just want to reiterate the point that was earlier made um and um from uh the uh president uh Mr.

Zeladena when he called in.

The um I I think this is uh a dangerous precedent, not only for um the extensive uh development, shoreline development that uh uh goes far in excess of what uh the OCP visions uh for a natural shoreline, but a extremely dangerous uh precedent that uh the lot next door could have uh the the uh the similar um uh development um and that that would be just incredibly bad for uh for the for the neighborhood and and that uh part of the the shoreline.

And I do note that uh there's been no letters of support from the public um uh for this process or for the applicant.

So I'm gonna call the question.

Good, thank you.

All in favor, opposed.

So that motion is carried unanimously.

Thank you, staff.

So next we'll go to item C, which is the unique heritage infrastructure grant.

Thank you.

Second.

So it's moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Comments, questions?

No, everybody's just one comment.

Counselor Rogers.

Well done, thank you, staff.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Opposed, that's carried.

So we have 8.2.

I think these can be moved as a block.

So moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councilor Lemmon.

Move as a block.

Second.

All in favor.

Opposed, that's carried.

And then we have two sets of minutes, 8.3A and B.

Move A.

Okay.

Receive.

Second.

Moved or received by Councillor Rogers.

Seconded by Councilor Lemmon.

Comments.

I I I think we're going to get more comments when the the two advisory committees come together at the end of the month.

Yep.

All in favor?

Opposed, that's carried.

And then we have B, which is the West Shore Parks and Rec from September 10th.

Move received.

Thank you.

Second.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Kualovitch.

Councillor Matson.

Somebody please explain to me the relationship between the payments to the library and yeah and West Shore Parks and Rec and why View Roll would be participating in payments when we already make payments to the library downtown.

So our CAO has a meeting with the other West Shore CAOs this week.

Yeah, and he's he's gonna bring up those those issues because obviously we shouldn't be included in that new requisition.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Rogers, do you have the same question?

Um yes, yeah.

And uh I look forward to that hearing the discussion results.

Do you have one other go ahead?

So are we saving a lot of money in terms of the uh the rec center costs given everything shut down for COVID?

Yeah, and do you want to tackle that one, Counselor Kualovich?

The short answer is no.

We're not.

Actually, we're just in the process of uh looking at some of West Shore Parks and Rec staff's uh preliminary budget uh requests, and um they've come to us with a potential increase and we've asked to um have that uh lessened.

Um it's there has been some financial hardships obviously there with no user groups uh in a lot of the facilities over the past six to eight months so uh it's been it's been challenging for for the society and uh things are things are slowly turning around I would like to point one other thing out uh they never had these sort of problems when uh David and I were on the board thanks now navigating through a pandemic is uh is always challenging thank you.

So I'm gonna call the question on receipt of the minutes.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

So these first three for action letters, I mean, in my mind, and council may have different opinions, but I mean those to me could all be received.

Concur.

Move received.

So removing receipt of A, B, and C.

Second.

Oh, you've already seconded?

Yeah.

So moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Kwalowich.

I do.

Go ahead.

We don't want to help with the backpack project.

Well, I mean, I think especially with COVID-19, it's harder than ever, right?

With limited access to town hall.

So I think staff in the past have posted links and put things up to encourage it, but not actually set up a booth.

Yeah.

Okay, I'm gonna call the question on receipt.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried, and then we have A through D also for receipt.

Moved by Councillor Lemon.

So moved.

Seconded by Councillor Kualowich.

Um in favor.

Pose, that's carried.

And then on so for the public, if you do have questions and you're thinking of phoning in for question period or using the chat feature now would be a good time to to start that because we're almost there.

So we have um byla number one zero five eight for adoption.

Move adoption.

Thank you.

Second.

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Everybody's good.

Okay.

And then.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

So did you have a staff presentation staff on this bylaw 1057?

We've had one before.

You've lost them.

Uh sorry, I was muted, your worship.

Okay.

No, I just see it on the agenda here, but I'm presuming it's the same as as the one we we had before.

That's correct.

Okay.

So we're moving third reading then of number one zero five seven.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, moved by councillor Lemmon.

Seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Everyone's good.

Okay.

All in favor.

So there's no new business.

Opposed.

That's carried.

So this is now question period.

Is there any callers on the line staff?

Your worship, we do not have any callers at this moment.

Okay, thank you.

We're gonna have to do something to get our ratings up a little.

Um is there anyone on the chat feature staff?

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh there are no questions on the chat feature this evening.

Okay, thank you very much.

And so then we have Councillor Rogers has two motions.

Yes, uh the the first is the respect to uh application fees for uh property bearances, and uh you know I I note that um it's more expensive for uh individuals to apply to um appear before the board of variants is as opposed oh sorry, more expensive for council than the board of variants.

And I would ask that staff uh come back to us with a report um on um the idea of standardizing it so both at the same amounts.

I think the report would be good just for a overall sort of analysis of the Board of Variants and what they deal with in terms and as opposed to council, etc.

But yeah, I'm I'm happy with that.

Okay.

Do you want a motion to that effect you would have to do?

Yeah, you can make that that's a staff suggestion here is that we refer to staff or report to council.

Okay.

So moved by councillor Rogers.

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor.

Opposed, that's carried.

And then the other one, I think, is is Director Rosenberg on the line.

Yes, your worship, I am.

I just have a note here that you're prepared to comment on the View Raw Park parking issue.

Yeah, I I I certainly can do that, your worship.

Um I do have a small photo if you'd like to see it basically of the laneway and its width and potential areas for development.

If uh council wanted to look at uh providing some future parking, if not, then certainly um we have the ability to paint the curbs yellow and or sign it if council would like to do that.

Well, let's look at what you have for sure.

If I find the button, I'll gladly show it.

This is the laneway area uh coming into View Royal Park, as you can see here where the cursor is kind of landing.

This is the area that council paved about three years ago to formalize the parking in this area here.

And then this is the area coming in.

You can see the width here is about 4.4 meters.

So it is quite narrow if people park along here.

Typically, in in you know, on a parking lot, you want to get around three meters in width.

Um, so certainly what the problem would be is that when somebody parks a vehicle that's approximately 2.5 meters wide, it would only leave about two meters of space.

Now we generally don't have a problem with that, but the odd time on a long weekend or something like that, which occurred on the date that was mentioned in the request, um, I'm sure it was due to the fact that many people are out for Thanksgiving and likely enjoying the bike park.

Um, council does have the opportunity if they wanted to look at it, and staff could bring back a budget item to come in here and widen out this grass area to provide some parallel parking.

Otherwise, what we could do is come to the north and ensure that we slope it towards the roadway.

So obviously, none of the drainage would go back towards the uh estuary there, and we could put some additional perpendicular spots along this laneway out a certain way.

So, in either case, we could create anywhere from about four to eight parking stalls.

If I had to put a ballpark price on something like that, I would think it would be depend-you know somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 50,000.

Um, or if we're just worried about people uh blocking the area, I would have concerns about bylaw controls because most of this would occur on the weekend.

Um we could sign it or paint the curbs.

Councilor Rogers, it was your issue that you raised, so go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

Uh thank you, um uh Mr.

Wisberg.

Um I appreciate the the information and uh you know if we can get more more parking um in the long run, uh that's uh that's certainly worth uh council consideration for the uh 2021 budget.

Um and uh part of that is also I hope uh would uh look at having a sidewalk for um individuals um so that they could get off the roadway and um that's presenting another problem.

And that was uh my issue, not only for uh the challenges of vehicles uh getting past those uh four or five vehicles that were parked there on the roadway, laneway, uh, but also for um making it much more difficult for pupils and dogs and and strollers and so forth.

Um I I would hope that um staff could uh provide a short-term solution by painting the curb yellow, um, and uh then we see if we have uh the funds and resources um uh to do as you're suggesting by adding yellow or no parking signs, right?

But anyway, Councillor Matson.

So I'm thinking, you know, in terms of this being a park and I think it was there for people to come and walk.

I just really have a hard time of sort of glucking up the place with more parking.

Uh quite frankly, people can park at the school during those holidays and uh or they can park in the street down near where Jerry lives.

I or they can walk or they can ride their bikes.

I just have a really really have a significant problem with us spending a lot of money to provide parking when we're trying to get people out of their cars.

Counselor Lemmon.

Um a lot of those people parking are coming for the bike park and they're from elsewhere.

Anyway, um Director Rosenberg, there was part of the the proposed View Royal Park plan um includes a expanded parking.

No, it was taken out.

Oh was it taken out entirely?

Yep.

Okay.

Forget my question.

That's it.

Thank you.

Councillor Kowalowicz.

Thank you.

And uh Councillor Rogers actually I'll did some comments as well in relation to uh View Royal Park.

Some of them complimentary about the park itself and some of them less than desirable but the parking um I do that's the only time I've ever received specific feedback negatively about parking, other than kind of comments in passing.

I guess one of the issues is it's so popular now that it's become a destination.

I really think we need to make a wholehearted effort to um collaborate with the school district and and get some kind of an arrangement where we can use their parking lot on weekends.

I just I just have a really hard time thinking that we can't work out some kind of an agreement with them.

Uh you know, especially on weekends.

It just doesn't sit well with me to think that that's not an option.

So that's kind of where I'm at.

But I the one thing I will note is the sidewalks actually, is there not a sidewalk?

Okay.

That's something that I could maybe down the road, obviously, right now as challenging financially, but I would support a sidewalk for sure going in there on that side.

Yeah, so I guess without protracting the discussion, I I'm certainly interested in looking at putting more parking there.

And I think you can do it fairly easily.

And we've been getting pretty steady complaints from people on Pheasant Lane and Burnett about the problem.

So if we could add four or five spots, it would to me it would seem to make perfect sense for a fairly small amount of money.

But in the meantime, John, do you think you could put up a couple of no parking signs or something just to deal with the issue that Councillor Rogers is concerned about?

Uh certainly your worship.

I think the the easier um position to fall back from if we decide to go that way is to put in signs.

Painting the yellow uh curves yellow um provides for some challenges when we decide we don't want to do that or we want to remove them.

Um whereas if we throw off, say three or four signs temporarily, uh we can always just remove them from the ground.

We'll just put them in the telsparce post so we can we can do that fairly easily and uh without too much uh damage to the area.

Okay.

Well that certainly makes sense.

And then if you can bring it back during budget as a as a I mean, I don't know if we're going to have any money for extras like that next year, but if you can bring it back as a potential capital project in budget, that would be great.

Yeah, I certainly can do that, your worship.

And then at that time we can discuss uh options and I'll I'll bring back a couple of different options for council to consider.

Okay, councillor Rogers.

Yes, uh, thank you, John, for the idea of the signs that would be helpful.

I'm assuming that we would have a no parking signage on both sides of the lineway.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Okay, so we don't really need a motion on that.

So we now need a motion to go in camera, please.

I think that's a good discussion.

Yeah.

Okay.

So all in favor?

Opposed?

That's carried.