[0:16] Welcome to the special council meeting of Monday, December 19, 2022. The City of Langford sits upon the traditional territories of the Coast Salish people of the Asquimal, the Songhees, the Sheenah nations, and of the Masonic peoples represented by the start lip. Packer Sheen, the Sayut, the Seacum, and the Malahad nations. We thank them for sharing this beautiful land. My name is Braden Hutchins, and I will be the moderator for today's meeting.

[0:45] Attendance by the public is in person or via Zoom, either using the Zoom app or telephone.

[0:50] If you're joining us through the Zoom app and wish to ask a question or make a comment,

[0:54] please use the raise hand function in the app.

[0:57] Please keep in mind that you're able to both raise and lower your hand in the app.

[1:01] You will be called on based on your username and you will need to unmute yourself when it

[1:05] is your time to speak, do not lower your hand until you finish speaking.

[1:09] If you're joining us via telephone, you must press star 9 to raise your hand and you should

[1:13] hear a recording that advises you that the moderator will be notified you wish to speak.

[1:19] You will be called upon using the last three digits of your phone number. Please press

[1:22] tar six to unmute your phone.

[1:26] Those persons attending in public and wishing to speak may

[1:29] approach the podium one at a time through public participation or someone the meeting begins.

[1:34] When you begin to speak, please begin providing us with your name and address. There will be one

[1:38] opportunity to speak during the public participation section at the meeting at which time you may speak

[1:43] to any item on the agenda.

[1:46] Please state the item number that you wish to speak to.

[1:50] Members of the public may be permitted to speak more than once, but additional comments are

[1:54] limited to those not raised by the person previously. Colors will not be permitted to speak a second

[2:00] or subsequent time, and to all other calls, colors have had an opportunity to speak.

[2:04] For matter or not, it's not appearing on the agenda. Please contact City Hall by calling

[2:08] calling 250-4787-882 during regular business hours.

[2:13] If you experience technical difficulties in getting through,

[2:15] please contact City Hall.

[2:17] The city also accepts written submissions and comments.

[2:21] Thank you, and I'll turn it over to Mayor Goodmanson

[2:24] to call the meeting to over to order

[2:25] and to adopt the agenda with one amendment

[2:27] for a laid item for people.

[2:33] Okay, thanks everyone for coming.

[2:37] I haven't been here for two weeks,

[2:38] so the last time I was here was literally sitting here

[2:41] and then I've been away sick for two weeks, just everyone knows I've got the clear to be here.

[2:48] I do have a bit of a latent cough, so I might not cough and then I'll have like 30 seconds of

[2:52] coughing, but I'm told that it's, well, that's my own history when I get a cold, I mean, for weeks

[2:59] afterwards I'll have a cough, but I'm told you guys should be fine and I was all COVID negative

[3:04] multiple multiple times. So with that I call this meeting in order.

[3:14] Do we have

[3:15] an looking for an approval of an agenda with the addition of item 4.1? Mary

[3:21] Goodman said it if I could also ask that we add as item 4 public participation and

[3:27] we reorder the rest of the agenda 5.16 and 7 accordingly and so that way if

[3:34] there are any members of the public who are calling in our agenda can speak to the late

[3:38] item if they so wish. I'll move the agenda with those changes.

[3:43] Second. Okay. All those in favor?

[3:50] Opposed?

[3:52] Do I speak to acknowledge that I'm approving?

[3:59] Mary, I think you at this time you only need to speak to acknowledge if you're opposed.

[4:03] If you're silent, we will assume that you're in the affirmative.

[4:07] Okay.

[4:09] Thank you.

[4:13] Okay.

[4:15] Item four, 4.0.

[4:18] Public participation.

[4:19] Is there anyone in person or online or public participation?

[4:24] Mayor Goodman.

[4:25] Well, there's no members here at City Hall.

[4:27] There are a handful of folks calling in online.

[4:31] At present, no one has their hands up,

[4:33] but we might give them a couple of moments to see if anyone wishes to speak

[4:36] to 5.1 call

[4:48] in a second time for anyone for public participation on

[4:57] a third and final time.

[5:03] Okay, we'll consider public participation closed by

[5:08] law 4.1, by law number 2115 and 2116

[5:14] with the background report attached.

[5:20] I believe we have a staff report.

[5:22] Mr. Mayor, as requested by council staff for working on a tree management strategy for the

[5:29] entire municipality and we should be able to present that to you in February of next year.

[5:35] In the meantime, Council may wish to consider bylaws 21-15 and 21-16 as a temporary measure

[5:43] until the tree management strategy is adopted. Bylaw 21-15 is to specifically prevent tree cutting

[5:50] on the approximately 30% of land and land that is not encompassed by the development permit designation.

[5:57] Bylaw to prohibit tree cutting will apply to all lands in length and bring all lands into parity with the development permit areas as well.

[6:08] The bylaw allows for various exemptions such as dangers and hazardous trees and lands to which the development permit has been issued.

[6:14] and Biola 21-16 is the changes to the municipal ticketing by law to impose penalties for failing

[6:24] to abide by Biola 21-15.

[6:28] I think that summarizes happy to answer any questions.

[6:34] Is anyone have any discussion?

[6:37] Questions?

[6:40] Mary, do you have any questions up there?

[6:41] I did notice it said $5,000 was a penalty and is that that's a minimum penalty?

[6:58] Through the chair, there's two types of penalties proposed in the Biola under the Offences Act.

[7:07] We're suggesting a minimum of $5,000.

[7:11] Paul's in formula or senior by-law officers in the audience type, Paul's in formula that

[7:17] under the recent amendments to the Offences Act put out by the province, we can actually

[7:21] go up to $50,000 per occurrence. So, the $5,000 would be the low bar, but depending on

[7:27] the circumstances, Council through going through the courts and the city going through the courts

[7:31] could go much higher. The other fine in the by-laws through the municipal ticket information

[7:36] bylaw, that's the tickets that our bylaw staff can hand out without going through the courts.

[7:42] Provincial legislation prevents MTI infractions across the province for municipalities from

[7:47] going higher than $1,000, but those are for the immediate fines that can be handed out without

[7:53] needing to rely on the provincial court system, which can obviously be longer and drawn out.

[7:56] So two sets of fines in the bylaw, minimum of $5,000 is recommended for the long form under the

[8:02] and then the $1,000 for ones we can issue internally.

[8:07] Okay, thank you. So that wouldn't be just $5,000. That's the minimum. And then it would depend on the situation and the court would decide up to $50,000.

[8:17] It wouldn't be the court for us to decide it would be for us to seek compensation through the offenses act at the courts.

[8:27] I think the thought process behind the minimum of $5,000 is you might have a tree of low economic value and really a tree of no consequence, but we want to send the message for a single tree that

[8:38] But that cutting it down or damaging or destroying it is against the city's bylaws.

[8:46] But you might have other trees in particular, Douglas Virtures, that are worth a fair amount

[8:50] of money if they are fallen properly and they can be harvested and reused for wood and

[8:55] a penalty of $5,000 might not be enough to prevent somebody from taking down a large Douglas

[9:01] Virtue if they can stand to make that much or more, and I don't know the mill rates currently

[9:05] for lumber.

[9:06] But if they can make some money from taking entry and selling it, we might want to consider the ability to have penalties that are substantially higher than the value of a tree.

[9:16] And it is important to note that these fines are not per project or per property.

[9:23] They are per tree and per offense.

[9:25] So if someone takes down, say, 10 trees, it could be a minimum of $5,000 per tree or $50,000

[9:31] or if we're doing the MTI, $1,000 per tree or $10,000 total for reach tree, total.

[9:40] Thank you for that clarification.

[9:43] Councillor Spock.

[9:44] Thank you. I'm really glad to see this coming before us and that we'll be considering it for

[9:51] a final in February for a real bylaw in its own merit. So just a quick question about

[9:59] who this applies to. This is all parcels of land in Langford, including private property

[10:06] through the chair to the platter. And your worship, this would apply to all property in Langford.

[10:13] There are exemptions. People would apply to that for if they qualify for an exemption. There's

[10:22] Just to follow up question so through the chair again to the planner so if someone has a tree that needs to come down

[10:30] That's dead on their private property just for clarity for the public then they would come they would consult with City Hall and they would have to have an

[10:38] Arborist determine that tree doesn't need to come down. That's correct. It's pretty much the same process that exists in development permit areas now, so it just has this

[10:48] same level of protection to all other properties are not in the development permit areas.

[10:55] Absolutely, thank you, ma'am.

[10:57] Just to be clear, who pays for the arborist for a private citizen?

[10:59] Is that the citizen's responsibility?

[11:01] Yes, that is.

[11:03] Thank you.

[11:06] And just for clarification, this is non-DPA lens.

[11:12] So people that are under a DPA area, they have their own separate regulations and fines for

[11:20] are breaches correct? Yes, and no. This will apply to all property in Langford. However, properties that have received a development permit will be exempt and properties that are in a development permit area that but have proceeded without a permit will be subject to this by law and the fines associated as well.

[11:44] Okay, that was one question I didn't quite 100% on the report correct me if I'm wrong right now it's a $10,000 fine we're removing a tree in the DPA area without permission that would be the maximum I believe maximum yeah, yeah, and then and for clarity for the two properties in the downtown core the ones on on Brock and Strathmore and the other ones on red place.

[12:13] We would die-redate those in our systems and when those properties come forward for

[12:19] rezoning if they haven't already because the trees are already down before the

[12:23] by-law was passed. We'd look to seek equivalent compensation through the

[12:28] retirement rezoning so we can still treat them as equally as if they'd taken on

[12:32] the trees now but we can take it as a condition of rezoning.

[12:37] But does

[12:37] they're not already a present regulation that if they took down trees in a

[12:44] There is, but it typically is only applied in places where the applicant isn't willing to be cooperative.

[12:55] In this case, we've spoken with both owners.

[12:57] They are taking the first step is having an arborist look at what was removed.

[13:03] The quality of those trees, their diameters, and then hoping to bring that forward with the development permit application after the fact.

[13:12] and as Braden said, they'll still have to face counts of time of resounding.

[13:17] In terms of paperwork, if they will voluntarily give us the financial contribution as part

[13:25] of the rezoning, instead of having to seek that financial extraction through the courts,

[13:30] it's a lot less costly, a lot less effort on staff to get the same money.

[13:33] Um,

[13:42] that makes sense. Yes. Um, don't 100% agree with that, but I am, uh, I'm not going to argue with you right now. I'm in the middle of a meeting.

[13:50] Um,

[13:53] one other question. Anyone does have a fine or something like that coming through. Does that have to be paid before they can get their permits or so on?

[14:06] Typically, the way that we've operated is what we call a clean hands policy.

[14:11] So that if there's anything outstanding, if there's any works that are required or if there's any information that hasn't yet been provided, that would be provided before their application goes forward.

[14:27] All right.

[14:29] And Councillor Spock has a comment here.

[14:32] Once again, thank you, I didn't say thank you for the report.

[14:37] So it would be by law that would be bringing this to our attention.

[14:43] So if a tree has been taken down on someone's property, then what do we expect for the complaint

[14:51] process and what do we consider to be the appropriate process for complaint and then follow up and

[14:57] and then determine that if there hasn't.

[15:00] Being a tree taken down in contravention to the by-law. Just how could you just sort of walk for the sake of the public? All please feel free to come to the podium and jump in anytime. It would be reported as we do for any other by-law refraction being parking or building or noise or whatever it might be. By-law has the the general email inbox as well as the duty phone they carry for by-law complaints.

[15:26] Ideally, we, we can.

[15:30] get on site in real time.

[15:33] So as an example, when trees were coming down at the Brock site, one of our bile officers

[15:38] Derek went on site, but he went on site recording with the video cameras.

[15:45] So if we do take it a quarter, we do have to challenge it.

[15:47] The video date stamp, time stamped, and there's no disputing the video.

[15:51] And so it's really easy, then we're easier, I should say, to enforce those financial

[15:59] extraction that we require. Hall can speak to how it becomes a little bit more sticky if it's

[16:05] harder to prove that the tree did come down when someone else says it did, if we're first of

[16:11] someone saying, well, that's been down for a longer. I didn't do it or something like that. So

[16:15] we do need to have evidence that it can be enforced, but Paul's written that you want to add to that.

[16:23] I was going to say that currently, by-laws staff do act on complaints, so it's complaint-driven.

[16:31] In the case of Strathman and Brock, because we did not have a regulatory by-law in place,

[16:36] that wasn't something that by-law would generally typically observe and take notes of and do research on.

[16:43] When it came to my attention that there was tree cutting going on within a DP zone,

[16:49] within the investigation and we did work without planning the department and seeing

[16:54] the staff to try and resolve that.

[17:00] Thank you. So it, thanks Paul. So it's being Council's policy

[17:04] that there's two complaints per complaint, for issue, for by-law, for them to be activated,

[17:12] other than parking, as my understanding. So that policy would probably have to be reviewed

[17:17] attitude as this our complaints policy is based on the two complaints. So that's why

[17:24] I'm asking, like, how would this, would it be initiated? Would a call to City Hall

[17:28] to planning or to any staff member than it goes to by law? Because I think we would waive

[17:33] the two complaint or just say that our policy would be one complaint.

[17:39] So we do have a policy

[17:41] that exists. And I know that it's not Paul's issue, the policy, it's counsel's.

[17:50] I go what do you want me to do? The bylaw

[17:58] does a delicate dance

[18:01] with the two complaint policy. And by that I mean the intent of the two complaint policy is to stop

[18:10] vexatious complaints amongst neighbors and the tit for tat that can happen when folks

[18:16] If you can't get along living next to one another, in reality, Viola receives, it's going

[18:25] to be close to 5,000 Viola infractions, or complaints alleged Viola infractions this

[18:31] year.

[18:32] And I'd be willing to bet that a good chunk of those don't have two complaints, or else

[18:38] would be have 10,000 complaints coming, not 5,000 complaints.

[18:43] One of the things that BILA, two of the things that BILA pride itself on, I know, is one

[18:47] very quick response, but secondly, it's a badge of honor how few BILA complaints make it to

[18:53] counsel that you're become aware of and your consideration. We know if BILA is dealing with

[18:59] almost 5,000 complaints a year and only a handful will make it to your emails, it's a process well done.

[19:05] And so I think Violet exercise is judgment when two complaints are necessary, but if

[19:11] they can help the neighbor, the person who is at a concern, if it's only one complaint,

[19:15] and we're not overly strapped for resources, we'll get on top of it and make sure people

[19:19] feel heard.

[19:21] So, then should we say that it is one complaint for a tree coming down because that's my

[19:27] feeling?

[19:29] My read of it is that you don't need to because that's what Violet will just do over the

[19:33] a regular course of their business.

[19:39] So fair.

[19:41] Thanks, Brad.

[19:42] To the chair.

[19:43] Yeah, typically the way that we operate, we do have a two-compaint policy, particularly when

[19:49] we're dealing with secondary suites or land use violations.

[19:52] If there's a public safety matter or something that's very impactful to the community, the whole,

[19:57] we will work on those files proactively and we will also work on those with one complaint.

[20:04] Typical issues would be traffic issues, people camping in the park and those public nuisance type complaints.

[20:14] The two complaint policy we do try and apply when something is less impactful on the neighbourhood or community.

[20:24] Something like a tree protection by law, we've never had a regulatory by law that by law a department of force.

[20:30] And in this case, because it is an absolute prohibition, that's something depends on

[20:35] direction from our senior staff administration.

[20:38] Our department could either work proactively, we could wait for complaints to come through.

[20:44] That would be based on direction from the senior staff.

[20:49] And just building on that,

[20:53] I know when Derek communicated with the folks, the three both

[20:57] property owner in the tree companies on site in the downtown, with Darren's blessing

[21:03] and my support, the message we gave was, give them the one warning, find them the maximum

[21:08] amount and if it continues, find them both every day to the maximum amount and send that

[21:14] message.

[21:15] So if council is okay with that, depending on the situation, it may or may not be a warning

[21:20] but we will be finding to the maximum amount until people do get the message.

[21:23] Can

[21:26] I ask for clarification?

[21:29] That's what I was going to do.

[21:33] I just wanted to clarify if there was a taking a case to court, would it have been important

[21:41] to have put a not a requirement for two complaints in an official capacity just so that there's

[21:48] no challenge to us asking for compensation if they say, oh well, we didn't have two complaints,

[21:55] So you shouldn't be enforcing this or some other sort of legal complication.

[22:03] I don't believe so.

[22:07] The two complaint policy.

[22:12] All correct me if I'm wrong, but is it in writing?

[22:15] I don't believe I've seen a.

[22:18] Exactly. I don't believe I've seen a by law or a policy in my tenure here that has that in writing.

[22:24] it's been an administrative policy that we've applied on a case by case basis on the nature

[22:29] of the complaint, but it's not something that we would typically define through council

[22:33] resolution through bylaw through policy. So in this case, the tree removal, if there was

[22:40] an infraction, any one complaint, including staff, it wouldn't have to be a civilian complaint,

[22:48] would be considered to take action? No, not at all. And you know, staff will, as we're driving

[22:54] around, if we see something, we want any issue, we do immediately pull over, we'll call

[23:00] by law and we'll say we just drove past X, can you please have a look and sometimes that's

[23:05] how things filter up. Okay, thank you. We definitely want to take this very seriously.

[23:13] Yes, Father. Thank you. Thank you for this very informative report. I'm just wondering if for

[23:19] the benefit of the public, we could discuss a little bit more about the sunset clause of six months.

[23:23] what that would look like for this by-law, recognizing that this did come to us quite quickly.

[23:29] Thank you.

[23:33] Mr. Mayor, the purpose of the Sunset Clause is in anticipation of a more complete,

[23:40] more far-reaching and just absolutely how we help will be a comprehensive tree management strategy.

[23:53] And we hope that that's introduced in February and should be adopted if it follows normal course before the 180 days.

[24:05] It expires.

[24:08] If we're not able to meet that deadline, then we can bring this by law back to be amended and re adopted.

[24:17] So at that point, along the way, I guess I should say, we'll be looking at further opportunities for public discussion on this.

[24:27] So there will be a chance in the future for public to comment.

[24:30] And I also add that a lot of what's in this tree protection by law today should be in the tree management strategy that comes out in February.

[24:41] it's it's not this or that will be included inclusive thing.

[24:49] Thanks, Patrick. I have two clarifications and one you said individuals or companies

[25:00] be fined per day. If a tree's cut down, what's the fine the next day? What is a...

[25:08] If they were continuing to cut down other trees.

[25:11] And the second is exact definition because I've heard, you know, tree coming down to me is, is when it's locked and down on the ground, but we have numerous spots around Victoria now, my mind's gone.

[25:28] Thank for now that we have candlesticks just they can stay up there for months. The tree is

[25:36] effectively gone theoretically you can be sprouting back but I mean that tree is still up and not

[25:43] dropped. What's the line there? In the definition of tree cutting it doesn't require that the entire tree

[25:53] be removed. It's anything, cutting what's likely to cause the death of the tree. So the

[25:59] full exfoliation or defoliation, whatever they call it, I guess, would, would, would

[26:05] cover that, uh, yeah, certain sense. And just adding to that, there's a second definition

[26:10] called damage. And so damage might be living. It might be topping. It might be poisoning.

[26:16] It might be dumping things around the tree or anything that causes the tree to, to stop

[26:20] growing. So, for the benefit of the public, but also to the line of your questioning, Mr. Mayor.

[26:31] This line is a top line by law. It's two pages in length, and when we were looking at other

[26:35] municipalities by laws, Victorian standards. For example, the Victoria's is 45 pages in length,

[26:40] their tree management by law. So, there are certainly lots of material that we'll be able to bring

[26:47] to you, that the public can be engaged with on how this can be more comprehensive, how this can be

[26:51] refined.

[26:54] This is the bare bones stop gap measure to send the message. And that's what

[26:59] I sort of figured is wanted to make sure. I believe Councillor Keith, you had a question?

[27:06] Yeah, just wondering if we have an idea for say our private residences who maybe have a potentially

[27:12] a danger tree or a tree on their own personal property they want to get rid of. What would

[27:16] be the process and potentially extra cost that they might then face due to this by-law.

[27:22] So there is no extra cost. We were very careful about the by-law doesn't create a new set

[27:29] of bureaucratic rules or processes. It doesn't create a tree permitting process that a department

[27:33] has to manage. What the by-law allows is for trees to be removed as part of any permitting

[27:39] process that the city might have. So through a development permit process, through a building

[27:45] permit through a sewer connection permit. The list goes on and on and if a homeowner needed to

[27:50] take down or deal with the tree through a typical permit that they'd already be paying for

[27:54] and acquiring through the city we could insert the need to bring down the tree as part of that

[27:58] approval process of that permit without applying extra costs on that homeowner.

[28:03] Perfect, thank you.

[28:08] Dangerous trees, the only cost of course would be the certified arborist.

[28:17] Mary, do you have any questions?

[28:20] No, I think there was a good amount of clarification.

[28:25] Thank you for that.

[28:28] Anyone else have any further?

[28:33] Okay.

[28:35] So no further discussion.

[28:37] Braden, correct me on this.

[28:39] But now we need to make a motion for the bylaw 2115 and 216.

[28:45] Move the recommendation.

[28:46] There's actually a four part resolution,

[28:48] one of which ideally would have a bit of council dialogue.

[28:51] dialogue to fill in the blanks. Council or staff would recommend that we have a second

[28:57] special council meeting prior to the holidays to adopt the by-laws so they can be adopted

[29:06] in a timely manner. We have to wait a minimum of 24 hours between first three readings and adoptions

[29:10] so the earliest of special council meeting could be happened would be say two o'clock tomorrow

[29:15] because of the snow council may wish to hold the special council meeting.

[29:22] Wednesday. If everybody's available, just to make sure that no staff and counsel at the

[29:26] weather is terrible tomorrow. We can't get in. We don't have to have the special counts meeting.

[29:30] That would also give Donna and her team time. After this meeting, Donna is here. The thought was

[29:39] Donna would put out a after talking to Americans and put out a media statement and communication

[29:45] to all the tree cutting companies so that they had fair warning before the

[29:50] Bible was adopted. We'd likely take media questions this evening and into

[29:54] tomorrow, but that would then if we didn't tell anybody until say Wednesday

[29:58] day after noon.

[30:00] The whole day's season to take media inquiries on this.

[30:04] So, with Councilor Staff would suggest a Wednesday meeting at some time, if everyone could pull up the calendars and then before that we would do a media and communication out?

[30:20] I do think that that sounds reasonable. I really appreciate the discretion at staff to approach the tree cutting companies ahead of time to inform them of this change. Thank you.

[30:30] I would be, yeah, I would support seeing something happen on Wednesday just because this is so urgent.

[30:40] And just to clarify, if we do push back the adoption of this to Wednesday, will there be another chance for public participation on it?

[30:48] Absolutely, the agenda would include a public participation.

[30:51] Perfect. Thank you.

[30:55] Is there anyone here on council that couldn't do Wednesday, either virtually or live or in person?

[31:04] I may need to zoom in, but I'm available.

[31:07] This depends what time of the day it is.

[31:10] Braden, I think you said too.

[31:12] Well, Wednesday is past the 24 hour marks, so we could do any time Wednesday.

[31:16] The downside of Wednesday, of course, is that council does hear from the public and wants

[31:20] to make changes based on what's heard.

[31:22] We would need to rescind and reread.

[31:24] First three readings, meaning that we would need another meeting to adopt on say Thursday.

[31:32] which is possible, but more and more staff and folks who might be heading off for the holidays and whatnot.

[31:38] So it might be a little more difficult.

[31:42] Is there a timeframe for city staff that would be best, do you think?

[31:49] We're wide open. We can work with council.

[31:52] Mark.

[31:55] Yeah, one o'clock would be fine.

[32:00] That's really.

[32:00] Yeah.

[32:01] Yeah.

[32:02] Um, two 15 is probably the easiest.

[32:04] I could.

[32:05] Can you do two 15.

[32:09] Uh, well, yes, I could do two 15.

[32:14] We also, I mean, it may not sound fair, but to be fair, we also don't need quorum to adopt the bylaw.

[32:21] So unless the last council feels that there's going to be a rigorous discussion.

[32:25] Great.

[32:25] We do already four folks here.

[32:27] Sorry, Britain, are you preferring a morning?

[32:29] No, we can do either.

[32:32] Two 15 is okay for you.

[32:34] Yeah, that would be best. Yeah, but if we need to make magic happen earlier, then I'll just do it.

[32:42] And it's serious for you.

[32:44] Well, I just, I have a, no, I know, I know you normally work so.

[32:48] Well, no, this is my wake off. It's just I have a physical point from 11 to 1230.

[32:53] Okay. So if we want to do it at nine in the morning, I could be here for nine and earlier.

[32:58] Are you available earlier in the day?

[33:06] Yeah,

[33:09] I could make 230 work. I had other plans in the afternoon for a toy drive, but, yeah, I could be here at 230.

[33:23] That's good for me. I work until two.

[33:26] Okay, I appreciate this like right before Christmas that this is in Kenji not a lot of schedules.

[33:36] Darin, you're not even going to be in the city.

[33:38] So, but I think just want to make sure we don't push something through and I don't like the term push something through.

[33:48] But if we don't get this going, then there's a lot of time before we can do it again.

[33:54] And on that note, we could do a virtual meeting with only a couple of folks here tomorrow.

[33:59] Say it to 30 or three and allow for the Wednesday in case there are further changes to the

[34:03] by-law.

[34:05] If Council is concerned about making amendments tomorrow on the fly-up, can we hear from the

[34:10] public?

[34:13] I'm back all this week because I've been away for two weeks, so it's more year-guises schedules.

[34:21] I think I'm going to make the motion so we can actually discuss this.

[34:28] So I would move that Council provide first, second, and third reading of bylaw 2115, a

[34:34] bylaw to prohibit the cutting of trees as drafted and provide first, second, and third

[34:38] reading of district of Langford's Ticket Information Authoration bylaw, as described and direct

[34:44] staff to provide notice of a special meeting of Council to be discussed because this is

[34:49] a motion for Wednesday, the 21st of December at approximately 2.15pm or 2.30pm in order to

[34:56] adopt the by-law and direct staff to include in the list of Council's options for any property

[35:01] that's proceeded with tree removal without benefit of a permit and seeking rezoning compensatory

[35:05] payments for tree loss for Council's consideration.

[35:12] I'll second that. We have a motion on board

[35:14] from Lillian, seconded by Keith,

[35:20] and just for clarification, that was for 230 on Wednesday.

[35:30] Any discussion?

[35:34] I guess I'm just concerned if I realize you wanted to do some media and informing the

[35:43] three companies on the Tuesday. I'm just not sure we can, is it better? It's fine if it is.

[35:52] I'm available Wednesday, but is it better to put it off to a Wednesday or is it better to do say 2-30 on Tuesday so that in case of

[36:00] You know getting closer closer to the holidays to have the time after the meeting be

[36:07] In case something goes wrong. I don't know how we're outage

[36:10] I'm just wondering if there's other complications to consider

[36:13] Or is it isn't much better to wait for Wednesday then to do Tuesday?

[36:22] So I want to clarify, Braden, or Darren, because you guys are the experts on the legal side of it.

[36:30] I think the

[36:34] reason I'm hesitating is, if we end up meeting a Thursday will be the one day over the whole holidays, where if we need a special council meeting, we'll need to pull Marie in from vacation.

[36:52] I'll be in transit and Marie will is prepared to come in, if needed.

[37:00] Other than that, I can support the corporate services duties remotely.

[37:04] But the Thursday is the one transit day that staff would need to rely on Marie.

[37:09] But we can do that.

[37:12] My only hesitant on Tuesday is just.

[37:16] We have no idea what is going to be like.

[37:21] And

[37:24] as long as we have enough people in here and then the rest virtually.

[37:35] Well, council, here's your last chance to decide if we think Tuesday.

[37:40] Make change at eight to Tuesday or keep Wednesday and cross your fingers that nothing major is going to come up that we need to really rewrite things and.

[37:51] Councilor Gary, you've had his hand up a while ago, and I don't want to hit that to be forgotten.

[37:58] Yeah, I'm just going to mention, I mean, respecting definitely staff holidays and all of that.

[38:02] I do believe that Wednesday may be better just to be able to give that notification out to the tree

[38:07] companies and to the public so that we can, it's still tight, but at least have more notification to

[38:12] the public for those who do maybe want to come and speak to it. I know that puts us on a crunch

[38:16] year, but I think that's probably the more responsible thing to do for the public's sake.

[38:25] Yeah, thanks, and I just just to speak more on that because we're talking about an afternoon

[38:28] meeting. Not a lot of the public is going to be able to make it. I would like to have an evening

[38:34] for the public to be able to contact, ask questions, give feedback, and lure the fact that there's

[38:40] probably a lot of people that probably won't be able to participate in an afternoon meeting.

[38:47] So you're wanting a Wednesday night meeting?

[38:51] No, I'm wanting a Wednesday meeting instead of a Tuesday meeting so that we have the opportunity to hear from the public and get the way in.

[39:03] I just want to clarify bring you said we could do this meeting virtually. Everybody could do it virtually on Tuesday. Is that correct?

[39:13] I'm hesitating because I don't have my procedure by law in front of me.

[39:18] I want to confirm with you.

[39:20] Yeah, I think staff feel that Wednesday would be the best for several reasons.

[39:25] I mean, I agree with Councillor Gary that it will give you guys an evening to hear

[39:31] from the public if that's important.

[39:34] And then, procedurally, I think Wednesday makes most sense.

[39:38] So if Council is comfortable with that, I think that's staff's recommendation.

[39:43] Okay, unless there is significant against the date that Councilor Spock has put forward.

[39:53] Let's have a vote on that as she wrote it, including 230 on Wednesday, the 21st.

[40:00] Correct.

[40:02] Okay.

[40:03] All those in favor?

[40:08] I also support this.

[40:10] Okay.

[40:11] That's unanimous.

[40:12] So that motion is carried.

[40:14] Mayor Gibbons and I could interrupt.

[40:15] I just wanted to acknowledge that there was somebody online who had put their hand up after public participation.

[40:22] I don't know who they are because they've identified as themselves as S21 Ultra, which is the name of a phone, of course.

[40:29] But to the person who does have their hand up online, please don't hesitate to contact Mary Council or staff in between the two meetings and know that there'll be an opportunity for public participation on Wednesday and know that we did see your hand.

[40:40] It just came up after the public participation portion of this meeting.

[40:47] I hope up there you hear that.

[40:53] So that is by law 4.1 has written and read as passed.

[41:01] I'm sorry. I believe it's 5.1 with the correction at the beginning of the council meeting.

[41:08] 5.1.

[41:13] Yeah. Thank you.

[41:15] So then item six would be the in-camera resolution.

[41:25] I'll move that council close the meeting to the public pursuant to section 91i of the

[41:30] community charter to consider the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor client

[41:35] privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.

[41:39] Seconded.

[41:42] Any discussion?

[41:44] All those in favor?

[41:49] No opposed?

[41:51] Motion carried.

[41:56] So, correct me if I'm wrong, that ends.

Special Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript