[0:02] Okay, good evening everyone. Welcome to

[0:03] the regular council meeting for Tuesday,

[0:05] July 21st. It's currently 7:00. Before

[0:08] we get started,

[0:09] the Village of Anmore would like to open

[0:11] our meeting by recognizing the many

[0:12] indigenous peoples of our area,

[0:14] including the following First Nations

[0:16] with communities that are now located in

[0:17] the region that we know as Metro

[0:18] Vancouver.

[0:20] It'll be the Musqueam, Squamish,

[0:21] Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem.

[0:24] Further, we'd like to honor the

[0:25] important place in history occupied by

[0:26] the many tutorial keepers of these lands

[0:28] and waters around us since time

[0:29] immemorial.

[0:30] I'll call the meeting to order. Could I

[0:31] get someone to move the agenda as

[0:34] circulated?

[0:36] >> Second.

[0:37] >> Call the question. All those in favor?

[0:40] Carried unanimously. Uh

[0:42] we have public input. Uh

[0:44] public is to uh come forward and ask any

[0:47] questions regarding to business that's

[0:49] on the agenda. Uh

[0:50] Agenda items only. 2-minute time limit

[0:52] applies to speakers. Anybody wishing to

[0:54] come forward and discuss anything on

[0:57] tonight's agenda?

[1:01] Nope.

[1:02] Okay.

[1:03] Move on to uh delegations. We have a

[1:04] delegation from Lina Aziz to present

[1:07] regarding Lower Fraser Valley Flood

[1:09] Plains Coalition, a regional request.

[1:18] I'm going to

[1:19] I I'm just going to ask Did Did you want

[1:22] to come to public input comment on

[1:23] anything at public input?

[1:25] Okay, I'm just going to if we can just

[1:27] put you on hold, sir.

[1:29] Please come up and state your name and

[1:30] address.

[1:38] » Zane Erickson, 2000 Rich Mountain Drive.

[1:41] I'm just um

[1:43] just wanted to bring up something about

[1:45] the proposed changes to the

[1:47] >> Could you pull the mic up a little?

[1:48] Yeah.

[1:50] There you go. Perfect.

[1:51] >> Just the changes to the zoning bylaw,

[1:54] and I'm just looking for more

[1:56] specificity

[1:57] in what's written.

[1:59] Specifically regarding

[2:01] basements

[2:02] and

[2:04] I found a little bit

[2:05] vague where it was described that

[2:08] um they're wanting to limit it to a

[2:11] partially exposed.

[2:13] I didn't see a definition

[2:15] of what partially exposed means.

[2:18] And I think by reading it that I find

[2:20] the intention that limiting the height

[2:22] to 2.75 m from the basement floor to the

[2:26] main floor

[2:28] is what would be the guiding definition

[2:30] of partially exposed.

[2:32] And I'm just concerned that in Ann Arbor

[2:35] uh if we reduce

[2:38] basement ceiling heights to 8 ft

[2:41] uh with large spans, with the way that

[2:43] houses are designed in Ann Arbor

[2:45] we're going to have people with

[2:47] you know, 7-ft ceiling heights in

[2:48] basements if you need to do large spans

[2:51] with floor trusses like we do so we can

[2:53] run all their ducts and what not through

[2:55] there. And so I

[2:56] I'm just concerned that

[2:59] these changes that are being made are

[3:03] maybe academic more than um real-world

[3:08] examples happening in the village. And

[3:10] so I think some of that just needs to be

[3:12] looked at a little bit more.

[3:14] >> Good. Thank you very much.

[3:16] >> Yeah.

[3:17] >> Any other public comments before I vote?

[3:19] Sorry. We'll get back to our delegation

[3:21] now, Ms. Lena Aziz. Thank you. And thank

[3:24] you for your patience.

[3:25] >> I just think we're just

[3:26] putting out

[3:27] like that

[3:28] you know, our website and a little bit

[3:30] of teaching a little bit about it.

[3:36] Sure.

[3:42] » And please feel Yeah, feel free to

[3:43] change that. Move that. Yeah.

[3:53] » Uh good evening, Mayor Kumpel. My name

[3:55] is Lina Lee. I'm the Watershed Programs

[3:57] Director at Watershed Watch Society, a

[4:00] conservation charity based in Fort

[4:02] Langley,

[4:03] BC. Our work goes where salmon goes and

[4:05] where problems lie.

[4:07] >> Today

[4:08] >> Sorry.

[4:11] » Okay. Is this all right?

[4:13] >> Yes, it's fine.

[4:14] >> All right. Today, I'm speaking as a

[4:15] member of the Lower Fraser Floodplain

[4:17] Coalition. The coalition is a group of

[4:19] organizations, experts, and advocates

[4:22] working toward integrated,

[4:24] fish-friendly, and climate-resilient

[4:26] floodplain management across the Lower

[4:28] Mainland.

[4:29] Our vision is simple.

[4:31] That the people and the non-human

[4:32] relatives of the Lower Mainland are

[4:34] healthy, safe, and resilient to

[4:36] flooding.

[4:39] I'm here with a request that the Village

[4:40] of Anmore join other communities in

[4:42] becoming a signatory to the Regional

[4:44] Joint Statement on Action for Floodplain

[4:46] Resilience in the Lower Mainland.

[4:49] Since uh 2022, we've been convening

[4:52] local governments and First Nation

[4:54] leaders and experts from across the

[4:55] region to build the relationships, the

[4:57] knowledge foundation, and momentum

[4:59] needed to ready our region for flood

[5:01] resilience.

[5:02] Over the seven dialogues we've hosted,

[5:05] themes around coordinated action,

[5:07] regional action, sustained funding

[5:09] sources, and advocacy to the feds and

[5:10] the province keep coming to the surface.

[5:14] Those seven uh meetings are represented

[5:16] by the seven reports we have on the

[5:18] slide there.

[5:21] Uh something else that's emerged from

[5:22] the regional discussion is that it's

[5:24] time for multi-benefit flood management

[5:26] in the Lower Mainland. We are stuck with

[5:28] the approach to flood control

[5:29] infrastructure that was developed rather

[5:31] hastily in 1948-49,

[5:34] and that combined with provincial

[5:35] downloading of flood management to local

[5:37] governments leaves us confined to

[5:39] piecemeal approaches,

[5:40] but it doesn't have to be that way.

[5:42] Across the border in Washington state,

[5:44] there's a program called Floodplains by

[5:46] Design. The state the the state of

[5:48] Washington has invested five $359

[5:50] million

[5:52] in large-scale multi-benefit projects

[5:54] that have reduced flood risk for 88

[5:56] communities, restored over 275 km of

[6:00] salmon habitat,

[6:01] supported local farms and boosted

[6:03] regional economies since 2013.

[6:05] These investments have already saved

[6:07] nearly $2 million in avoided flood

[6:09] damages. Beyond safety and habitat

[6:12] gains, the program is a powerful

[6:13] economic driver. Every million dollars

[6:16] um

[6:17] invested generates 2.2 to 2.5 million in

[6:20] economic local economic activity, with

[6:22] about 80% of that money staying in the

[6:24] community. The program has leveraged has

[6:27] leveraged funding for local from local

[6:29] and federal partners at a 3:2:1 ratio,

[6:31] creating thousands of jobs statewide.

[6:34] We have been um learning from and being

[6:36] mentored through that program over the

[6:37] past few years, and we want to create an

[6:40] investment of that kind for British for

[6:42] the the Lower Mainland.

[6:45] But despite all the goodwill

[6:47] demonstrated in the region and the good

[6:50] ideas that are out there, we have to

[6:52] acknowledge that we are in a crisis

[6:53] situation.

[6:55] Flood risks are escalating. In the Lower

[6:57] Mainland alone, we have lived through

[6:59] major flooding in '21,

[7:01] '24, '25, and a bit also this year in

[7:05] the spring of 2026.

[7:07] Aging infrastructure, development on

[7:09] flood plains, and a changing climate are

[7:11] all converging.

[7:14] >> [snorts]

[7:15] >> Uh I should note, of course, the BC

[7:17] flood strategy does exist. It's been

[7:18] around since 2024, [snorts] but there's

[7:20] zero funding to actually implement that

[7:22] strategy.

[7:24] Flood resilience is not discretionary

[7:25] spending. It is prudent financial

[7:27] management. Every time we kick the can

[7:29] down the road, we are gambling with the

[7:31] lives, the homes, food security,

[7:33] infrastructure, and ecosystems in the

[7:35] Lower Mainland.

[7:36] In fact, a single major flood in the in

[7:39] the region could wipe out over $350

[7:41] billion in economic value.

[7:43] The Close to Home report by the Canadian

[7:45] Climate Institute makes clear that BC

[7:47] will be the province hit hardest by

[7:49] escalating flood and wildfire-related

[7:51] disaster costs. And yet we continue to

[7:53] build in high-risk zones, locking in

[7:55] future losses.

[7:57] Of note, I just want to say there has

[7:59] been no significant federal or

[8:00] provincial investments in flood safety

[8:02] in our region since the Fraser River

[8:04] Flood Control Program ended in 1995.

[8:08] But opportunities do exist.

[8:11] The federal government has a clear

[8:12] interest in a resilient Lower Fraser, as

[8:15] mentioned in recent announcements. It's

[8:17] an opportunity to channel investments

[8:19] that deliver regional solutions that

[8:20] work with nature and the economy.

[8:23] It's worth noting, also, that the $150

[8:25] to $164 million awarded through DMAF to

[8:29] the region

[8:30] has been scattered amongst individual

[8:32] projects, not a coordinated regional

[8:34] program,

[8:35] which has made which unfortunately has

[8:37] not made our region flood resilient.

[8:40] A real investment program means

[8:41] sequencing the right tools in the right

[8:43] order, building local capacity,

[8:46] funding applied funding applied

[8:48] research, creating jobs, and

[8:49] prioritizing the most vulnerable

[8:51] communities first.

[8:54] Which all of that brings me to the joint

[8:56] statement that I'm here about today. The

[8:58] aim is to express a unified regional

[9:00] voice across local governments and First

[9:02] Nations and support advocacy to federal

[9:05] and provincial governments for stable,

[9:07] long-term investment in flood resilience

[9:09] that protects people, communities, and

[9:11] ecosystems from

[9:12] flood risk. And this is not just

[9:14] riverine, we're also talking about

[9:15] overland flooding and things like

[9:17] atmospheric rivers.

[9:19] It is an opportunity for the city as as

[9:21] for the village

[9:22] as leaders to send a clear message to

[9:24] Ottawa and Victoria, letting them know

[9:27] that we are ready to work together as a

[9:28] region to build flood resilience for our

[9:30] communities. We know what we need, and

[9:33] federal and provincial governments must

[9:34] step up to protect this region of

[9:36] national significance with a program

[9:38] that reflects the magnitude of the task

[9:40] at hand.

[9:42] To that end, we are calling

[9:44] the joint statement calls for a

[9:45] dedicated long-term flood resilience

[9:47] program for the region, stable committed

[9:49] funding, not project by project funding,

[9:52] regional coordination, investment in

[9:55] critical infrastructure, and the full

[9:57] flood risk reduction toolbox, including

[9:59] nature-based solutions, and capacity

[10:02] support for First Nations and local

[10:04] government leadership

[10:05] to move this work forward.

[10:08] So, on May 29th, the Metro Vancouver

[10:11] Regional District's board endorsed this

[10:13] joint statement, and since then we have

[10:15] been doing delegations to two

[10:17] municipalities across the region. So

[10:19] far, we have got endorsement from Metro

[10:22] Vancouver and the SLRD, the

[10:23] Squamish-Lillooet Regional District. We

[10:25] are

[10:27] seeking endorsement from the FVRD later

[10:29] this month. City-wise, Port Coquitlam,

[10:33] the City of Coquitlam, City of Delta,

[10:35] Township of Langley, and the City of

[10:36] Langley have all signed on. We're in

[10:38] process with the City of Vancouver,

[10:40] Maple Ridge, and City of Surrey as we

[10:43] speak. And we have um

[10:45] more coming up

[10:47] after the after the August break.

[10:51] So,

[10:52] to summarize then,

[10:55] I should turn my sheet over.

[10:57] Essentially, this the statement is

[11:00] calling on the provincial and federal

[11:01] governments to recognize that

[11:02] collaboration, not competition for

[11:04] piecemeal funding, is the foundation of

[11:06] for resilience in the Lower Fraser, and

[11:08] that enabling First Nations and local

[11:10] governments to work together to meet

[11:11] responsibilities to their communities

[11:14] that flow from rights, titles, and

[11:16] jurisdiction is part of that foundation.

[11:19] And we're calling on the federal and

[11:21] provincial governments to develop a

[11:22] sustained long-term investment program

[11:25] for the Lower Fraser adequate to support

[11:27] collaborative work across for federal,

[11:29] provincial, and local governments, First

[11:32] Nations, and the private sector to

[11:34] achieve regional flood plain resilience

[11:36] that works with nature, not against it.

[11:38] This work is bigger than one community,

[11:40] and we're hence we're um trying to bring

[11:43] everyone together so we can work

[11:44] together.

[11:46] Thank you.

[11:48] » Good. Thank you. Um

[11:50] with my role on Metro Vancouver, we we

[11:52] did endorse this, and we've really had a

[11:53] challenge because there is

[11:55] the provincial government and federal

[11:56] governments are not putting any funding

[11:58] towards this very significant issue that

[12:01] is facing uh a lot of our

[12:03] municipalities. I especially feel for

[12:05] like a municipality like Pitt Meadows of

[12:08] very small size just doesn't have the

[12:10] funding to be able to do this, and no

[12:11] money coming from the province or the

[12:12] federal governments to be able to to do

[12:14] a lot of these things. And I know it at

[12:16] Metro Vancouver, we also had the the

[12:18] Fraser Valley

[12:19] uh flood plains task force that we have

[12:21] there, and we we are have a real

[12:22] challenge with it as well to maintain

[12:24] funding for that. So, anyway, I really

[12:26] support uh

[12:28] your what you're what you're doing and

[12:29] getting and us all advocating for the

[12:31] same thing and and helping out. We but

[12:34] it also I think includes dredging as

[12:35] well because a lot of the uh areas of

[12:37] the lower Fraser need to be dredged

[12:39] because they're now the siltation that's

[12:41] come down over the years, and and the

[12:42] federal government, which is their

[12:44] responsibility, is not participating in

[12:45] that at all. So, I'll just open up if

[12:47] anybody has any other further questions,

[12:49] but just wanted to thank you again for

[12:51] coming and for your presentation and the

[12:52] work that you're doing.

[12:54] Any other comments?

[12:57] Councilor Richardson.

[12:58] >> So, I I went to your website to try and

[13:01] understand. Like, I understand it's a

[13:04] group of people coming together to try

[13:06] and raise awareness,

[13:08] but I didn't read any

[13:10] examples. This is what we'd like to do.

[13:12] And in your presentation, you even said,

[13:15] "We're building on flood plains and

[13:16] putting people at risk."

[13:18] Where? How many? Which municipalities?

[13:22] Cuz it seems to me

[13:23] it would be the responsibility of the

[13:25] municipalities not to do that, not the

[13:28] provincial government or the federal

[13:29] government

[13:30] to restrict municipalities from where

[13:32] they want to build. So, I was a bit

[13:34] confused

[13:36] sort of how it would work, where the

[13:38] money would go, and what it would do.

[13:40] >> Yeah. Um actually right now, I think

[13:43] it's bill 44, provincial bill 44, where

[13:47] um the province is kind of directing

[13:50] local governments in one way to build in

[13:52] order to densify communities, which um

[13:55] in some communities are they're

[13:57] considering more development and more

[13:59] denser development in the flood plains.

[14:02] Burnaby is one.

[14:03] PoCo is another.

[14:05] Um

[14:06] so, that's kind of

[14:08] what I mean by we're building more in

[14:09] the flood plain, and perhaps not to

[14:11] certain flood standards that um

[14:14] have to be updated still, especially for

[14:16] the local communities having to update

[14:18] their flood standards. The The second

[14:21] part of What was the What was the second

[14:22] part of the question?

[14:24] >> I was kind of looking for a specific

[14:26] examples of where the money would go,

[14:28] what it would do. Like

[14:31] are they looking to have the federal

[14:32] government come in, and your numbers

[14:34] were huge, raise all dikes on the Fraser

[14:37] Valley,

[14:38] you know, 5 ft?

[14:40] Like I I was a bit

[14:42] confused like even work with nature.

[14:43] Like if you work with nature, the river

[14:45] just flows.

[14:46] So, our point actually is in some ways

[14:49] is to not work with nature.

[14:51] We want to control it and force it into

[14:53] particular channels and paths.

[14:55] >> So, that's what's happened before, Ian.

[14:56] >> So,

[14:58] I I didn't quite understand what the

[15:00] overall goal is.

[15:02] >> Yeah, well,

[15:03] there are many different steps before we

[15:05] actually start breaking ground and, you

[15:06] know, doing any of the flood resilience

[15:07] projects we'd like to see happen. Um

[15:10] right now, we have funding from NRCan,

[15:14] Natural Resources Canada, to do research

[15:16] on critical infrastructure. So, we're

[15:18] starting to identify where are the

[15:21] critical infra-

[15:22] infrastructure at the moment? So,

[15:24] railways, roads, focusing on those,

[15:27] their their their flood risk weaknesses.

[15:31] So, that work current studies currently

[15:32] being conducted through UBC School of

[15:34] Engineering.

[15:36] And we would love to have more

[15:38] communities on board and participating

[15:40] in that study so that their critical

[15:42] infrastructure in the communities are

[15:43] getting

[15:45] studied and addressed.

[15:46] So, that's one thing that's happening.

[15:48] More There is more

[15:50] need

[15:55] There is further need for actually doing

[15:57] more applied research cuz we actually

[15:59] don't know

[16:01] where all of the high-risk flood areas

[16:03] are in the Lower Mainland.

[16:05] It shifts. Right now, everyone's

[16:07] focusing on the Sumas Prairie for

[16:09] obviously good reasons. But, this past

[16:12] March, we had a slide at the top end of

[16:14] the Coquitlam River. Well, that's an

[16:16] area perhaps of high risk as well. So,

[16:18] there are so many different areas of

[16:20] high risk within our communities that we

[16:21] haven't fully identified yet. So, that

[16:24] has to be done.

[16:25] We talk about using the flood risk toolkit, and that is

[16:30] everything from gray infrastructure like

[16:33] dikes, pump stations,

[16:35] you know, channeling things, all the way

[16:38] to green gray solutions like greener

[16:41] dikes,

[16:42] using berms for example, or creating

[16:45] constructed wetlands. So, those are more

[16:46] nature-based solutions, constructed

[16:48] wetlands to hold more water and allow it

[16:50] to flow more slowly because as we are

[16:52] developing and have developed in our

[16:55] floodplains and our slopes, we have

[16:57] taken away the capacity of forests and

[17:00] wetlands to do what they need to do. We

[17:02] have lost 80

[17:05] 82%

[17:07] or so of the wetlands in the Lower

[17:08] Mainland. So, therefore, we've lost the

[17:11] to capacity of to hold water in the

[17:13] region.

[17:14] >> So.

[17:15] >> yes.

[17:15] >> Yeah, I just wanted to kind of wrap this

[17:17] up. Basically, in essence, you're an

[17:19] advocacy group for all the

[17:21] municipalities and different um

[17:24] uh bands up along the the Fraser River,

[17:26] which which is something that you're

[17:28] looking to coordinate a

[17:31] kind of a central

[17:33] um request to both levels of government

[17:34] and work as a as a as a as a unit rather

[17:37] than what happens right now, which is a

[17:39] lot of municipalities, i.e. the

[17:40] Richmonds and that have their own flood

[17:41] plans, but they're not in conjunction

[17:43] with other neighboring municipalities

[17:45] like Delta and such like that. So,

[17:47] really, I think the the essence of of

[17:49] the ask is just to uh sign on with the

[17:52] other municipalities as to this regional

[17:54] body

[17:55] kind of speaking for all of us and

[17:57] getting the required funding that we

[17:58] need to get from the senior levels of

[18:00] government. Is that

[18:02] >> Yeah. Yeah, we do advocacy. We also do

[18:04] convening. We bring local governments

[18:06] and First Nation leadership together. We

[18:08] do this at the regional scale, so Hope

[18:10] to the Salish Sea up to, you know, the

[18:11] Squamish Lil'wat Regional District. Um

[18:14] but we also do this subregionally at

[18:15] smaller groups, so we can we can talk

[18:17] about things at different levels based

[18:18] on what's needed. So, we do we do the

[18:22] advocacy. We do the convening, bringing

[18:24] together people, and we're creating a

[18:25] knowledge hub. We're creating the shared

[18:27] knowledge uh space for communities to

[18:30] access. So, we are not we are not the

[18:33] ones who would

[18:36] In essence, we should not be the ones as

[18:38] uh we're not leadership, right? We're

[18:40] kind of behind the scenes, but we want

[18:42] to support and encourage leadership to

[18:44] have have um

[18:46] uh the words and the knowledge to then

[18:48] go forward and speak to the province and

[18:50] the feds and bring this investment to

[18:52] the region.

[18:53] >> Thank you.

[18:54] Is this something you have a resolution

[18:55] for us or something we can

[18:57] move to endorse?

[18:59] >> Perhaps if council desires um

[19:03] uh a resolution can be um that the uh

[19:06] council uh supports the request uh of

[19:09] the delegation. Something as simple as

[19:11] that, perhaps.

[19:12] >> Would that be Would the Village of

[19:13] Anmore Council support the

[19:17] movement of the I forget what exactly

[19:20] the name is.

[19:20] >> statement.

[19:21] >> The the Lower Mainland Lower Fraser

[19:23] Flood Land Coalition.

[19:25] >> Um yeah, yeah. The exact name of the

[19:27] statement is I believe you have it as

[19:29] well. Yeah, and if you wanted to see the

[19:32] wording, it is on my slide deck as well.

[19:34] >> We can We'll word smith. So, I'll call

[19:35] the question and

[19:37] Do I have someone to move that

[19:38] resolution?

[19:40] To endorse the flood lands. Okay,

[19:42] Counselor Krygier.

[19:44] >> So, are we requesting to send a letter

[19:46] of support or

[19:49] >> I did

[19:50] >> I Is it a

[19:51] >> What is the actual action? That's what

[19:53] I'm a little confused about.

[19:54] >> we've been what we've been receiving

[19:55] from other local governments is a very

[19:58] brief letter showing reflecting support

[20:01] for the joint statement, as well as a

[20:03] logo that we can then put up on our

[20:05] presentation and on our website.

[20:07] So, that's that's the basic ask.

[20:08] >> Okay.

[20:09] >> And then, of course, as we're moving

[20:10] forward, if there's interest in being

[20:11] part of our convenings and being part of

[20:14] any advocacy that does happen at the at

[20:16] the high upper levels of government,

[20:18] being invited to participate in that as

[20:20] well.

[20:21] >> Okay.

[20:23] So, could I get someone Does somebody

[20:25] want to move that motion to submit a

[20:26] letter? Moved.

[20:28] Anybody want to second? I see Paul's

[20:30] going to second it.

[20:31] Okay, any further discussion?

[20:34] Councilor Richardson.

[20:36] >> Yes, I kind of mentioned earlier, like I couldn't really understand who you

[20:40] were, how you were funded. You said you

[20:42] were a non-profit.

[20:43] And I I

[20:45] didn't quite understand your role.

[20:47] And in order to send a letter saying I

[20:50] support you, I kind of have to know

[20:52] more.

[20:53] >> Okay.

[20:53] >> So, I I can try and find out offline,

[20:57] but I couldn't find it before. So, maybe

[20:59] we can have a conversation or something.

[21:01] >> I'm happy to chat. But, very quickly, we

[21:03] are really just like a a of different

[21:05] organizations who are who think the

[21:07] region needs to be organized in a in a

[21:10] better way. We don't have a regional

[21:11] flood plan.

[21:12] Um and we're at risk because of that on

[21:14] many different levels. Environmentally,

[21:16] but also economically, our community is

[21:18] at risk. So, for all of those reasons, a

[21:20] number of organizations came together.

[21:21] If you go to our website, you will see

[21:23] who we are on there. We're uh like

[21:26] researchers, engineers, uh environmental

[21:29] organizations, um

[21:31] a legal like West Coast Environmental

[21:32] Law Society, they provide legal legal

[21:34] advice. Um

[21:36] uh Farm We also have uh Farmland

[21:38] Advantage, so we have like a

[21:39] agricultural um

[21:41] part

[21:43] members part of our coalition.

[21:45] So, we

[21:46] >> question from Councillor Craig. Are you

[21:49] a registered Well, you're not a charity,

[21:51] but are you a an organization, a

[21:53] society?

[21:54] >> coalition. So, a coalition of different

[21:57] organizations who are like Watershed

[21:59] Watch, who I work for, is a registered

[22:01] charity.

[22:02] Um the the First Nations led emergency

[22:05] planning uh secretariat is um is a What

[22:10] are they? They're a nonprofit, they're

[22:11] not a registered charity, but they're

[22:12] First Nations led and our work is very

[22:15] much based in and supported by what they

[22:17] do. So, all of the different um

[22:19] organizations that are part that are in

[22:21] the coalition, um we we are like we have

[22:24] our own charters and mandates and all of

[22:26] that, but we come together for this

[22:28] cause

[22:29] and try

[22:30] to bring the region together.

[22:31] >> Okay.

[22:34] >> I think that's the coalition.

[22:36] >> So, you don't have a

[22:37] Do you have a budget? Do you have Is

[22:39] everyone paid by their organization that

[22:41] represents? Sorry for these questions,

[22:43] but

[22:44] >> no, totally, it's fine. Um

[22:46] So, yeah, so we I can speak for myself.

[22:49] I do have a budget that pays for my time

[22:51] that I apply for grants. Um like to

[22:54] foundations, and that's at Watershed

[22:57] Watch Salmon Society, but the coalition

[22:59] to help with some of our studies I

[23:00] mentioned ENR We have $1.8 million from

[23:04] NRCan. We recently were awarded some

[23:07] money through the through the Ministry

[23:09] of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship

[23:11] as well as the Ministry of Agriculture

[23:13] because they want us to continue our

[23:15] engagement with between farmers and

[23:17] First Nations in the Valley. So, that's

[23:18] some other work that we're doing. Um so,

[23:21] you know,

[23:22] little pots of money here and there to

[23:24] help

[23:25] us do our work.

[23:25] >> Thank you.

[23:27] Okay, I'll call the question. All those

[23:29] it's been moved and seconded. All those

[23:30] in favor?

[23:31] Opposed? I don't even see Oh,

[23:35] uh motion's carried. Thank you. Thank

[23:37] you very much for coming out and

[23:38] presenting.

[23:41] Okay, uh we have the minutes of the

[23:43] regular council meeting held on July

[23:45] 7th, 2026. Recommendation that those uh

[23:49] minutes be adopted as circulated. Could

[23:51] I get someone to move that? Move,

[23:52] second. Any discussion on those minutes?

[23:56] See none. All those in favor?

[23:58] Opposed?

[24:00] Carried. Any business arising from the

[24:02] minutes?

[24:04] No? Okay. We have a consent agenda. Um

[24:09] we only have one item on the consent

[24:10] agenda, the Orphan Dyke advocacy letter

[24:12] to the province.

[24:17] Uh

[24:19] Who uh who should I go to about

[24:21] explaining this?

[24:23] Ms. Elder?

[24:24] >> I It is just for a receipt.

[24:26] >> Oh, it's just for a receipt. Okay.

[24:28] Someone to to move receipt.

[24:32] Move, second. Any discussion?

[24:36] See none. All those in favor?

[24:39] Opposed? Carried. I didn't ask you.

[24:41] Okay. We're on to uh

[24:43] legislative reports 9A OCP bylaw

[24:45] amendment 722-2025

[24:48] infield development first and second

[24:50] reading report dated July 17th, 2026

[24:52] from Manager of Development Services

[24:54] attached.

[24:55] Mr. Joseph.

[24:56] >> Uh excuse me before we begin, I will

[24:59] recuse myself.

[25:00] >> Okay.

[25:00] >> We'll be We'll be doing infill,

[25:02] hopefully, in the future.

[25:06] >> Okay. Mr. Joseph.

[25:22] » Okay, thank you, Mayor and Council. If

[25:24] you can put the mic a little closer.

[25:26] So, this report is to present updated

[25:28] draft of the official community plan

[25:29] amendment bylaw number 722-2025,

[25:32] which proposes updates to OCP policy RLU

[25:34] 16, along with corresponding amendments

[25:36] to the infill policy number 61 for

[25:38] Council's consideration of first and

[25:40] second reading, and to seek direction on

[25:41] referring this amendment to external

[25:43] agencies as required under section 475

[25:45] and 476 of the Local Government Act.

[25:47] So, back at the May 20th, uh, 2025

[25:49] meeting, Council directed staff to

[25:51] propose amendments to OCP policy RLU 16.

[25:54] Staff returned in September 2026 with

[25:56] proposed amendments, and Council passed

[25:57] a resolution directing staff to prepare

[25:59] changes to both the infill policy, as

[26:02] well, uh, RLU 16 and the infill policy.

[26:05] At the May 19th meeting, Council

[26:06] directed that the amendments be deferred

[26:08] as it was identified that the proposed

[26:09] new minimum lot size provision for

[26:11] double fronting parcels would permit a

[26:13] density greater than that what was

[26:14] allowed under the most recent OCP

[26:16] updates.

[26:17] So, staff have further revised the draft

[26:19] amendment bylaw and infill policy number

[26:21] 61 for Council consideration based on

[26:23] this feedback, and have since removed

[26:24] the density specific provision for

[26:26] double fronting parcels altogether.

[26:28] The previous inclusion for parcels

[26:29] between 2800 and 3924 square meters to

[26:32] be eligible for infill, where the parcel

[26:35] double fronts onto two separate public

[26:36] highways, would have equated to a

[26:38] density of a of around 8.67 units per

[26:41] acre, which exceeds the OCP, uh, policy

[26:44] RLU 17 associated with recent OCP

[26:46] amendments that have been established

[26:48] that has established a maximum density

[26:50] of six units per acre for infill lots.

[26:53] Uh so, the standard minimum lot size

[26:55] range of roughly 1 to 2 acres uh

[26:58] and the current maximum density of 2.04

[26:59] parcels per acre per acre will continue

[27:02] to be to apply to all infill parcels,

[27:04] including those for double frontage. So,

[27:06] staff recommend that any further review

[27:07] of infill density uh be considered as

[27:09] part of a future OCP update.

[27:12] The amendment also proposes to remove

[27:13] number three of RLU 16 for the

[27:16] requirement that the entire parcel have

[27:18] an average slope of 20% or less. While

[27:20] keeping a number four of the policy for

[27:22] the requirement that the building site

[27:23] have an average grade of 20% or less.

[27:26] This gives more flexibility for lots

[27:27] with varied topography while maintaining

[27:29] control of the siting that keeps

[27:30] development uh off steep slopes. It's

[27:33] also worth noting that the steep slopes

[27:34] development permit area adopted through

[27:36] the recent OCP amendments still applies

[27:38] to lots with an overall average grade of

[27:40] 20% and will require a development

[27:42] permit and geotechnical assessments

[27:43] where needed.

[27:45] The amendment also provides additional

[27:46] flexibility on frontage requirements

[27:48] described in RLU 16 number six. So,

[27:50] panhandle lots and lots using an access

[27:52] easement are treated as comparable

[27:53] scenarios, both requiring similar

[27:55] standards for emergency access.

[27:58] The previous draft amendment had a 50-m

[27:59] frontage requirement for panhandle lots

[28:02] and this has since been revised down to

[28:03] 25 m matching what's proposed for the

[28:05] lots utilizing an access easement

[28:07] alternative.

[28:12] In regards to updates to infill policy

[28:14] number 61 section two requires that the access

[28:20] strip of a panhandle not be included in

[28:22] the calculation of the minimum lot size.

[28:25] Section four of the policy exempts

[28:26] panhandle lots and lots utilizing access

[28:28] easements uh from a 25-m frontage

[28:30] requirement, but but requires that the

[28:33] parcel width and depth be at least 25 m

[28:35] in length to maintain green space

[28:36] between homes as illustrated in figure

[28:39] three and four of the policy as attached

[28:41] to the report, matching the intent of

[28:42] the 25-m uh road frontage requirement.

[28:45] Staff have also consulted with the

[28:47] assessment Volunteer Fire Department on

[28:48] emergency access requirements for these

[28:50] lot configurations, which have informed

[28:52] section 5 of the info policy number 61,

[28:54] which requires panhandle lots and lots

[28:56] using an access easement to meet a set

[28:58] of criteria that will be enforced uh

[29:00] through covenants on title.

[29:02] These include a minimum of seven 7.5 m

[29:04] access strip for panhandle lots, a

[29:06] minimum 6 m wide paved access for

[29:08] panhandle lots and access alternatives, use existing

[29:12] driveways where feasible, maximum of 12%

[29:15] driveway grades or access grades,

[29:17] uh adequate overhead clearance for fire

[29:19] apparatus where an arborist report and

[29:20] tree management plan may be required at

[29:22] rezoning,

[29:23] clear and visible address signage from

[29:24] the highway, safe and accessible

[29:26] emergency entry at all times, and only

[29:28] one parcel that may be created uh

[29:30] utilizing an access by easement.

[29:33] So, a council approval of a waiver

[29:34] permitting subdivision where the

[29:36] frontage is less than 10% of the parcel

[29:37] perimeter uh will be required uh when

[29:40] warranted for these lots. And also

[29:42] referral to the fire chief may occur at

[29:44] any stage in the info process.

[29:46] Finally, amendments to section 8 of the

[29:47] policy proposes to update the list of

[29:49] desirable community amenities since the

[29:51] community hub is now complete and

[29:52] upgrades to the Spirit Park are

[29:53] underway, staff have replaced the

[29:55] municipal hall with park enhancements

[29:57] and park acquisition as an active CAC

[29:59] priority.

[30:00] Staff has not proposed a change to the

[30:02] actual CAC target value at this time,

[30:04] though council may direct staff to

[30:05] commission a new land lift study or

[30:07] adjust in the current figure based on

[30:08] CPI indexing as recommended by the

[30:11] previous report, uh which would bring it

[30:12] to approximately $189,633.

[30:17] So, if council wants to pursue this uh

[30:18] either um

[30:20] two options, uh direction can be given

[30:22] tonight along with uh the other

[30:23] recommendations.

[30:27] Local Government Act requires a

[30:28] consultation with potentially affected

[30:30] agencies before public hearing, so staff

[30:32] recommend referral to the Miss Palaces

[30:33] Belcarra, Port Moody, School District

[30:35] number 43, and the Musqueam, Squamish,

[30:38] Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem First

[30:39] Nations with all responses brought back

[30:42] to council as part of a public hearing

[30:43] package.

[30:44] Would you like me to read the

[30:46] recommendation?

[30:47] >> Sure.

[30:49] >> So the recommendation is that Village of

[30:50] Bel Air Official Community Plan Bylaw

[30:51] Amendment number 722-2025

[30:54] be given first and second reading and

[30:56] that Bel Air Official Community Plan

[30:57] Amendment Bylaw number 722-2025

[31:00] be referred to the following committees

[31:01] as it relates to the mandate of each

[31:02] committee.

[31:04] And that in relation to Village of Bel

[31:05] Air Official Community Plan Amendment

[31:06] Bylaw number 722-2025

[31:09] amendments associated with the proposed

[31:10] updates to policy RLU 16 and full

[31:12] development council will provide the

[31:14] following additional opportunities it

[31:15] considers appropriate for consultation

[31:17] with persons, organizations, or

[31:18] authorities it considers

[31:20] will be affected including the

[31:22] municipalities of Village of Bel Air and

[31:23] the City of Port Moody, School District

[31:25] number 43, and the Musqueam, Squamish,

[31:27] Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem First

[31:28] Nations. And that all information

[31:30] resulting from the Section 475 and 476

[31:32] referral

[31:34] and received by the Village will be

[31:35] brought forward to a council as part of

[31:36] a public hearing package and that a

[31:38] public hearing be scheduled following

[31:39] the referral process. Thank you.

[31:42] >> Good. Can I get someone to move that?

[31:45] Move seconded. Seconded. I'll open up

[31:47] for discussion.

[31:49] Councilor Richardson.

[31:53] Okay. So,

[31:55] when I

[31:56] read through this,

[31:58] we just did an OCP amendment. We're now

[32:01] doing another one and I'm

[32:03] worried we're bumping into an election

[32:05] and maybe it's not the right thing to

[32:07] do. So, if you just kind of

[32:09] qualify times. If this is passed, when

[32:12] would the public hearing be?

[32:15] » I think the next council meeting is in

[32:18] September.

[32:19] I think in the 20-something, 22nd.

[32:22] Should be a sufficient time for a

[32:24] referral process to take place as well

[32:26] as to schedule a public hearing. So,

[32:27] that would be probably when the public

[32:28] hearing would take place.

[32:30] >> Okay. And then after that, it would be

[32:31] third reading.

[32:32] >> At the same meeting, potentially the

[32:34] >> But then you have to do a fourth

[32:35] reading.

[32:36] >> Correct. October.

[32:37] >> Which would

[32:38] >> Or

[32:40] Oh, third and adopt because of it's OCP.

[32:42] So, you could potentially do the

[32:43] adoption at

[32:45] third reading as well. So, September

[32:47] meeting.

[32:48] >> Third and fourth.

[32:50] Okay, cuz it's banging into the election

[32:52] and I'm

[32:55] for some reason it it's I'm a bit leery

[32:57] on it. With that said,

[32:58] um

[32:59] I'm good with like the pan handles. I'm

[33:01] good on the 20%, you know, for the

[33:03] building area only.

[33:05] Um

[33:07] good on the size of the double roaded

[33:09] lots.

[33:10] I'm I'm struggling with the manifestations and maneuvering to

[33:17] allow the you know, 0.89 or the 8.9

[33:21] versus the six in the OCP.

[33:23] And I was wondering if that cannot be

[33:25] done or held done better in zoning.

[33:28] So, like right now we say all lots 1/3

[33:31] of an acre can have a carriage house a

[33:33] suite and a building.

[33:35] But we could change that if you're a

[33:37] double side infill, you don't get that.

[33:40] And then it cleans it up a little bit

[33:43] and this becomes more about enabling and

[33:46] less about massaging the OCP. And I

[33:49] don't know if that's possible or not,

[33:52] but my I'm leaning more that direction.

[33:56] >> Yeah, so to the chair, I think that

[33:57] you're running up against one other

[33:59] issue and that's the 2.0

[34:01] uh for uh

[34:02] lots per acre. Um so, that I guess for

[34:05] the double frontage purposes, you could

[34:06] have two lots uh sort of uh there, but

[34:10] we've since removed that um

[34:12] sort of uh section for the RLU 16 policy

[34:16] under previous direction um

[34:18] because it it just exceeds the dense the

[34:20] current density of the OCP. So, you

[34:23] could potentially include it an

[34:25] additional zoning bylaw or a zone for

[34:28] the specific lots

[34:30] where you wouldn't allow for um let's

[34:32] say all all three of the units per lot.

[34:35] So then maybe if it's two, then you

[34:36] would still be in line with the OCP that

[34:39] was currently passed.

[34:40] >> Cuz that's my concern. How much of this

[34:42] is to enable

[34:45] uh more flexible infill

[34:47] and how much of this is to change the

[34:50] current OCP to allow the potential exit

[34:53] extra density on like a 0.8 acre lot

[34:56] that's divided into with three units on

[34:58] each side?

[34:59] >> Yeah, so through the chair, for tonight,

[35:01] the current bylaw that's in front of you

[35:03] for consideration does not consider

[35:04] additional density at all. That's since

[35:07] been striked out since the last meeting.

[35:09] So the double frontage lot is not under

[35:11] consideration at this time.

[35:13] >> Okay.

[35:15] So then I'm

[35:16] confused.

[35:18] Cuz I read a whole bunch of this stuff

[35:19] is about

[35:20] adjusting the 0.6 the six units per acre

[35:25] density in the OCP to allow something

[35:28] more. Am I Did I misread that?

[35:30] >> Yeah, no, through the chair, this was it

[35:31] was just a clarification segment. Yeah.

[35:34] >> Okay, and then my last question is it an issue at all? Like say we boot

[35:39] it down the path to the next council,

[35:42] are there like 10 people lined up that

[35:44] say, "I want this today?" Do we have

[35:46] anybody or can it be left until like

[35:50] we're going to redo the OCP in the next

[35:52] term is my understanding. So can it be

[35:55] wait till then?

[35:56] >> Yeah, I mean, we have had active

[35:58] interest numerous active interest in in

[36:00] sort of these type of configurations.

[36:03] Uh we do have one active application in

[36:05] regards to 20% average slope. However,

[36:09] you know, those considerations uh

[36:12] they also have to conform to the active

[36:13] policy and of course the option to defer

[36:16] it to it all OCP update is is always a

[36:19] possibility.

[36:21] >> Okay.

[36:24] Couple of uh questions I have for you.

[36:26] Um

[36:28] you know, uh

[36:30] again, when I struck the task force back

[36:32] in 2018, I've done infill. That's why

[36:34] I've no longer recused myself. I'm

[36:36] beyond that. Um

[36:38] you know, infill was to provide gentle

[36:40] densification,

[36:42] no new infrastructure,

[36:44] not on a steep slope, and it was to

[36:46] retain the semi

[36:48] semi-rural feel of the village. Very, specific. And I think um

[36:53] the uh

[36:55] councillors uh

[36:56] Webber and uh

[36:58] and Trolbridge actually did a really

[36:59] good job was they set up a group and and

[37:01] met several times and and discussed

[37:02] this. I've had a couple people who

[37:05] couldn't be here tonight, but are pretty

[37:07] concerned about these new changes, and

[37:09] the one being the panhandle.

[37:11] They said, "Are you aware that most of

[37:13] the panhandles are strata roads? And so,

[37:15] what you're doing is you're literally

[37:17] putting a neighbor against other

[37:18] neighbors on the strata road to allow

[37:19] them access to that to that panhandle."

[37:23] Number two is will this also allow lots

[37:26] that are very deep allow them to put a

[37:28] panhandle in to be able to to develop

[37:31] the rear of the property, which again is

[37:32] going to take away from the semi-rural

[37:34] feel that the initial infill was was

[37:37] proposed to do. So, I am not in favor of

[37:40] this at all because I think it opens up

[37:42] Pandora's Box and to creativity that

[37:44] could be had with people putting

[37:46] panhandles. And then I know I think it

[37:48] was in the mid mid-2015, 2016, um we

[37:52] actually had a moratorium about adding

[37:54] panhandles, and I think this will

[37:55] actually add panhandles. So, I do have

[37:58] some concern people are not pleased

[38:00] about this about the about the ability

[38:02] of using panhandles to facilitate their

[38:05] frontage, um

[38:07] because they're using a panhandle to

[38:08] access their property right now, and

[38:10] they're strata, and so there's a big

[38:12] legal concern about that that I don't

[38:13] know has been taken into consideration

[38:15] in this aspect. And then

[38:17] >> Oh, sorry. Go on.

[38:18] >> Yeah, and then furthermore, you know,

[38:20] they when we when we did the initial, we

[38:23] I think there was a lot of parameters

[38:24] that were established out of IE the

[38:27] Ravenswood neighborhood with the 25 m

[38:29] and that and again this get we're

[38:31] starting to get away from that. The the

[38:33] slope aspect I think is

[38:35] you know, I've certainly I have no issue

[38:37] from going a little bit higher to a

[38:40] higher percentage on the on the on the

[38:42] grade if it if it's not going to add any

[38:43] extra and it meets the driveway

[38:45] requirements regarding regarding grade

[38:47] and stuff like that but the the

[38:49] panhandle I I I don't think should be

[38:52] an option used in infill at all. So.

[38:57] Go ahead.

[38:58] >> Yeah, so I just want to address a couple

[38:59] of things. So the panhandle I was for

[39:01] the panhandles would would essentially

[39:04] just be that property's driveway. So

[39:07] there's no strata cuz there's no sharing

[39:08] on a it's just for that specific real

[39:11] estate entity

[39:13] using that panhandle as part of one

[39:15] singular parcel just like any other

[39:16] parcel would use a their their driveway.

[39:19] >> The concern when I read this and the

[39:20] concern that people brought up to my

[39:21] attention is where there's a panhandle

[39:24] that is shared by two or three homes

[39:28] those that is a strata road and it's

[39:30] owned by each one of the owners.

[39:33] And therefore that you're putting owner

[39:34] against owner to be able to allow him to

[39:37] add another title to that another access

[39:38] point to that where it's only to

[39:40] facilitate currently the three homes or

[39:42] two homes or whatever it is right now.

[39:44] So there was some big concerns about

[39:46] that.

[39:47] >> Yeah, so I know there is an option to

[39:48] have sort of a shared interest and and

[39:50] sometimes an access easement that's a

[39:52] specific sort of

[39:55] I would say access alternative that

[39:56] could be sought through a subdivision.

[39:58] However, as it's proposed it's just for

[40:01] the singular access for the current

[40:02] parcel under the application.

[40:04] >> So people could then create their own

[40:06] panhandle if they had their own property

[40:08] to be able to access the rear of the

[40:09] property.

[40:10] >> Yeah, I mean like I guess easements

[40:12] between property owners can can be

[40:13] established at any rate.

[40:15] >> Yeah, okay. I saw a Webberink had his

[40:18] hand up.

[40:20] Go ahead.

[40:21] >> Thank you, Mayor McKeown.

[40:23] I have to agree with Mayor McKeown and

[40:26] Councillor Richardson. I think this is

[40:28] all a little too close to the election.

[40:31] This could all get turned around after

[40:32] the election.

[40:34] So,

[40:35] I would I would not be in favor of

[40:37] moving forward with this at the time.

[40:41] >> Okay. Did I see Councillor Trobridge Did

[40:42] you have your hand up or you just

[40:43] adjusting your

[40:45] Go ahead.

[40:47] >> No, sorry.

[40:49] It was my hand up. I I'm of the same

[40:51] mind. I mean,

[40:53] I like everything uh

[40:55] I'm comfortable with everything, I

[40:57] should say, in terms of the slope

[41:00] applying to just the building envelope,

[41:02] things like that make a lot of sense.

[41:05] But, if it's all packaged together with

[41:07] panhandles, etc., I prefer to defer it.

[41:12] >> Good.

[41:13] Okay, so we have a motion on the table

[41:15] that's moved and seconded. So, to defer it would then simply be to

[41:20] wait to be voted against it. So, all

[41:22] those in favor of

[41:24] Oh, sorry, Councillor Richardson, do you

[41:25] have one more comment?

[41:27] >> Yes, one comment and one suggestion.

[41:31] So,

[41:33] my read of this is existing panhandle

[41:37] lots are not considered in this. Is that

[41:39] true?

[41:41] Like, if you have a lot that's narrower

[41:43] than 20 50 m,

[41:46] you could potentially

[41:48] put something behind your thing and

[41:50] create an access that would look like a

[41:51] panhandle, but current panhandle lots,

[41:55] like the rear part of a

[41:56] any lot that has a panhandle currently,

[41:58] this does not apply to. Correct?

[42:00] >> Yeah, so as the bylaw is currently

[42:02] worded, 50-m frontage is a requirement

[42:05] to be eligible for infill. Okay. So,

[42:06] that unless the panhandle is 50 m wide,

[42:09] which I doubt.

[42:10] >> Okay, fair enough. So, then

[42:12] you know, I would make the amendment

[42:15] that

[42:16] uh be given first second reading and

[42:18] then Ambleside be referred to the

[42:20] following No, not committees.

[42:22] That it be amended so that the only

[42:25] thing considered is that 20% on building

[42:28] area.

[42:29] And then all the other stuff gets passed

[42:32] down the pipe.

[42:34] Because the my understanding in talking

[42:36] with one person that has the 20% issue,

[42:39] like 20.05 or something. That the lot's

[42:42] a bit of a V

[42:44] and they're not planning to build on the

[42:45] V, which is a creek. But that, if you

[42:48] add up the slope, the absolute value,

[42:49] makes a very steep lot, even though the

[42:51] lot's not that steep. So, you know,

[42:54] mathematically how it goes. So, I don't

[42:56] know if we can

[42:57] do that and just limit it to the one

[43:00] thing.

[43:03] >> So, so right now we have a motion on the

[43:04] table that encompasses all everything.

[43:07] We could do an amendment which would

[43:09] take it down to But we'd have to vote

[43:11] those other ones down.

[43:11] >> Okay, fair enough.

[43:12] >> So, I think it's best that we just

[43:13] simply vote it down currently. Or if

[43:16] that's the if that's what the appetite

[43:18] of council is, and then we could come

[43:19] back with another one which is just and

[43:21] describe a little bit more cuz I'd like

[43:23] to get a little bit more details on the

[43:25] grade and why it was actually even

[43:26] initially set up as well at 20% or where

[43:29] that number kind of came from. I think

[43:31] it was kind of arbitrarily kind of taken

[43:33] out of there in our in our one of our

[43:36] GSL maps. And that's so, I'm going to

[43:39] call the question. All those in favor of

[43:41] what's on voting this in favor right

[43:44] now.

[43:46] Opposed?

[43:49] Motion is defeated. Okay. So, we'll come

[43:52] back with something then.

[43:54] Okay.

[43:55] Move on to We're now on to 9B, zoning

[43:58] amendment bylaw classification of

[44:00] basement exemption.

[44:01] >> of order here. So, if we defeated option

[44:05] one

[44:06] how do we get option two onto the table?

[44:09] >> We we debated all of that and I said to

[44:12] Mr. Joseph to bring back the the height

[44:14] requirement if possible and then we can

[44:16] talk about that.

[44:18] Go ahead, Ms. Helwig.

[44:19] >> Thank you. Through the chair, I think

[44:20] that that would be challenging to also

[44:23] be bringing back additional information

[44:26] um given that there's only two meetings

[44:28] uh until the end of the council term.

[44:31] There's a meeting on September 22nd and

[44:33] then another one in October. We could

[44:35] certainly report back uh in

[44:38] the September meeting, but then to

[44:40] schedule a public hearing and bring it

[44:43] forward to adoption would be very

[44:45] challenging um in that time frame.

[44:48] >> To change that

[44:50] threshold, the percentage of the grade

[44:52] percentage,

[44:53] is that a full OCP review?

[44:57] >> To the chair, no. This I mean, it's been

[44:59] considered and reviewed, which is part

[45:00] of this package. However, um as it

[45:02] essentially it would just be to strike

[45:04] out number three of RLU RLU 16 from the bylaw. That's where the bylaw would

[45:09] read.

[45:10] >> But as I said, I would like to

[45:11] understand where that came from and and

[45:13] the ramifications of that as well.

[45:16] >> Yeah, I'm

[45:17] so

[45:18] 20% is is the sort of the number that

[45:21] was chosen for steep slopes generally.

[45:24] Um I don't have the exact history, but I

[45:26] imagine that sort of uh through

[45:28] discussions probably you know, with the

[45:29] village that they decided that infill

[45:32] shouldn't be on steep slopes and if

[45:33] steep slopes equals 20%, then the

[45:35] average grade percentage applies to all.

[45:37] >> So, Ms. Ms. Helwig or Esson,

[45:41] that minor adjustment to go from 20 to

[45:43] say 25%,

[45:45] is that could that be done over two

[45:47] meetings?

[45:49] >> Is it public hearing?

[45:50] >> It's a

[45:51] imma- it's a fairly small change in that

[45:54] regard. So, we're not changing the

[45:55] intent of the bylaw. We're not changing

[45:59] very much of it.

[46:00] >> still would be through the chair. It

[46:01] still would be a bylaw amendment.

[46:03] >> Right.

[46:04] >> So that could be done in two meetings.

[46:06] >> Yeah.

[46:07] >> Um being the first meeting would be

[46:09] September 22nd. Your second meeting in

[46:12] October

[46:14] I want to say

[46:16] seven-ish. Um however, that would also

[46:19] be the public hearing night and there

[46:22] would not be um time for referrals to uh

[46:26] any other municipalities, school

[46:28] district, First Nations, or any

[46:30] committees. If that's council's desire

[46:31] to just do that bylaw amendment, that

[46:34] could be

[46:35] >> So would

[46:35] >> technically achievable in two meetings.

[46:37] >> I just wanted to you know, um

[46:40] it

[46:40] by it increasing the threshold doesn't

[46:43] necessarily sort of address what we're doing, the intent of it. The

[46:48] intent is where there is a building site

[46:50] that is less than 20% that we're not up

[46:53] holding it up because

[46:55] 10% is drastically steep and now has

[46:59] contributed to the overall average

[47:00] density. That could be 25 or that could

[47:02] be 30 or 40. But it would what's on the

[47:05] ground is the intent is to just allow

[47:07] for the areas that are completely not in

[47:09] steep slope areas to be developed under

[47:11] development permit guidelines.

[47:14] » So I think it's best My personal view is

[47:16] that we would just leave leave this as

[47:19] be because again, we have a discussion

[47:20] that's been an ongoing discussion about

[47:22] basement heights, which are all about

[47:23] slope as well, which is coming up with

[47:25] the next item at this point in time. So

[47:29] >> You both through the chair. I don't know

[47:30] if they're completely related because

[47:32] you know, development on 30%, 40% is

[47:34] >> Yeah, it's it's dealing with slope uh

[47:36] slope development. So

[47:37] >> Yeah, I understand. It's just not a OCP

[47:39] issue.

[47:39] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[47:41] >> Hello.

[47:42] >> Councilor Trowbridge.

[47:45] >> Yeah, so

[47:46] um

[47:47] I don't quite maybe don't understand,

[47:50] but I don't see the relationship to a

[47:52] slope discussion. My understanding

[47:55] is that removal of 16 RUL or RLU

[48:00] was to allow if if a if a property had a steep slope on it,

[48:08] but it was not in the building envelope,

[48:11] then we would allow the building in the

[48:13] building envelope. It It It's really

[48:16] more about where the slope is, isn't it,

[48:18] George?

[48:20] >> Mr. Chair, that's correct, yeah. So

[48:22] >> Yeah, so I would be fine

[48:25] uh with with an amended motion going

[48:28] forward with that component without the

[48:31] rest, which is, I think, what Councillor

[48:33] Richardson suggested.

[48:35] >> So, we voted

[48:36] Procedurally, we voted down the motion

[48:38] that was on the table, which included

[48:40] everything which Mr. Joseph put on the

[48:42] thing. So, it would have to be a new

[48:43] motion forward that if somebody wants to

[48:46] put it forward that we would we would

[48:47] entertain.

[48:49] >> I'll put that motion forward that we

[48:52] entertain the one segment.

[48:56] » I'd second that.

[48:58] >> What What do we put What is the motion

[48:59] that you're seconding?

[49:00] >> The My understanding the motion is,

[49:04] which we're going to get from our

[49:05] corporate officer in a very exacting and

[49:07] precise way very shortly,

[49:10] is that

[49:12] on lots where the or the average

[49:14] gradient may be more than 20% if there

[49:18] is a building area less than 20% that would be allowed in infill. And And

[49:24] the reason I would support that is like

[49:26] here's two examples. You have a lot,

[49:29] it's an acre,

[49:30] half of it's dead flat,

[49:32] half of it's at 40%.

[49:35] Okay? That would not be allowed.

[49:38] Half of it's dead flat, the other half

[49:39] is at 30%, that would be allowed. And I

[49:42] really don't see the difference between

[49:44] those two lots other than the steepness

[49:46] of the embankment down to the creek or

[49:48] whatever it happens to be. So, I I'm all

[49:51] in favor of if you have a building area

[49:54] that's suitable, you get to build.

[49:57] >> Okay, so do we have a motion on

[49:59] >> Mr. Chair, I can read out a motion. Um

[50:02] so, I suppose where's the original?

[50:11] So, the recommendation is that the

[50:12] Village of Anmore Official Community

[50:13] Plan Amendment Bylaw number 722-2025

[50:17] as amended.

[50:19] >> No, it's not amended. We didn't amend

[50:21] that motion was voted down.

[50:23] So, there's a new motion.

[50:25] >> No, but if we're going to amend what's

[50:26] on currently.

[50:29] Well, we could.

[50:40] I don't either.

[50:45] » Can we just take the one section and put it as a motion?

[50:54] » Um

[50:55] I need um Counselor Richardson, through

[50:58] the chair, if you could please give me a

[51:00] complete sentence,

[51:02] that would be very helpful.

[51:05] Okay.

[51:09] Yep.

[51:11] >> Your mic's not on.

[51:15] » Back to the beginning. I don't know the

[51:16] exact wording, but that the

[51:20] existing bylaw or the policy 61 be

[51:24] amended so that on

[51:28] that you're allowed to do infill on lots

[51:31] where a building area is available less

[51:34] than 20%.

[51:40] Is Is that sentence enough?

[51:44] >> [laughter]

[51:46] >> I I know.

[51:48] >> [snorts]

[51:48] >> Cuz cuz this will drive to the public

[51:50] hearing, right?

[51:53] If we give it first and second, public

[51:54] hearing is next, so it should be pretty

[51:56] clear what we're saying.

[51:57] >> Absolutely.

[51:59] >> Okay, can I

[52:00] Do you want me to try something?

[52:03] here

[52:04] that hopefully we captures it? So, the

[52:06] motion would read that

[52:08] um where a building site is equal or

[52:11] less than the 20% slope, infill

[52:14] properties would be accepted under our

[52:16] current policy.

[52:22] » Perfect.

[52:25] » So, through the chair and just um

[52:28] chatting with Mr. Joseph here,

[52:30] we could potentially

[52:32] amend

[52:34] um

[52:35] 722-2025

[52:38] that is included in the agenda package

[52:41] in a way that we could give it two

[52:43] readings this evening if Mr. Squizzero

[52:45] Cara

[52:46] is

[52:47] uh all right with that. Uh Mr. Joseph

[52:50] has the sections of that bylaw, which is

[52:52] on 20 page 25 and 26 of your agenda that

[52:56] could be amended, um given two readings,

[53:00] and then we could move forward

[53:03] that way this evening and go to public

[53:05] hearing in September.

[53:07] >> Um so, just to clarify, um updating the sentence on the

[53:13] um

[53:14] item three

[53:15] on page 25, is that what I'm looking at?

[53:20] Mr. Joseph.

[53:21] >> Yeah, that's correct, yeah.

[53:22] >> Okay.

[53:24] Um

[53:25] we can we can potentially say that the

[53:28] um

[53:29] the bylaw section

[53:32] two uh item three be amended, and then

[53:36] whatever the amendment needs to be, that

[53:40] we can add

[53:41] the amendment and uh go forward with

[53:44] that.

[53:47] So,

[53:49] >> Councilor Richardson,

[53:51] if I read 722-2025,

[53:55] it actually be able to identify building

[53:58] site sites that are equal to less than

[53:59] 20% slope. It's actually already in

[54:01] there. It doesn't have to be amended.

[54:04] >> We would need to amend to delete the

[54:06] parts of the bylaw that you do not wish

[54:08] to include. So, um if you will indulge

[54:11] for a moment, Mr. Joseph can read that

[54:14] out for council.

[54:15] >> Okay.

[54:24] It was a hot day out there today.

[54:31] This doesn't talk about pan handles.

[54:34] Thank you all for your patience.

[54:40] Yeah, that's right. Um

[54:42] so, I'll just start from here.

[54:45] We don't need to do anything with it.

[54:49] Okay, so the amendments uh would be to

[54:51] number two of the bylaw.

[54:53] Uh that the Village of Anmore Official

[54:55] Community Plan Designation Bylaw number

[54:57] 532-2014

[54:58] be amended under chapter 4, Land Use, as

[55:01] follows.

[55:02] So, delete policy RLU 16 in its entirety and replace it with the

[55:06] following.

[55:08] And uh I'll just read out the sections.

[55:11] So, policy RLU 16, and this is uh what

[55:14] it is already currently written for this

[55:16] intro paragraph. The village supports

[55:18] infill development and subsequent

[55:19] creation of new residences that maintain

[55:21] the existing semi-rural nature of

[55:22] Anmore. Infill development is the

[55:24] creation of new parcels within the

[55:25] existing developed area of the Village

[55:27] of Anmore that are serviced by existing

[55:29] infrastructure. The intent of infill

[55:30] development is that it will enhance and

[55:31] not take away from the look and feel of

[55:33] the neighborhood. It is expected that

[55:35] any new infill homes will blend into the

[55:37] existing neighborhood, minimize the

[55:38] disturbance to natural environment, and

[55:40] will adhere to the same setbacks as the

[55:41] existing neighborhood. Infill

[55:43] development should be guided by infill

[55:44] development policy that aligns with

[55:45] specific requirements that the community

[55:47] expects expects from infill development

[55:49] to ensure that it meets the intent of

[55:51] this policy. The maximum density allowed

[55:53] for infill development is 2.04 parcels

[55:55] per acre.

[55:57] Parcels that are eligible for

[55:58] consideration under this policy must not

[56:00] have been created through previous

[56:01] comprehensive development plan,

[56:03] be between 300 3 3,925 square meters and

[56:07] 8,900 8,094 square meters in area,

[56:13] be able to identify building sites that

[56:15] are equal to or greater than 20% slope,

[56:20] not require the extension, expansion,

[56:22] extension or expansion of any village

[56:24] road or water infrastructure,

[56:26] and have at least 50 m frontage on a

[56:28] public highway,

[56:30] and have been in existence for at least

[56:31] 5 years as of the date of the

[56:33] application.

[56:39] » Yes.

[56:41] We're So, for those people listening,

[56:43] we're striking off the back half of item

[56:46] five.

[56:47] >> Correct.

[56:52] » Okay.

[56:53] >> I move it.

[56:54] >> Move it. Could I get someone to second

[56:55] it?

[56:57] >> Second.

[56:58] Open up for discussion.

[57:02] Any discussion?

[57:03] Seeing none, I'll call the question.

[57:05] >> All those in favor?

[57:07] Opposed? Motion's carried.

[57:10] >> Okay.

[57:10] >> And that's ordered through the chair.

[57:11] I'll just read out the rest of the

[57:12] recommendations for the referrals that

[57:14] are required,

[57:15] as well as public hearing.

[57:17] >> Oh, what what's now required for public

[57:20] hearing?

[57:20] >> Yes.

[57:21] >> Yeah, that cuz yeah, yeah, it was the

[57:23] package.

[57:25] >> Um so, following that uh and that uh and

[57:29] more official community plan amendment

[57:31] bylaw number 722-2025 be referred to the

[57:33] following committees as it relates to

[57:35] the mandate of each committee.

[57:37] And that in relation to the Village of

[57:39] Anmore Official Community Plan Amendment

[57:40] Bylaw number 722-2025,

[57:42] amendments associated with the proposed

[57:44] updates to policy R only 16 infill

[57:46] development, Council will provide the

[57:47] following additional opportunities it

[57:48] considers appropriate for consultation

[57:49] with persons, organizations, or

[57:51] authorities it considers will be

[57:52] affected, including the municipalities

[57:54] of the Village of Belcarra and the City

[57:56] of Port Moody, School District number

[57:58] 43, Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh,

[58:01] and Kwikwetlem First Nations, and that a

[58:02] public hearing be scheduled following

[58:03] the referral process.

[58:06] >> Do we need to move that in

[58:09] Okay, [clears throat] can someone to

[58:10] move that? Second? I'll

[58:13] call the question. All those in favor?

[58:16] Carried.

[58:18] Do we have more to add?

[58:20] >> Did you want to add any committees for

[58:22] >> No.

[58:22] >> Okay.

[58:23] >> We Yeah.

[58:24] >> That's right.

[58:27] » Okay. So, can we move on to uh 9B?

[58:33] Are we good?

[58:40] Oh, right. Oh, you can get

[59:18] Okay, we're now on to uh 9B Zoning

[59:21] Amendment Bylaw classification on

[59:23] basement exemption report dated July

[59:25] 17th, 2020 from Manager of Development

[59:27] Services attached. Mr. Joseph.

[59:29] >> Thank you.

[59:31] So, the purpose of this report is to

[59:32] present bylaw number 745-2026,

[59:34] a zoning amendment bylaw that clarifies

[59:36] how the basement exemption applies under

[59:37] section 5.25 of the zoning bylaw, along

[59:40] with the related housekeeping correction

[59:41] to section 5.6. So, at the May 5th

[59:44] regular council meeting, staff brought

[59:45] forward proposed amendments to the

[59:47] section 5.25, the basement exemption

[59:49] provision. Council deferred that

[59:51] discussion and asked staff to come back

[59:52] with visual impact modeling to see what

[59:53] the current regulations allow in terms

[59:55] of building massing. Staff returned on

[59:57] the June 12th with a report that

[59:59] included visual representations of

[1:00:00] what's permitted under the under the

[1:00:02] existing rule and identified the

[1:00:04] specific sections proposed to be

[1:00:05] clarified. At that meeting, council

[1:00:07] passed a motion directing staff to

[1:00:09] initiate amendments to section 5.25 and

[1:00:11] section 5.6. Additional sections are

[1:00:14] being proposed to provide greater

[1:00:15] clarity in relation to the basement

[1:00:16] exemption.

[1:00:17] So, the current formula in section 5.25

[1:00:20] from

[1:00:21] letters A through D that determines how

[1:00:23] much basement floor area is exempt from

[1:00:25] the floor area ratio calculation will

[1:00:27] remain the same. What the amendment does

[1:00:29] is add three new sections, E, F, and G,

[1:00:32] that address how the exemption applies

[1:00:33] across the building. Uh because the

[1:00:35] current wording may incentivize numerous

[1:00:36] exposed basement floors that would be

[1:00:38] eligible for 100% basement exemption,

[1:00:41] which would increase the apparent

[1:00:42] massing of the building.

[1:00:44] There is currently no limit on how many

[1:00:45] stories in a single building can qualify for the full basement exemption.

[1:00:49] So, on slope lots, final finished grade

[1:00:51] and building design can produce two or

[1:00:53] more stories that each meet the

[1:00:54] definition of a basement, some of them

[1:00:56] partially exposed, which can make a

[1:00:57] building look like it's four to six

[1:00:59] stories tall from the street level.

[1:01:01] Subsection E fixes this by limiting the

[1:01:03] exemption to no more than one uppermost

[1:01:05] basement story per building.

[1:01:07] Sub-basement stories below that would

[1:01:09] still be permitted, but they would count

[1:01:10] towards the lot's maximum floor area

[1:01:12] ratio like any other floor area.

[1:01:15] The second consideration is height of a

[1:01:17] story. As currently worded, there's no

[1:01:18] cap on the floor-to-floor height that

[1:01:20] the exempt story uh would apply to,

[1:01:23] which means a single basement story

[1:01:24] could be built well beyond the typical

[1:01:26] story height and still only count count

[1:01:28] as one story for the purposes of

[1:01:30] subsection E. So, subsection F caps the

[1:01:33] exempt story at 3.66 m, which is 1/3 of

[1:01:36] our 111 m maximum building height,

[1:01:39] essentially the height of one story

[1:01:40] within a standard three-story envelope.

[1:01:42] However, staff have also included

[1:01:44] subsection G. It provides a full 100%

[1:01:46] exemption for stories below the exempt

[1:01:48] basement story, but only where that

[1:01:50] story is completely buried entirely

[1:01:51] below finished grade at every point

[1:01:53] around the building's perimeter.

[1:01:57] Staff recognize that the story with no

[1:01:58] exterior exposure at all doesn't

[1:02:00] contribute to the parent massing of the

[1:02:01] building, so staff have included the

[1:02:02] section to differentiate between a

[1:02:04] partially exposed stories.

[1:02:06] Finally, staff are proposing a

[1:02:07] housekeeping amendment to section 5.6.1,

[1:02:09] which clarifies how building height is

[1:02:10] measured, so that it's based on a lower

[1:02:12] of the average natural grade or average

[1:02:14] finished grade. Right now, that section

[1:02:15] doesn't quite line up with section

[1:02:17] 5.5.2,

[1:02:19] which already uses that standard, and

[1:02:20] this brings the two into alignment, and

[1:02:22] it also reflects the current staff

[1:02:23] practice.

[1:02:25] So, the recommendation is that council

[1:02:26] give first and second reading to

[1:02:27] Ambleside Amendment Bylaw number

[1:02:29] 745-2026

[1:02:30] related to section 5.25 basement

[1:02:32] exemption and section 5.6 building and

[1:02:34] structure height, and that a public

[1:02:36] hearing be scheduled for Bylaw 745-2026.

[1:02:39] Thank you.

[1:02:40] >> Could I get someone to move that?

[1:02:43] Move, second, open up for discussion.

[1:02:47] Anybody? Uh okay, I I I have a couple of

[1:02:49] questions. And so,

[1:02:53] I can't support this if it doesn't at

[1:02:55] least offer a 9-ft ceiling height for

[1:02:57] the basement. I don't have a problem

[1:03:00] with basements going deeper

[1:03:02] um than that, but I just wanted to

[1:03:04] clarify cuz it's this is kind of compli-

[1:03:06] I saw in here there was a calculation of

[1:03:08] 2.75 m for the basement floor, but most

[1:03:12] basements that I'm going into right now

[1:03:14] are minimum 9-ft finished. And I I can't

[1:03:17] do an 8-ft finish because again, we're

[1:03:18] also supposed to be promoting suites in

[1:03:21] the in these in these buildings as well.

[1:03:23] So, if you can you confirm what the

[1:03:25] finished height would be or

[1:03:27] presume

[1:03:28] you could give me the rough height as

[1:03:29] well. It would probably be It would have

[1:03:30] to be about 10 ft then.

[1:03:32] >> Yeah, so the full story is 12 ft.

[1:03:35] >> Okay.

[1:03:35] >> So, it's 3.66 in the amendment bylaws.

[1:03:38] >> So, it says on page seven

[1:03:41] no greater than 2.75 m.

[1:03:44] Which is 9 ft.

[1:03:47] On page seven or sorry, 46 of your

[1:03:49] report if there's a color picture of the

[1:03:51] house up above it.

[1:03:52] >> Yeah, so I think what you're referring

[1:03:55] to is the previous report where I

[1:03:56] referenced what West Vancouver's height

[1:03:58] limit is for exempted story. What What

[1:04:01] we're proposing is 1/3 of our current

[1:04:03] height, which is 3.66.

[1:04:04] >> 3.6 m. So, can you tell me what is 3 3.6

[1:04:08] in

[1:04:08] >> 12 ft.

[1:04:09] So, basement height would be 12

[1:04:12] ft. Could go down

[1:04:13] >> from floor to floor.

[1:04:14] >> Right. And it can go down into the

[1:04:15] ground to make that 12 ft.

[1:04:18] >> This only for the exempted portion is 12

[1:04:21] ft. Anything that's completely buried

[1:04:23] there's no height there's no height.

[1:04:26] cap.

[1:04:28] >> Okay.

[1:04:28] >> There's a full exemption. There's no

[1:04:29] height cap.

[1:04:30] >> Okay.

[1:04:34] Do I have

[1:04:36] Councillor Do you

[1:04:38] >> Just to clarify, this is the 3.66 m is

[1:04:42] only on the additional floor on the

[1:04:45] exempted part when you're like building

[1:04:47] on a hillside.

[1:04:48] >> Correct. Correct.

[1:04:52] Just on a hillside.

[1:04:54] >> No, it it doesn't apply. This is just

[1:04:56] primarily where the problem would exist.

[1:04:58] >> Throughout, right? Yeah. Cuz you can on

[1:05:00] a on a

[1:05:01] slope or fairly fairly level lot, you

[1:05:03] can still go down.

[1:05:05] As you want, right?

[1:05:06] >> Yeah, so they you could.

[1:05:08] >> Yeah, and I guess one of my questions

[1:05:11] that I had as well was on I guess it's the color one here which is page

[1:05:15] six or 45. Just about where

[1:05:19] average grade is and how that's

[1:05:21] calculated.

[1:05:24] » Yes, so we mean the average grade is is

[1:05:26] >> If you could use that photo there just

[1:05:28] to kind of give me I

[1:05:30] an understanding

[1:05:30] >> Which figure? Sorry.

[1:05:31] >> The the bottom one.

[1:05:33] >> Three? Figure three?

[1:05:34] >> I guess it's the color probably one,

[1:05:36] yeah.

[1:05:37] >> Yeah, so it's it's where the perimeter

[1:05:40] of the building meets the ground. And so

[1:05:42] if it's going up a slope, that perimeter

[1:05:44] goes up the slope with it. So if it's on

[1:05:46] a fairly, you know, uh

[1:05:48] even path, then the average grade

[1:05:50] becomes the halfway number of where the perimeter meets the ground.

[1:05:55] >> Okay.

[1:05:59] That was all the questions. So you've

[1:06:00] confirmed that the the basement there is

[1:06:02] not a limit of of an 8-point, which is

[1:06:03] great. So any other questions before I

[1:06:05] call the questions?

[1:06:07] Seeing none, all those in favor?

[1:06:11] Carried unanimously. Thank you, Mr.

[1:06:12] Joseph.

[1:06:13] >> Thank you.

[1:06:14] >> Okay.

[1:06:15] Uh we'll now move on to

[1:06:18] uh 12A Committee of the Whole meeting.

[1:06:21] The following recreation was made. Uh

[1:06:23] Mr. Boyd.

[1:06:26] » Thank [clears throat] you, Worship.

[1:06:28] Uh so the The purpose of this report is

[1:06:30] to uh follows the introduction of the

[1:06:33] development cost charges by the law,

[1:06:35] which uh was uh

[1:06:37] shown to council at Committee of the

[1:06:39] Whole. It Uh this report provides a

[1:06:40] brief summary of that introduction,

[1:06:42] presents the proposed 2026 DCC

[1:06:45] uh rate schedule for the village, and it

[1:06:47] seeks council's direction to prepare a

[1:06:49] draft DCC bylaw.

[1:06:52] So a quick background. At the Committee

[1:06:53] of the Whole, staff introduced the DCC

[1:06:55] framework and the case for updating the

[1:06:58] villages and charges. And just to

[1:06:59] summarize that that is that the DCCs are

[1:07:02] one-time charge for new development

[1:07:04] authorized in the part 14 division 19 of

[1:07:06] the LGA.

[1:07:08] Uh that allows us to recover the growth

[1:07:10] related share of capital costs of

[1:07:12] infrastructure required to service new

[1:07:13] development.

[1:07:15] The village's existing DCC bylaw dates

[1:07:17] to the 20 2005 and no longer reflects

[1:07:20] current construction costs, the village

[1:07:22] capital planning, or anticipated growth.

[1:07:24] Provincial best practice is to update

[1:07:26] the TCC program every 3 to 5 years.

[1:07:30] Rates are established through a defined

[1:07:31] methodology, projecting growth,

[1:07:33] identifying the growth related capital

[1:07:35] projects,

[1:07:36] and costs, assigning each a benefit

[1:07:39] allocation between existing and new

[1:07:40] development, applying a municipal assist

[1:07:42] factor, and dividing the recoverable

[1:07:44] costs across the expected growth units.

[1:07:48] Staff worked through the recreation tool

[1:07:50] with council committee of the whole,

[1:07:51] illustrating how the inputs

[1:07:53] input assumptions produce the proposed

[1:07:55] rates. A comparison with the neighboring

[1:07:57] municipalities was provided for context,

[1:07:59] and staff outlined the process ahead, uh

[1:08:01] preparation of draft bylaw,

[1:08:02] consultation, readings, approval by

[1:08:05] inspector of municipalities, and then

[1:08:07] adoption.

[1:08:08] This report is just to advance this to

[1:08:10] council uh for their consideration.

[1:08:13] >> Good.

[1:08:14] >> So, as we can see in the rate table

[1:08:15] below, uh these were developed based on

[1:08:17] the conversations that we had at the

[1:08:19] committee of the whole. Um

[1:08:22] Uh so, the residential rates are based

[1:08:24] on occupancy assumptions of one suite

[1:08:27] per single family house, adding an

[1:08:28] incremental 1/2 person per lot,

[1:08:30] consistent with the current small-scale

[1:08:32] multi-use uh housing provision. This was

[1:08:35] a conversation that we had at the

[1:08:37] committee of the whole on whether we

[1:08:39] should assume that there was going to be

[1:08:41] more uptake or not of uh suites within

[1:08:43] the village. Um staff could take this

[1:08:46] away as well and and continue to look at

[1:08:48] past uh building permit applications to

[1:08:51] determine what the occupancy rate of

[1:08:53] suites have been in the village over the

[1:08:54] past 5 years. We currently haven't done

[1:08:56] that.

[1:08:58] Uh

[1:08:59] okay, next one. Uh sundry sewer is is

[1:09:02] not applicable cuz we don't have

[1:09:03] sanitary sewers within the villages a

[1:09:05] service. We currently only have it

[1:09:07] within AGP.

[1:09:10] And we don't anticipate building any

[1:09:11] sewers of our own, so therefore there

[1:09:12] are no projects.

[1:09:14] Um, an important note was regarding

[1:09:16] protective services. Although recent

[1:09:18] provincial legislation added fire and

[1:09:20] police facilities as eligible DCC

[1:09:22] categories, fire protection in the

[1:09:23] village is delivered through the Sasamat

[1:09:25] fire protection service, a Metro

[1:09:27] Vancouver regional district function.

[1:09:29] And policing capital was not a cost

[1:09:30] borne by the directly by the village.

[1:09:32] therefore has no eligible

[1:09:33] protective services capital cost on

[1:09:36] which to base a charge. As noted above,

[1:09:38] the

[1:09:40] fire protection in the village is

[1:09:41] delivered through fire Sasamat fire

[1:09:42] protection service, a Metro Vancouver

[1:09:44] regional district function, and the

[1:09:46] associated capital assets, including the

[1:09:47] fire hall,

[1:09:48] are regional assets funded through the

[1:09:50] service rather than by the village

[1:09:52] directly. For this reason, the

[1:09:53] growth-related capital cost for the

[1:09:54] anticipated fire hall upgrades cannot be

[1:09:57] recovered through the village's own

[1:09:58] development cost charges. It is

[1:10:00] nonetheless appropriate for the

[1:10:01] development to contribute its fair share

[1:10:03] towards these services. So, I therefore

[1:10:05] recommend the village formally request

[1:10:07] that Metro Vancouver consider

[1:10:08] establishing a DCC for Sasamat fire

[1:10:10] protection service to recover the

[1:10:12] growth-related portion of the fire hall

[1:10:14] upgrades cost consistent with the newly

[1:10:16] eligible fire protection service

[1:10:17] category under the LGA. Any such, uh,

[1:10:20] charges would be developed, adopted, and

[1:10:22] administered by Metro Vancouver through

[1:10:24] its own bylaw and cost allocation

[1:10:26] process in consultation with the Village

[1:10:28] of Anmore and Belcarra as being

[1:10:30] participating members of the service and

[1:10:32] would apply in addition to the village's

[1:10:34] DCC rather than through them. So, we

[1:10:37] also, uh, prior, sorry, following the

[1:10:39] publication of this report, we've also

[1:10:41] received word back

[1:10:44] from the province to clarify this note.

[1:10:46] And I'll just read, uh, one particular

[1:10:47] note from within their their email that

[1:10:50] was, and I quote, "Our interpretation of

[1:10:52] capital cost is that the capital asset

[1:10:55] be owned or controlled by the local

[1:10:57] government such that it is capitalized

[1:10:59] on the audited financial statements of

[1:11:01] the local government. So,

[1:11:03] based on on that coming back from the

[1:11:05] province, they kind of substantiated

[1:11:06] what we thought in the past that that

[1:11:08] because we don't actually own the asset,

[1:11:10] we're not allowed to collect DCC. Again,

[1:11:12] it's important to note that we we do

[1:11:14] have a mechanism to collect it, but Amur

[1:11:16] itself cannot collect it directly based

[1:11:17] on legislation.

[1:11:20] Uh okay, land use categories and zoning.

[1:11:22] Uh the rate schedule presents charges

[1:11:25] for a full range of land use categories.

[1:11:26] So, the DCC framework is completely and

[1:11:28] internally consistent. Some of these

[1:11:30] categories do not currently permit or or

[1:11:32] contemplated under the villages zone and

[1:11:34] bylaw or OCP. The inclusion in the

[1:11:37] schedule is for the calculation and

[1:11:38] information purposes only. It does not

[1:11:40] imply or confer any development

[1:11:42] entitlement, zoning permissions, or

[1:11:44] rights to develop these uses in the

[1:11:46] village until the zone and bylaw is

[1:11:47] amended to permit a given use. The

[1:11:50] corresponding DCC rate has no

[1:11:51] application, and the value set in the

[1:11:53] rates now is that should council of the

[1:11:55] future consider

[1:11:57] enabling any of these uses, a defensible

[1:11:59] charge would be already be established

[1:12:01] and showing that any such development

[1:12:03] contributes fair share towards

[1:12:04] growth-related infrastructure.

[1:12:06] And then lastly, uh park acquisition

[1:12:09] charges. Uh the proposed schedule does

[1:12:11] not include a park acquisition DCC.

[1:12:13] While park acquisition is an eligible

[1:12:15] category under the Local Government Act,

[1:12:16] a defensible parks DCC must be grounded

[1:12:19] in adopted parkland

[1:12:21] provision standard, typically expressed

[1:12:23] as an amount of parkland per capita or

[1:12:25] per dwelling, from which the quan- the

[1:12:28] quantity and cost of the land need to be

[1:12:30] need to serve growth can be determined.

[1:12:32] The village does not currently have a

[1:12:33] policy establishing a park provision

[1:12:35] standard. In its absence, there is no

[1:12:37] defensible basis on which to determine

[1:12:39] the per capita land requirement or the

[1:12:41] associated acquisition cost, and the

[1:12:43] parks acquisition charge has therefore

[1:12:44] been excluded at this time. Should

[1:12:46] council wish to pursue parkland

[1:12:48] acquisition funding through DCC in in in

[1:12:50] the future, staff would first recommend

[1:12:52] adoption of the park acquisition policy

[1:12:54] standard and would then allow a park DCC

[1:12:57] to be calculated and incorporated into

[1:12:59] the bylaw amendment.

[1:13:02] Then finally, financial implications.

[1:13:04] The the the financial implication

[1:13:06] obviously there's there's none related

[1:13:08] to staff direct the the

[1:13:11] uh to the village directly. The

[1:13:13] However, there would obviously be a cost

[1:13:15] association with managing the DCC's work

[1:13:19] and once adopted the DCC charges are

[1:13:20] expected to materially improve the

[1:13:22] village's ability to fund growth related

[1:13:24] water drainage and road infrastructure

[1:13:26] from development rather than from

[1:13:28] general tax base.

[1:13:31] Lastly, next steps

[1:13:33] from staff recommendations would be to

[1:13:35] prepare the draft development cost

[1:13:36] charges bylaw incorporating the proposed

[1:13:38] rate schedule and supporting background

[1:13:39] study, consult with the development

[1:13:41] community and other interested parties

[1:13:43] consistent with the provincial

[1:13:44] guidelines, request Metro Vancouver

[1:13:47] consider establishing a development cost

[1:13:48] charge for Semiahmoo fire protection

[1:13:50] services to recover the growth related

[1:13:52] cost of the firehall upgrades, and bring

[1:13:54] the draft bylaw to council for

[1:13:56] consideration.

[1:13:59] Okay, I can read the resolution if

[1:14:02] you wish you wish to.

[1:14:04] >> Sure.

[1:14:04] >> Okay, that staff be directed to bring

[1:14:06] the draft development cost charges bylaw

[1:14:09] forward to council for consideration and

[1:14:11] that staff be directed to undertake

[1:14:13] consultation with the development

[1:14:14] community and other interested parties

[1:14:16] on the proposed development cost charges

[1:14:18] and that staff be directed to contact

[1:14:19] Metro Vancouver in relation to

[1:14:21] consideration of the establishing a

[1:14:23] development cost charge bylaw for

[1:14:24] Semiahmoo fire protection services.

[1:14:27] >> Good. Can I get someone to move that?

[1:14:30] Moved and second open up for some

[1:14:32] discussion.

[1:14:33] Mr. Boyd, just for clarity, I just

[1:14:35] wanted to who did you talk to at the

[1:14:37] province regarding the Metro Vancouver's

[1:14:39] role with the Semiahmoo volunteer fire

[1:14:41] department so I can follow up with them.

[1:14:44] >> One second.

[1:14:49] » Or Ms. Elwork, who did it that

[1:14:50] >> I've got it. It's uh Ministry of Housing

[1:14:52] and Municipal Affairs uh the financial

[1:14:54] office and uh

[1:14:55] >> And is there a Do you have a person

[1:14:56] there?

[1:14:57] >> Uh the person that sent to us was Jenny

[1:15:00] Chang.

[1:15:00] >> Could I get a copy of that, please?

[1:15:03] >> I can circulate it to all of council.

[1:15:04] >> Perfect. Thanks.

[1:15:05] Um the reason I say that, Mr. Boyd, is

[1:15:07] that we um

[1:15:09] I was concerned about this because

[1:15:10] again, there is such confusion when it

[1:15:12] comes to the fire department um and the

[1:15:14] real clarity of it is is that the uh

[1:15:17] Metro Vancouver

[1:15:18] simply we pay them a service to operate

[1:15:20] the fire department and the assets are

[1:15:22] actually owned by each of the

[1:15:23] municipalities. And they've given a

[1:15:25] legal ruling saying that we should be

[1:15:27] collecting the DCCs and it should be

[1:15:28] part of this program. So I'd I'd

[1:15:30] certainly like to to flush that out a

[1:15:32] little bit because I know it is somewhat

[1:15:33] confusing. So but anyway, it's been uh

[1:15:36] I'll I'll follow up cuz I Metro

[1:15:38] Vancouver had some interest there. Ms.

[1:15:39] Alaric.

[1:15:40] >> Sorry, Mayor McKeown. I may have

[1:15:42] misunderstood. Um did you say who gave a

[1:15:45] legal ruling regarding this?

[1:15:46] >> No, that opinion that we that I

[1:15:48] distributed to staff and council was

[1:15:50] there from a legal aspect.

[1:15:55] From I think it was Mr. Brant, Brant

[1:15:57] Smith or whatever sent that out this

[1:15:58] morning.

[1:16:00] So

[1:16:01] anyway, open up any

[1:16:03] Councilor Craig.

[1:16:04] >> Did we have a

[1:16:05] Why was it sent to Metro? Did we have a

[1:16:07] motion to send it to them? I thought

[1:16:09] that was done after. Yeah, as a

[1:16:11] >> As a fire trustee, I sent it there cuz I

[1:16:13] was sure unclear of it why it was being

[1:16:15] uh separated here. So

[1:16:18] >> Okay.

[1:16:20] Councilor Richardson.

[1:16:24] » Okay, I'm trying to wrap my head around

[1:16:25] all that.

[1:16:27] So in summary, cuz it was a bit hard to

[1:16:29] hear.

[1:16:31] If the village owns the asset, we can

[1:16:34] charge or plans to own the asset, we can

[1:16:37] charge DCCs.

[1:16:40] Is that correct?

[1:16:41] >> So yeah, it has to be on our financial.

[1:16:43] That's right.

[1:16:44] >> Sorry, through the chair, it must be

[1:16:47] owned or controlled by the local

[1:16:49] government such that it is capitalized

[1:16:51] on the audited financial statements of

[1:16:53] the local government, which in this case

[1:16:55] it is not.

[1:16:57] >> Okay, so ju- just just on that cuz when

[1:16:59] I read the letter from Metro,

[1:17:02] I didn't hear a clear opinion that we

[1:17:05] could collect DCCs on them. I thought

[1:17:08] our plan was that we were going to ask

[1:17:10] Metro, since it's their asset, to

[1:17:12] collect DCCs like they do for

[1:17:17] uh water and sewer directly to the

[1:17:20] village. So, Metro Vancouver would

[1:17:21] charge the DCCs. Is that correct?

[1:17:23] >> Mitch would collect DCCs for the water

[1:17:25] that is outside of the village that

[1:17:27] comes to the village.

[1:17:30] >> Yeah, but they they do collect for those

[1:17:33] services.

[1:17:35] So, Metro Vancouver we haven't got an

[1:17:37] answer back from Metro Vancouver that

[1:17:38] they can they can collect.

[1:17:41] >> Through the chair, we have not formally

[1:17:43] reached out to Metro Vancouver. Um Mayor

[1:17:45] McKeown, uh I understand reached out to

[1:17:47] Metro Vancouver, but we're waiting for

[1:17:49] direction from council. And as part of

[1:17:52] the process, we would be reaching out to

[1:17:53] Metro Vancouver. Um as we indicated,

[1:17:56] we've already reached out and got

[1:17:58] response back from the province. And

[1:17:59] additionally, we will be um

[1:18:02] seeking legal advice through the village

[1:18:04] solicitor who will be uh preparing the

[1:18:07] bylaw for us, and we have had some

[1:18:09] preliminary discussion with them on

[1:18:10] this, and will continue to explore

[1:18:12] options on um

[1:18:15] how we may collect DCCs.

[1:18:17] >> Okay. And then my last question is,

[1:18:20] like if we were planning to build a

[1:18:22] water reservoir in 20 years to support

[1:18:26] our growth, we could collect DCCs on

[1:18:29] that project, could we not?

[1:18:33] Mr. Boyd?

[1:18:33] >> Mr. Boyd's shaking his head as I think

[1:18:35] yes.

[1:18:36] >> Yeah, correct. It is provided it it was being built in relation to the

[1:18:41] growth within the village. So So,

[1:18:43] typically that would be the answer to

[1:18:44] that.

[1:18:45] >> So, therefore, if we got commitment from

[1:18:47] Metro Vancouver that once it was all

[1:18:49] paid off, they would transfer

[1:18:52] the fire hall to Anmore,

[1:18:55] then that would be the same thing. We're

[1:18:57] just going through some other path, are

[1:18:59] we not?

[1:19:01] >> I suppose the answer would be

[1:19:03] >> No, concurrently.

[1:19:04] >> Sorry, to share the um assets that are

[1:19:07] already developed, we can't post a DCC

[1:19:10] after the fact. So, the assets are

[1:19:13] currently held under Metro's financial

[1:19:16] statements. As such, that's why we we

[1:19:18] would propose to go through Metro's DCC

[1:19:21] bylaw.

[1:19:25] » I I What's the question, Councillor

[1:19:27] Richardson? Could we transfer the

[1:19:28] ownership for the fire hall to the

[1:19:30] village?

[1:19:32] >> Yeah, Lena kind of answered it. It's

[1:19:34] like

[1:19:35] it We already [clears throat] The

[1:19:36] asset's already there, but we just get

[1:19:39] it transferred at the end doesn't count

[1:19:40] is what I heard. But, you know, I was at

[1:19:43] the Well, we could build it for 20 years

[1:19:45] and then maybe it would, but

[1:19:47] anyway.

[1:19:49] But, you know,

[1:19:50] >> [laughter]

[1:19:51] >> it's it is a bit of a convoluted mess

[1:19:53] cuz we as trustees we went through this

[1:19:55] in the fact if we were to ever to

[1:19:56] separate, how do the assets get divided?

[1:20:00] And so, it is a very it's not an easy easy ask whatsoever. So, I've got

[1:20:05] uh Councillor Trowbridge.

[1:20:08] » Thank you. Yeah, my understanding of the

[1:20:10] motion that's in front of us though is

[1:20:12] that staff is going to explore every

[1:20:14] opportunity to recover DCCs in whatever

[1:20:19] route uh through whatever legal process.

[1:20:23] So,

[1:20:24] uh I'm in favor of just moving this

[1:20:25] forward and letting staff do their job.

[1:20:29] >> Good. Um

[1:20:30] any other questions or anything else? I had one, Mr. Boyd, regarding the park

[1:20:35] DCC.

[1:20:36] Um, I read through the parks master plan

[1:20:39] and from page one on, it talks about us

[1:20:42] implementing a park DCC. And I know

[1:20:44] Metro Vancouver, we've recently done

[1:20:46] that in the last year and it was very well received because again, as

[1:20:50] you're creating and in this case, there

[1:20:52] seems to be possibly an incentive for

[1:20:55] more multi-family because of the costing

[1:20:57] of of the DCCs being proposed. The green

[1:21:00] space that's going to be required in

[1:21:01] that. So, is is that something that

[1:21:03] could be added on to this DCC cuz it's

[1:21:06] referenced quite heavily in the fact in

[1:21:08] the parks master plan, which I guess was

[1:21:10] done sort of 2015-2016.

[1:21:15] » For sure, yeah. I mean, the the village

[1:21:16] have the right to to acquire DCCs for parkland acquisition.

[1:21:22] Again, the policy just needs to be

[1:21:23] written mainly to it. So,

[1:21:25] I wouldn't recommend attaching it to

[1:21:26] this DCC because it's going to take a

[1:21:28] little bit of time consultation to get

[1:21:30] through that unless it's council's will.

[1:21:32] But, most certainly, you you can write a

[1:21:35] DCC for parkland.

[1:21:37] >> Yeah, and I just I also wanted to just

[1:21:39] add that, you know, Metro Vancouver,

[1:21:41] this Friday, we're actually going to

[1:21:43] reduce DCCs that Metro Vancouver's

[1:21:45] employ

[1:21:49] instigated because of the fact of the

[1:21:51] and it has to go to the register of uh

[1:21:54] of municipalities of Victoria and there

[1:21:57] seems to be this big push in reducing

[1:21:58] costs to be able to produce housing. So,

[1:22:00] we're not sure whether this will get

[1:22:02] approved, but we'll we'll certainly put

[1:22:04] it forward, but I'm looking forward to

[1:22:05] some to having some more discussion.

[1:22:07] It's a significant raise to what we're

[1:22:09] currently paying, which is currently

[1:22:10] about $10,700

[1:22:12] per lot that's being created and taking

[1:22:14] it up to 23,000. It's It's significant.

[1:22:17] And then, when you throw on, you know,

[1:22:19] the Metro portion, TransLink, you know,

[1:22:22] we're at $32,000 for the creation of a

[1:22:25] lot, 33,042

[1:22:27] for the creation of a lot, which is significant. So.

[1:22:33] Good. Okay, no further questions. I'll

[1:22:35] call the question. All those in favor?

[1:22:38] Opposed? Carried unanimously. Thank you,

[1:22:40] Mr. Boyd.

[1:22:41] >> Thank you.

[1:22:42] >> Uh okay, now we'll move on to the

[1:22:44] mayor's report. I don't really have a

[1:22:45] lot. Uh please be cautious. The water uh

[1:22:49] restrictions went down to phase or to

[1:22:51] level two.

[1:22:52] So, you are allowed to water shrubs uh

[1:22:55] and hand watering. Allowed to wash your

[1:22:57] car.

[1:22:58] Um fire ban is in. It's I know that a

[1:23:01] new fire just opened up in the Fraser

[1:23:03] Valley tonight. It's it's a very, very

[1:23:06] precarious time right now. We need to

[1:23:07] get through the next couple weeks.

[1:23:08] Hopefully, I think there's going to be

[1:23:09] some rain due on Saturday and Sunday.

[1:23:12] And I think that's about it. I'll move

[1:23:15] on counselor's reports. Counselor

[1:23:17] Richardson.

[1:23:19] >> Okay, three things. One for the public

[1:23:23] and I think

[1:23:24] Miss Elrick might cover this is election

[1:23:27] dates

[1:23:29] uh for the information sessions.

[1:23:33] » Through the chair, is that for candidate

[1:23:36] information

[1:23:37] >> Yes.

[1:23:38] >> sessions?

[1:23:38] Um yes, he stole my thunder.

[1:23:40] >> Okay, so I'll let you

[1:23:42] go ahead.

[1:23:42] >> go ahead.

[1:23:43] >> [laughter]

[1:23:43] >> Okay, go.

[1:23:44] >> No, I

[1:23:45] happy to give you the dates um

[1:23:46] >> No, no, just save it. I don't need to.

[1:23:49] Um the other thing was mentioned

[1:23:50] earlier, this was the last meeting for

[1:23:52] public input until after the election.

[1:23:55] So, what public question period? Say

[1:23:57] your peace or forever hold your more.

[1:24:00] Um

[1:24:01] on garbage days, it's interesting to me

[1:24:03] because the bears go around and tip

[1:24:05] garbage over.

[1:24:06] And unfortunately, or fortunately, it

[1:24:09] lets me see what people are throwing

[1:24:10] out.

[1:24:12] And I have to say I'm a bit appalled on

[1:24:16] the recyclables and compostables that

[1:24:19] are in garbage bins. I don't know if

[1:24:21] there's anything we can do about it, but

[1:24:22] glass bottles, clear plastic, films, etc., etc., etc. And it

[1:24:28] drives me nuts. So, um I just want to

[1:24:30] say

[1:24:32] it doesn't take a lot of time. Please

[1:24:34] put more care in your garbage and

[1:24:36] recyclables.

[1:24:38] And then the last thing is I bumped into

[1:24:40] Jay Sharp a few times at my office,

[1:24:42] which is

[1:24:44] the leftmost seat at Starbucks at 1:30

[1:24:47] most days.

[1:24:49] And we've had chats with other residents

[1:24:51] about the fire halls.

[1:24:53] And I suggested to Mr. Sharp that he

[1:24:57] could do a town hall or something cuz it

[1:24:59] he brings the temperature down of people

[1:25:01] who are quite upset.

[1:25:02] And he informed me that he cannot do

[1:25:05] that without the approval of the

[1:25:07] trustees.

[1:25:08] And really council has this council has

[1:25:11] no say

[1:25:12] on

[1:25:14] the fire thing other than through the

[1:25:15] trustees. So, I make my request to the

[1:25:18] Anmore trustees, could you request or

[1:25:21] give permission to Mr. Sharp to do a

[1:25:23] town hall

[1:25:24] on the fire halls? That would be greatly

[1:25:26] appreciated by the residents at large.

[1:25:29] Thank you.

[1:25:29] >> I I actually believe there's going to be

[1:25:31] an RFP coming out. There'll be an

[1:25:32] actually a special meeting for the for

[1:25:35] the handy note of the RFP for the design

[1:25:37] and everything. So, that would be a

[1:25:38] perfect opportunity to to get people out

[1:25:40] to ask questions. So,

[1:25:42] to me.

[1:25:43] Okay. Uh Chief Administrative Report.

[1:25:48] >> Thank you.

[1:25:50] The election candidate

[1:25:52] um sessions. Um and these are the

[1:25:54] sessions that are uh administered by our

[1:25:58] Chief Election Officer, Lori Darkis,

[1:26:01] um where potential candidates can find

[1:26:04] out uh about the election process, about

[1:26:07] uh

[1:26:08] what uh

[1:26:10] being an elected official uh looks like,

[1:26:13] and and responsibilities related to

[1:26:15] that. So, we are looking at holding two

[1:26:17] info sessions this time. Um all of this

[1:26:19] information will be up on the village

[1:26:21] website in the coming weeks as well, but

[1:26:23] the dates for the info sessions will be

[1:26:25] in the evening August 27th and September

[1:26:29] 2nd

[1:26:30] uh right now. And uh so, please check

[1:26:33] for that and other information and

[1:26:35] updates on the election uh page, which

[1:26:38] is on the Village of Anmore website, and

[1:26:40] we will be uh more targeted uh

[1:26:43] communication coming out on that. Um and

[1:26:45] then additionally further to um the

[1:26:49] recommendation this evening, uh watch

[1:26:51] for um

[1:26:53] early September. We expect that we will

[1:26:55] be having uh an information session um

[1:26:59] firstly for the development community,

[1:27:00] but then secondly um for the broader

[1:27:03] public on uh development cost charges

[1:27:06] and uh what exactly they are and uh how

[1:27:10] they're determined and and projects and

[1:27:12] whatnot um just so that the general

[1:27:14] public uh understands the uh DCCs and

[1:27:18] the bylaw before it comes back to

[1:27:20] council uh hopefully later in September.

[1:27:23] That's it for me.

[1:27:24] >> Good. Thank you. I've got uh some

[1:27:27] general correspondence letter dated from

[1:27:28] the chair of the regional district of

[1:27:30] the Central Okanagan and town of Lake

[1:27:32] Country. Public input and question

[1:27:34] period. This is the last one, so

[1:27:37] I thought you said it was the Is it the

[1:27:39] last one? It is, yeah. So, please name and address, please.

[1:27:43] >> Is this working?

[1:27:44] >> You're

[1:27:45] >> product 1815 East Road. I'm just

[1:27:47] wondering if the municipality proper, I

[1:27:51] mean,

[1:27:52] uh the village is exempt from the water

[1:27:55] restrictions. I see, for example, circle

[1:27:58] hoses out here and

[1:27:59] uh or something that's making the plants

[1:28:02] grow quite well. And I was just

[1:28:04] wondering if the village is uh exempt from water

[1:28:08] restrictions

[1:28:09] uh when we were

[1:28:11] uh obeying them.

[1:28:12] >> Well, the water restrictions now are

[1:28:14] down back to a level two, so you are

[1:28:16] allowed to hand water shrubs and that,

[1:28:18] yeah.

[1:28:18] >> But, water is we uh

[1:28:20] the residents were restricted from using

[1:28:22] soaker hoses.

[1:28:24] >> I don't know how the vegetation out here

[1:28:26] grew out

[1:28:27] quite

[1:28:28] quickly and must have been fed by water.

[1:28:31] I'm just wondering if there's exemptions

[1:28:33] for the village and not for residents.

[1:28:36] >> Just for clarity, are you talking about

[1:28:38] the ferns that came up from the dirt

[1:28:40] area in the front?

[1:28:41] >> and also at the steps here.

[1:28:43] >> Uh I don't know about the steps, but

[1:28:44] those darned ferns,

[1:28:46] they they come up no matter what you do.

[1:28:50] So, in the front around like on the east

[1:28:53] Sunny Side Road section, all the green

[1:28:55] that came up through the newly laid in

[1:28:56] soil, I don't think that was watered at

[1:28:58] all.

[1:28:59] >> Okay, Joe.

[1:29:00] And I was just curious. Thank you.

[1:29:02] >> Thank you.

[1:29:12] » Hi, this is Mike 2555 Sunny Side Road.

[1:29:15] Um

[1:29:17] I don't know if I'm allowed to how I'm

[1:29:18] going to be able to ask these questions.

[1:29:20] Do I do it through you?

[1:29:22] >> Yeah.

[1:29:22] >> Because it's a contractor and it's also

[1:29:25] a member of the staff

[1:29:27] that I have these questions for.

[1:29:30] >> Can you send me an email about it or

[1:29:32] >> Uh

[1:29:34] >> Can you generalize what what it

[1:29:35] >> Okay. Well,

[1:29:37] >> Uh we don't want anybody's name

[1:29:38] mentioned or anything like that.

[1:29:40] >> No, I'm not Well, May 5th, I uh we had

[1:29:43] the council meeting. After the meeting,

[1:29:46] we talked about the drainage of the

[1:29:47] Spirit Park. After the meeting, I met

[1:29:50] with the city ca- the municipal

[1:29:52] contractor in charge of that and we set

[1:29:56] up for a time, 2:00 the next day to

[1:29:59] go and and meet over there. Um I was

[1:30:03] there for more than half an hour,

[1:30:06] gave up because he never showed up. So,

[1:30:08] May 6th, the next day or that day, um I

[1:30:12] phoned city hall when I went in and I I

[1:30:16] asked the receptionist or whoever

[1:30:17] answered the phone, um what do I do? Can

[1:30:20] I have his number? She said, "No, I'll

[1:30:22] leave a posted note for him. I will get

[1:30:25] him to contact you and also email him."

[1:30:29] So, I emailed him. That was on May 6th.

[1:30:34] June 23rd, I I also left my phone

[1:30:36] number. June 23rd, I sent another email.

[1:30:39] This time I CC'd one of the staff. I'm

[1:30:42] not allowed to say which staff because

[1:30:45] we're not allowed to say names. Uh that

[1:30:47] was June 23rd. I emailed the staff

[1:30:49] saying, "Hey, um well, not the staff. I

[1:30:52] CC'd the staff and I emailed the

[1:30:54] contractor.

[1:30:56] And I said, um we were supposed to meet.

[1:30:59] That was a month ago. I waited a month.

[1:31:02] How come we didn't meet? Here's my phone

[1:31:04] number. Can we please meet?" Then, um

[1:31:07] today is the 20

[1:31:09] >> first of July. I still have not received

[1:31:13] any correspondence from the city staff

[1:31:16] and the contractor in charge and they've

[1:31:18] already um sent the tender out for that

[1:31:22] or awarded the tender. So, so who do I

[1:31:24] What do I do?

[1:31:25] >> If I can ask if you can send me that

[1:31:29] string of emails

[1:31:30] and and that and then I will I'll talk

[1:31:33] to Karen

[1:31:33] >> Okay.

[1:31:34] >> uh Ms. Halbert.

[1:31:34] >> Okay. Yeah, because

[1:31:36] >> Okay.

[1:31:36] >> I'm I'm frustrated that it's been 2

[1:31:38] months and it's been a month for the

[1:31:41] city staff to get back to me as well as

[1:31:43] the contractor. 2 months.

[1:31:45] >> Okay. So.

[1:31:45] >> Okay.

[1:31:46] Any other questions before

[1:31:50] Okay, motion to adjourn.

[1:31:52] Moved. Second. All those in favor?

[1:31:54] Carried unanimously and thank you

[1:31:55] everyone. Have a great summer.

[1:31:58] We'll see you in September.

[1:32:08] » Mhm.

Regular Council Meeting

Transcript