1
00:00:02,320 --> 00:00:08,440
Okay, good evening everyone. Welcome to
the regular council meeting for Tuesday,

2
00:00:05,560 --> 00:00:11,200
July 21st. It's currently 7:00. Before
we get started,

3
00:00:09,800 --> 00:00:14,560
the Village of Anmore would like to open
our meeting by recognizing the many

4
00:00:12,680 --> 00:00:17,600
indigenous peoples of our area,
including the following First Nations

5
00:00:16,120 --> 00:00:20,120
with communities that are now located in
the region that we know as Metro

6
00:00:18,720 --> 00:00:24,280
Vancouver.
It'll be the Musqueam, Squamish,

7
00:00:21,520 --> 00:00:26,800
Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem.
Further, we'd like to honor the

8
00:00:25,240 --> 00:00:29,640
important place in history occupied by
the many tutorial keepers of these lands

9
00:00:28,400 --> 00:00:31,680
and waters around us since time
immemorial.

10
00:00:30,640 --> 00:00:36,520
I'll call the meeting to order. Could I
get someone to move the agenda as

11
00:00:34,240 --> 00:00:40,360
circulated?
>> Second.

12
00:00:37,880 --> 00:00:44,440
» Call the question. All those in favor?
Carried unanimously. Uh

13
00:00:42,560 --> 00:00:49,160
we have public input. Uh
public is to uh come forward and ask any

14
00:00:47,320 --> 00:00:52,680
questions regarding to business that's
on the agenda. Uh

15
00:00:50,920 --> 00:00:57,280
Agenda items only. 2-minute time limit
applies to speakers. Anybody wishing to

16
00:00:54,680 --> 00:01:00,200
come forward and discuss anything on
tonight's agenda?

17
00:01:01,200 --> 00:01:04,760
Nope.
Okay.

18
00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:09,400
Move on to uh delegations. We have a
delegation from Lina Aziz to present

19
00:01:07,320 --> 00:01:13,760
regarding Lower Fraser Valley Flood
Plains Coalition, a regional request.

20
00:01:18,480 --> 00:01:23,960
I'm going to
I I'm just going to ask Did Did you want

21
00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:27,240
to come to public input comment on
anything at public input?

22
00:01:25,800 --> 00:01:30,600
Okay, I'm just going to if we can just
put you on hold, sir.

23
00:01:29,000 --> 00:01:33,240
Please come up and state your name and
address.

24
00:01:38,280 --> 00:01:45,400
» Zane Erickson, 2000 Rich Mountain Drive.
I'm just um

25
00:01:43,720 --> 00:01:48,720
just wanted to bring up something about
the proposed changes to the

26
00:01:47,040 --> 00:01:51,600
» Could you pull the mic up a little?
Yeah.

27
00:01:50,160 --> 00:01:56,280
There you go. Perfect.
>> Just the changes to the zoning bylaw,

28
00:01:54,000 --> 00:01:59,760
and I'm just looking for more
specificity

29
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:02,920
in what's written.
Specifically regarding

30
00:02:01,680 --> 00:02:05,760
basements
and

31
00:02:04,160 --> 00:02:11,080
I found a little bit
vague where it was described that

32
00:02:08,880 --> 00:02:15,040
um they're wanting to limit it to a
partially exposed.

33
00:02:13,160 --> 00:02:20,120
I didn't see a definition
of what partially exposed means.

34
00:02:18,160 --> 00:02:26,680
And I think by reading it that I find
the intention that limiting the height

35
00:02:22,840 --> 00:02:30,640
to 2.75 m from the basement floor to the
main floor

36
00:02:28,200 --> 00:02:35,680
is what would be the guiding definition
of partially exposed.

37
00:02:32,880 --> 00:02:41,160
And I'm just concerned that in Ann Arbor
uh if we reduce

38
00:02:38,120 --> 00:02:45,640
basement ceiling heights to 8 ft
uh with large spans, with the way that

39
00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:48,920
houses are designed in Ann Arbor
we're going to have people with

40
00:02:47,200 --> 00:02:53,640
you know, 7-ft ceiling heights in
basements if you need to do large spans

41
00:02:51,280 --> 00:02:56,959
with floor trusses like we do so we can
run all their ducts and what not through

42
00:02:55,520 --> 00:03:03,560
there. And so I
I'm just concerned that

43
00:02:59,200 --> 00:03:03,560
these changes that are being made are

44
00:03:03,880 --> 00:03:12,920
maybe academic more than um real-world
examples happening in the village. And

45
00:03:10,560 --> 00:03:16,080
so I think some of that just needs to be
looked at a little bit more.

46
00:03:14,880 --> 00:03:19,880
» Good. Thank you very much.
>> Yeah.

47
00:03:17,400 --> 00:03:24,200
» Any other public comments before I vote?
Sorry. We'll get back to our delegation

48
00:03:21,920 --> 00:03:26,720
now, Ms. Lena Aziz. Thank you. And thank
you for your patience.

49
00:03:25,239 --> 00:03:28,560
» I just think we're just
putting out

50
00:03:27,519 --> 00:03:33,720
like that
you know, our website and a little bit

51
00:03:30,360 --> 00:03:33,720
of teaching a little bit about it.

52
00:03:36,200 --> 00:03:38,480
Sure.

53
00:03:42,680 --> 00:03:47,800
» And please feel Yeah, feel free to
change that. Move that. Yeah.

54
00:03:53,000 --> 00:04:00,080
» Uh good evening, Mayor Kumpel. My name
is Lina Lee. I'm the Watershed Programs

55
00:03:57,320 --> 00:04:03,480
Director at Watershed Watch Society, a
conservation charity based in Fort

56
00:04:02,200 --> 00:04:07,160
Langley,
BC. Our work goes where salmon goes and

57
00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:11,040
where problems lie.
>> Today

58
00:04:08,840 --> 00:04:11,040
» Sorry.

59
00:04:11,560 --> 00:04:15,880
» Okay. Is this all right?
>> Yes, it's fine.

60
00:04:14,000 --> 00:04:19,799
» All right. Today, I'm speaking as a
member of the Lower Fraser Floodplain

61
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:24,160
Coalition. The coalition is a group of
organizations, experts, and advocates

62
00:04:22,160 --> 00:04:28,160
working toward integrated,
fish-friendly, and climate-resilient

63
00:04:26,320 --> 00:04:31,080
floodplain management across the Lower
Mainland.

64
00:04:29,400 --> 00:04:34,400
Our vision is simple.
That the people and the non-human

65
00:04:32,800 --> 00:04:38,640
relatives of the Lower Mainland are
healthy, safe, and resilient to

66
00:04:36,120 --> 00:04:38,640
flooding.

67
00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:44,840
I'm here with a request that the Village
of Anmore join other communities in

68
00:04:42,760 --> 00:04:49,440
becoming a signatory to the Regional
Joint Statement on Action for Floodplain

69
00:04:46,720 --> 00:04:54,120
Resilience in the Lower Mainland.
Since uh 2022, we've been convening

70
00:04:52,520 --> 00:04:57,960
local governments and First Nation
leaders and experts from across the

71
00:04:55,760 --> 00:05:01,440
region to build the relationships, the
knowledge foundation, and momentum

72
00:04:59,760 --> 00:05:05,040
needed to ready our region for flood
resilience.

73
00:05:02,800 --> 00:05:09,040
Over the seven dialogues we've hosted,
themes around coordinated action,

74
00:05:07,000 --> 00:05:12,560
regional action, sustained funding
sources, and advocacy to the feds and

75
00:05:10,800 --> 00:05:16,720
the province keep coming to the
keep coming to the surface.

76
00:05:14,400 --> 00:05:21,040
Those seven uh meetings are represented
by the seven reports we have on the

77
00:05:18,200 --> 00:05:21,040
slide there.

78
00:05:21,160 --> 00:05:26,560
Uh something else that's emerged from
the regional discussion is that it's

79
00:05:24,440 --> 00:05:29,919
time for multi-benefit flood management
in the Lower Mainland. We are stuck with

80
00:05:28,680 --> 00:05:34,440
the approach to flood control
infrastructure that was developed rather

81
00:05:31,400 --> 00:05:37,440
hastily in 1948-49,
and that combined with provincial

82
00:05:35,680 --> 00:05:40,880
downloading of flood management to local
governments leaves us confined to

83
00:05:39,160 --> 00:05:44,480
piecemeal approaches,
but it doesn't have to be that way.

84
00:05:42,720 --> 00:05:48,680
Across the border in Washington state,
there's a program called Floodplains by

85
00:05:46,000 --> 00:05:52,280
Design. The state the the state of
Washington has invested five $359

86
00:05:50,960 --> 00:05:56,760
million
in large-scale multi-benefit projects

87
00:05:54,320 --> 00:06:01,640
that have reduced flood risk for 88
communities, restored over 275 km of

88
00:06:00,040 --> 00:06:05,840
salmon habitat,
supported local farms and boosted

89
00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:09,560
regional economies since 2013.
These investments have already saved

90
00:06:07,280 --> 00:06:13,440
nearly $2 million in avoided flood
damages. Beyond safety and habitat

91
00:06:12,000 --> 00:06:17,800
gains, the program is a powerful
economic driver. Every million dollars

92
00:06:16,640 --> 00:06:22,880
um
invested generates 2.2 to 2.5 million in

93
00:06:20,560 --> 00:06:27,120
economic local economic activity, with
about 80% of that money staying in the

94
00:06:24,880 --> 00:06:31,560
community. The program has leveraged has
leveraged funding for local from local

95
00:06:29,000 --> 00:06:36,240
and federal partners at a 3:2:1 ratio,
creating thousands of jobs statewide.

96
00:06:34,040 --> 00:06:40,120
We have been um learning from and being
mentored through that program over the

97
00:06:37,919 --> 00:06:45,760
past few years, and we want to create an
investment of that kind for British for

98
00:06:42,480 --> 00:06:45,760
the the Lower Mainland.

99
00:06:45,800 --> 00:06:52,200
But despite all the goodwill
demonstrated in the region and the good

100
00:06:50,520 --> 00:06:55,240
ideas that are out there, we have to
acknowledge that we are in a crisis

101
00:06:53,760 --> 00:06:59,200
situation.
Flood risks are escalating. In the Lower

102
00:06:57,320 --> 00:07:05,200
Mainland alone, we have lived through
major flooding in '21,

103
00:07:01,400 --> 00:07:09,440
'24, '25, and a bit also this year in
the spring of 2026.

104
00:07:07,440 --> 00:07:14,269
Aging infrastructure, development on
flood plains, and a changing climate are

105
00:07:11,640 --> 00:07:17,000
all converging.
>> [snorts]

106
00:07:15,440 --> 00:07:20,880
» Uh I should note, of course, the BC
flood strategy does exist. It's been

107
00:07:18,400 --> 00:07:24,000
around since 2024, [snorts] but there's
zero funding to actually implement that

108
00:07:22,640 --> 00:07:27,400
strategy.
Flood resilience is not discretionary

109
00:07:25,760 --> 00:07:31,200
spending. It is prudent financial
management. Every time we kick the can

110
00:07:29,800 --> 00:07:35,280
down the road, we are gambling with the
lives, the homes, food security,

111
00:07:33,640 --> 00:07:39,000
infrastructure, and ecosystems in the
Lower Mainland.

112
00:07:36,840 --> 00:07:43,720
In fact, a single major flood in the in
the region could wipe out over $350

113
00:07:41,080 --> 00:07:47,400
billion in economic value.
The Close to Home report by the Canadian

114
00:07:45,400 --> 00:07:51,480
Climate Institute makes clear that BC
will be the province hit hardest by

115
00:07:49,480 --> 00:07:55,520
escalating flood and wildfire-related
disaster costs. And yet we continue to

116
00:07:53,720 --> 00:07:59,040
build in high-risk zones, locking in
future losses.

117
00:07:57,400 --> 00:08:02,480
Of note, I just want to say there has
been no significant federal or

118
00:08:00,360 --> 00:08:08,600
provincial investments in flood safety
in our region since the Fraser River

119
00:08:04,600 --> 00:08:12,919
Flood Control Program ended in 1995.
But opportunities do exist.

120
00:08:11,600 --> 00:08:17,560
The federal government has a clear
interest in a resilient Lower Fraser, as

121
00:08:15,360 --> 00:08:20,600
mentioned in recent announcements. It's
an opportunity to channel investments

122
00:08:19,200 --> 00:08:25,720
that deliver regional solutions that
work with nature and the economy.

123
00:08:23,320 --> 00:08:30,280
It's worth noting, also, that the $150
to $164 million awarded through DMAF to

124
00:08:29,080 --> 00:08:34,080
the region
has been scattered amongst individual

125
00:08:32,000 --> 00:08:37,320
projects, not a coordinated regional
program,

126
00:08:35,640 --> 00:08:41,800
which has made which unfortunately has
not made our region flood resilient.

127
00:08:40,440 --> 00:08:46,320
A real investment program means
sequencing the right tools in the right

128
00:08:43,760 --> 00:08:49,839
order, building local capacity,
funding applied funding applied

129
00:08:48,160 --> 00:08:54,120
research, creating jobs, and
prioritizing the most vulnerable

130
00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:54,120
communities first.

131
00:08:54,920 --> 00:09:00,640
Which all of that brings me to the joint
statement that I'm here about today. The

132
00:08:58,920 --> 00:09:05,240
aim is to express a unified regional
voice across local governments and First

133
00:09:02,560 --> 00:09:09,600
Nations and support advocacy to federal
and provincial governments for stable,

134
00:09:07,320 --> 00:09:12,680
long-term investment in flood resilience
that protects people, communities, and

135
00:09:11,200 --> 00:09:15,760
ecosystems from
flood risk. And this is not just

136
00:09:14,120 --> 00:09:19,160
riverine, we're also talking about
overland flooding and things like

137
00:09:17,560 --> 00:09:22,480
atmospheric rivers.
It is an opportunity for the city as as

138
00:09:21,240 --> 00:09:27,040
for the village
as leaders to send a clear message to

139
00:09:24,520 --> 00:09:30,480
Ottawa and Victoria, letting them know
that we are ready to work together as a

140
00:09:28,640 --> 00:09:34,480
region to build flood resilience for our
communities. We know what we need, and

141
00:09:33,160 --> 00:09:38,200
federal and provincial governments must
step up to protect this region of

142
00:09:36,040 --> 00:09:42,080
national significance with a program
that reflects the magnitude of the task

143
00:09:40,280 --> 00:09:45,680
at hand.
To that end, we are calling

144
00:09:44,440 --> 00:09:49,760
the joint statement calls for a
dedicated long-term flood resilience

145
00:09:47,400 --> 00:09:55,040
program for the region, stable committed
funding, not project by project funding,

146
00:09:52,680 --> 00:09:59,880
regional coordination, investment in
critical infrastructure, and the full

147
00:09:57,080 --> 00:10:04,160
flood risk reduction toolbox, including
nature-based solutions, and capacity

148
00:10:02,240 --> 00:10:08,160
support for First Nations and local
government leadership

149
00:10:05,800 --> 00:10:13,480
to move this work forward.
So, on May 29th, the Metro Vancouver

150
00:10:11,280 --> 00:10:17,440
Regional District's board endorsed this
joint statement, and since then we have

151
00:10:15,400 --> 00:10:22,000
been doing delegations to two
municipalities across the region. So

152
00:10:19,680 --> 00:10:25,920
far, we have got endorsement from Metro
Vancouver and the SLRD, the

153
00:10:23,600 --> 00:10:29,600
Squamish-Lillooet Regional District. We
are

154
00:10:27,120 --> 00:10:35,560
seeking endorsement from the FVRD later
this month. City-wise, Port Coquitlam,

155
00:10:33,040 --> 00:10:38,600
the City of Coquitlam, City of Delta,
Township of Langley, and the City of

156
00:10:36,680 --> 00:10:43,800
Langley have all signed on. We're in
process with the City of Vancouver,

157
00:10:40,560 --> 00:10:47,520
Maple Ridge, and City of Surrey as we
speak. And we have um

158
00:10:45,960 --> 00:10:51,120
more coming up
after the after the August break.

159
00:10:51,440 --> 00:10:57,680
So,
to summarize then,

160
00:10:55,400 --> 00:11:01,240
I should turn my sheet over.
Essentially, this the statement is

161
00:11:00,000 --> 00:11:04,240
calling on the provincial and federal
governments to recognize that

162
00:11:02,440 --> 00:11:08,680
collaboration, not competition for
piecemeal funding, is the foundation of

163
00:11:06,560 --> 00:11:11,960
for resilience in the Lower Fraser, and
that enabling First Nations and local

164
00:11:10,360 --> 00:11:16,160
governments to work together to meet
responsibilities to their communities

165
00:11:14,200 --> 00:11:21,280
that flow from rights, titles, and
jurisdiction is part of that foundation.

166
00:11:19,480 --> 00:11:25,200
And we're calling on the federal and
provincial governments to develop a

167
00:11:22,560 --> 00:11:29,680
sustained long-term investment program
for the Lower Fraser adequate to support

168
00:11:27,360 --> 00:11:34,400
collaborative work across for federal,
provincial, and local governments, First

169
00:11:32,000 --> 00:11:38,880
Nations, and the private sector to
achieve regional flood plain resilience

170
00:11:36,280 --> 00:11:43,200
that works with nature, not against it.
This work is bigger than one community,

171
00:11:40,840 --> 00:11:46,040
and we're hence we're um trying to bring
everyone together so we can work

172
00:11:44,920 --> 00:11:48,400
together.
Thank you.

173
00:11:48,480 --> 00:11:53,920
» Good. Thank you. Um
with my role on Metro Vancouver, we we

174
00:11:52,240 --> 00:11:56,920
did endorse this, and we've really had a
challenge because there is

175
00:11:55,960 --> 00:12:01,000
the provincial government and federal
governments are not putting any funding

176
00:11:58,280 --> 00:12:05,360
towards this very significant issue that
is facing uh a lot of our

177
00:12:03,320 --> 00:12:10,240
municipalities. I especially feel for
like a municipality like Pitt Meadows of

178
00:12:08,000 --> 00:12:12,720
very small size just doesn't have the
funding to be able to do this, and no

179
00:12:11,440 --> 00:12:16,320
money coming from the province or the
federal governments to be able to to do

180
00:12:14,640 --> 00:12:19,640
a lot of these things. And I know it at
Metro Vancouver, we also had the the

181
00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:22,680
Fraser Valley
uh flood plains task force that we have

182
00:12:21,320 --> 00:12:26,520
there, and we we are have a real
challenge with it as well to maintain

183
00:12:24,560 --> 00:12:29,440
funding for that. So, anyway, I really
support uh

184
00:12:28,080 --> 00:12:34,040
your what you're what you're doing and
getting and us all advocating for the

185
00:12:31,800 --> 00:12:37,880
same thing and and helping out. We but
it also I think includes dredging as

186
00:12:35,839 --> 00:12:41,120
well because a lot of the uh areas of
the lower Fraser need to be dredged

187
00:12:39,240 --> 00:12:44,160
because they're now the siltation that's
come down over the years, and and the

188
00:12:42,640 --> 00:12:47,760
federal government, which is their
responsibility, is not participating in

189
00:12:45,839 --> 00:12:51,040
that at all. So, I'll just open up if
anybody has any other further questions,

190
00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:54,360
but just wanted to thank you again for
coming and for your presentation and the

191
00:12:52,800 --> 00:12:57,360
work that you're doing.
Any

192
00:12:55,040 --> 00:13:01,920
Any other comments?
Councilor Richardson.

193
00:12:58,920 --> 00:13:06,120
» So, I I went to your website to try and
understand. Like, I understand it's a

194
00:13:04,560 --> 00:13:10,480
group of people coming together to try
and raise awareness,

195
00:13:08,040 --> 00:13:15,120
but I didn't read any
examples. This is what we'd like to do.

196
00:13:12,760 --> 00:13:18,760
And in your presentation, you even said,
"We're building on flood plains and

197
00:13:16,520 --> 00:13:23,839
putting people at risk."
Where? How many? Which municipalities?

198
00:13:22,000 --> 00:13:28,160
Cuz it seems to me
it would be the responsibility of the

199
00:13:25,680 --> 00:13:30,920
municipalities not to do that, not the
provincial government or the federal

200
00:13:29,720 --> 00:13:34,440
government
to restrict municipalities from where

201
00:13:32,680 --> 00:13:38,600
they want to build. So, I was a bit
confused

202
00:13:36,440 --> 00:13:43,040
sort of how it would work, where the
money would go, and what it would do.

203
00:13:40,680 --> 00:13:50,200
» Yeah. Um actually right now, I think
it's bill 44, provincial bill 44, where

204
00:13:47,360 --> 00:13:55,920
um the province is kind of directing
local governments in one way to build in

205
00:13:52,360 --> 00:13:59,200
order to densify communities, which um
in some communities are they're

206
00:13:57,520 --> 00:14:03,720
considering more development and more
denser development in the flood plains.

207
00:14:02,160 --> 00:14:06,120
Burnaby is one.
PoCo is another.

208
00:14:05,080 --> 00:14:09,920
Um
so, that's kind of

209
00:14:08,320 --> 00:14:14,560
what I mean by we're building more in
the flood plain, and perhaps not to

210
00:14:11,680 --> 00:14:18,000
certain flood standards that um
have to be updated still, especially for

211
00:14:16,360 --> 00:14:22,640
the local communities having to update
their flood standards. The The second

212
00:14:21,120 --> 00:14:26,840
part of What was the What was the second
part of the question?

213
00:14:24,160 --> 00:14:31,160
» I was kind of looking for a specific
examples of where the money would go,

214
00:14:28,520 --> 00:14:34,480
what it would do. Like
are they looking to have the federal

215
00:14:32,760 --> 00:14:38,280
government come in, and your numbers
were huge, raise all dikes on the Fraser

216
00:14:37,080 --> 00:14:41,000
Valley,
you know, 5 ft?

217
00:14:40,160 --> 00:14:43,800
Like I I
I was a bit

218
00:14:42,200 --> 00:14:46,560
confused like even work with nature.
Like if you work with nature, the river

219
00:14:45,200 --> 00:14:51,160
just flows.
So, our point actually is in some ways

220
00:14:49,200 --> 00:14:55,160
is to not work with nature.
We want to control it and force it into

221
00:14:53,120 --> 00:14:58,120
particular channels and paths.
>> So, that's what's happened before, Ian.

222
00:14:56,839 --> 00:15:02,200
» So,
I I didn't quite understand what the

223
00:15:00,760 --> 00:15:05,120
overall goal is.
>> Yeah, well,

224
00:15:03,600 --> 00:15:07,880
there are many different steps before we
actually start breaking ground and, you

225
00:15:06,520 --> 00:15:14,200
know, doing any of the flood resilience
projects we'd like to see happen. Um

226
00:15:10,920 --> 00:15:18,640
right now, we have funding from NRCan,
Natural Resources Canada, to do research

227
00:15:16,600 --> 00:15:22,840
on critical infrastructure. So, we're
starting to identify where are the

228
00:15:21,120 --> 00:15:27,120
critical infra-
infrastructure at the moment? So,

229
00:15:24,000 --> 00:15:31,080
railways, roads, focusing on those,
their

230
00:15:28,240 --> 00:15:34,720
their their their flood risk weaknesses.
So, that work current studies currently

231
00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:38,520
being conducted through UBC School of
Engineering.

232
00:15:36,320 --> 00:15:42,200
And we would love to have more
communities on board and participating

233
00:15:40,800 --> 00:15:45,000
in that study so that their critical
infrastructure in the communities are

234
00:15:43,520 --> 00:15:48,240
getting
studied and addressed.

235
00:15:46,880 --> 00:15:53,520
So, that's one thing that's happening.
More There is more

236
00:15:50,840 --> 00:15:53,520
need

237
00:15:55,320 --> 00:16:01,200
There is further need for actually doing
more applied research cuz we actually

238
00:15:59,360 --> 00:16:05,960
don't know
where all of the high-risk flood areas

239
00:16:03,840 --> 00:16:09,920
are in the Lower Mainland.
It shifts. Right now, everyone's

240
00:16:07,560 --> 00:16:14,880
focusing on the Sumas Prairie for
obviously good reasons. But, this past

241
00:16:12,800 --> 00:16:18,840
March, we had a slide at the top end of
the Coquitlam River. Well, that's an

242
00:16:16,720 --> 00:16:21,880
area perhaps of high risk as well. So,
there are so many different areas of

243
00:16:20,400 --> 00:16:25,800
high risk within our communities that we
haven't fully identified yet. So, that

244
00:16:24,360 --> 00:16:30,880
has to be done.
We talk about using the flood

245
00:16:28,320 --> 00:16:35,760
flood risk toolkit, and that is
everything from gray infrastructure like

246
00:16:33,480 --> 00:16:41,400
dikes, pump stations,
you know, channeling things, all the way

247
00:16:38,160 --> 00:16:45,160
to green gray solutions like greener
dikes,

248
00:16:42,640 --> 00:16:48,200
using berms for example, or creating
constructed wetlands. So, those are more

249
00:16:46,640 --> 00:16:52,920
nature-based solutions, constructed
wetlands to hold more water and allow it

250
00:16:50,720 --> 00:16:57,320
to flow more slowly because as we are
developing and have developed in our

251
00:16:55,280 --> 00:17:02,600
floodplains and our slopes, we have
taken away the capacity of forests and

252
00:17:00,640 --> 00:17:07,040
wetlands to do what they need to do. We
have lost 80

253
00:17:05,480 --> 00:17:11,600
82%
or so of the wetlands in the Lower

254
00:17:08,720 --> 00:17:14,920
Mainland. So, therefore, we've lost the
to capacity of to hold water in the

255
00:17:13,560 --> 00:17:15,959
region.
>> So.

256
00:17:15,520 --> 00:17:19,959
» yes.
>> Yeah, I just wanted to kind of wrap this

257
00:17:17,920 --> 00:17:24,560
up. Basically, in essence, you're an
advocacy group for all the

258
00:17:21,240 --> 00:17:28,840
municipalities and different um
uh bands up along the the Fraser River,

259
00:17:26,959 --> 00:17:33,080
which which is something that you're
looking to coordinate a

260
00:17:31,360 --> 00:17:37,080
kind of a central
um request to both levels of government

261
00:17:34,640 --> 00:17:40,320
and work as a as a as a as a unit rather
than what happens right now, which is a

262
00:17:39,040 --> 00:17:43,480
lot of municipalities, i.e. the
Richmonds and that have their own flood

263
00:17:41,880 --> 00:17:47,200
plans, but they're not in conjunction
with other neighboring municipalities

264
00:17:45,160 --> 00:17:52,360
like Delta and such like that. So,
really, I think the the essence of of

265
00:17:49,840 --> 00:17:55,680
the ask is just to uh sign on with the
other municipalities as to this regional

266
00:17:54,520 --> 00:17:58,560
body
kind of speaking for all of us and

267
00:17:57,080 --> 00:18:02,000
getting the required funding that we
need to get from the senior levels of

268
00:18:00,240 --> 00:18:06,440
government. Is that
>> Yeah. Yeah, we do advocacy. We also do

269
00:18:04,280 --> 00:18:10,240
convening. We bring local governments
and First Nation leadership together. We

270
00:18:08,200 --> 00:18:14,040
do this at the regional scale, so Hope
to the Salish Sea up to, you know, the

271
00:18:11,840 --> 00:18:17,320
Squamish Lil'wat Regional District. Um
but we also do this subregionally at

272
00:18:15,600 --> 00:18:22,040
smaller groups, so we can we can talk
about things at different levels based

273
00:18:18,880 --> 00:18:25,760
on what's needed. So, we do we do the
advocacy. We do the convening, bringing

274
00:18:24,280 --> 00:18:30,480
together people, and we're creating a
knowledge hub. We're creating the shared

275
00:18:27,760 --> 00:18:36,160
knowledge uh space for communities to
access. So, we are not we are not the

276
00:18:33,800 --> 00:18:40,920
ones who would
In essence, we should not be the ones as

277
00:18:38,280 --> 00:18:44,040
uh we're not leadership, right? We're
kind of behind the scenes, but we want

278
00:18:42,240 --> 00:18:48,840
to support and encourage leadership to
have have um

279
00:18:46,280 --> 00:18:52,000
uh the words and the knowledge to then
go forward and speak to the province and

280
00:18:50,400 --> 00:18:54,040
the feds and bring this investment to
the region.

281
00:18:53,080 --> 00:18:57,800
» Thank you.
Is this something you have a resolution

282
00:18:55,520 --> 00:19:03,000
for us or something we can
move to endorse?

283
00:18:59,720 --> 00:19:09,280
» Perhaps if council desires um
uh a resolution can be um that the uh

284
00:19:06,280 --> 00:19:12,120
council uh supports the request uh of
the delegation. Something as simple as

285
00:19:11,360 --> 00:19:15,840
that, perhaps.
>> Would that be Would the Village of

286
00:19:13,480 --> 00:19:20,200
Anmore Council support the
the

287
00:19:17,800 --> 00:19:21,600
movement of the I forget what exactly
the name is.

288
00:19:20,800 --> 00:19:25,320
» statement.
>> The the Lower Mainland Lower Fraser

289
00:19:23,360 --> 00:19:29,240
Flood Land Coalition.
>> Um yeah, yeah. The exact name of the

290
00:19:27,120 --> 00:19:34,040
statement is I believe you have it as
well. Yeah, and if you wanted to see the

291
00:19:32,000 --> 00:19:37,280
wording, it is on my slide deck as well.
>> We can We'll word smith. So, I'll call

292
00:19:35,880 --> 00:19:40,000
the question and
Do I have someone to move that

293
00:19:38,280 --> 00:19:44,200
resolution?
To endorse the flood lands. Okay,

294
00:19:42,840 --> 00:19:49,600
Counselor Krygier.
>> So, are we requesting to send a letter

295
00:19:46,840 --> 00:19:51,040
of support or
>> I did

296
00:19:50,320 --> 00:19:54,240
» I Is it a
>> What is the actual action? That's what

297
00:19:53,200 --> 00:19:58,400
I'm a little confused about.
>> we've been what we've been receiving

298
00:19:55,920 --> 00:20:03,800
from other local governments is a very
brief letter showing reflecting support

299
00:20:01,000 --> 00:20:07,320
for the joint statement, as well as a
logo that we can then put up on our

300
00:20:05,240 --> 00:20:09,360
presentation and on our website.
So, that's that's the basic ask.

301
00:20:08,920 --> 00:20:11,640
» Okay.
>> And then, of course, as we're moving

302
00:20:10,400 --> 00:20:16,920
forward, if there's interest in being
part of our convenings and being part of

303
00:20:14,560 --> 00:20:20,520
any advocacy that does happen at the at
the high upper levels of government,

304
00:20:18,560 --> 00:20:23,480
being invited to participate in that as
well.

305
00:20:21,800 --> 00:20:26,840
» Okay.
So, could I get someone Does somebody

306
00:20:25,040 --> 00:20:30,320
want to move that motion to submit a
letter? Moved.

307
00:20:28,520 --> 00:20:34,760
Anybody want to second? I see Paul's
going to second it.

308
00:20:31,840 --> 00:20:38,520
Okay, any further discussion?
Councilor Richardson.

309
00:20:36,160 --> 00:20:42,240
» Yes, I kind of mentioned earlier, like I
I couldn't really understand who you

310
00:20:40,320 --> 00:20:45,160
were, how you were funded. You said you
were a non-profit.

311
00:20:43,920 --> 00:20:50,000
And I I
didn't quite understand your role.

312
00:20:47,720 --> 00:20:53,400
And in order to send a letter saying I
support you, I kind of have to know

313
00:20:52,520 --> 00:20:57,200
more.
>> Okay.

314
00:20:53,960 --> 00:21:01,480
» So, I I can try and find out offline,
but I couldn't find it before. So, maybe

315
00:20:59,600 --> 00:21:05,480
we can have a conversation or something.
>> I'm happy to chat. But, very quickly, we

316
00:21:03,640 --> 00:21:10,000
are really just like a a of different
organizations who are who think the

317
00:21:07,760 --> 00:21:12,560
region needs to be organized in a in a
better way. We don't have a regional

318
00:21:11,360 --> 00:21:16,680
flood plan.
Um and we're at risk because of that on

319
00:21:14,480 --> 00:21:20,280
many different levels. Environmentally,
but also economically, our community is

320
00:21:18,280 --> 00:21:23,840
at risk. So, for all of those reasons, a
number of organizations came together.

321
00:21:21,880 --> 00:21:29,440
If you go to our website, you will see
who we are on there. We're uh like

322
00:21:26,600 --> 00:21:32,800
researchers, engineers, uh environmental
organizations, um

323
00:21:31,200 --> 00:21:36,360
a legal like West Coast Environmental
Law Society, they provide legal legal

324
00:21:34,560 --> 00:21:39,840
advice. Um
uh Farm We also have uh Farmland

325
00:21:38,360 --> 00:21:43,360
Advantage, so we have like a
agricultural um

326
00:21:41,800 --> 00:21:46,720
part
members part of our coalition.

327
00:21:45,320 --> 00:21:51,680
So, we
>> question from Councillor Craig. Are you

328
00:21:49,040 --> 00:21:54,880
a registered Well, you're not a charity,
but are you a an organization, a

329
00:21:53,760 --> 00:21:59,600
society?
>> coalition. So, a coalition of different

330
00:21:57,040 --> 00:22:02,720
organizations who are like Watershed
Watch, who I work for, is a registered

331
00:22:01,560 --> 00:22:10,120
charity.
Um the the First Nations led emergency

332
00:22:05,280 --> 00:22:12,760
planning uh secretariat is um is a What
are they? They're a nonprofit, they're

333
00:22:11,480 --> 00:22:17,400
not a registered charity, but they're
First Nations led and our work is very

334
00:22:15,080 --> 00:22:21,120
much based in and supported by what they
do. So, all of the different um

335
00:22:19,360 --> 00:22:26,560
organizations that are part that are in
the coalition, um we we are like we have

336
00:22:24,560 --> 00:22:29,640
our own charters and mandates and all of
that, but we come together for this

337
00:22:28,560 --> 00:22:31,880
cause
and try

338
00:22:30,600 --> 00:22:36,160
to bring the region together.
>> Okay.

339
00:22:34,160 --> 00:22:39,800
» I think that's the coalition.
>> So, you don't have a

340
00:22:37,920 --> 00:22:43,720
Do you have a budget? Do you have Is
everyone paid by their organization that

341
00:22:41,680 --> 00:22:46,120
represents? Sorry for these questions,
but

342
00:22:44,040 --> 00:22:51,480
» no, totally, it's fine. Um
So, yeah, so we I can speak for myself.

343
00:22:49,120 --> 00:22:57,120
I do have a budget that pays for my time
that I apply for grants. Um like to

344
00:22:54,800 --> 00:23:00,920
foundations, and that's at Watershed
Watch Salmon Society, but the coalition

345
00:22:59,320 --> 00:23:07,080
to help with some of our studies I
mentioned ENR We have $1.8 million from

346
00:23:04,480 --> 00:23:11,120
NRCan. We recently were awarded some
money through the through the Ministry

347
00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:15,280
of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship
as well as the Ministry of Agriculture

348
00:23:13,280 --> 00:23:18,640
because they want us to continue our
engagement with between farmers and

349
00:23:17,040 --> 00:23:22,800
First Nations in the Valley. So, that's
some other work that we're doing. Um so,

350
00:23:21,840 --> 00:23:25,040
you know,
little pots of money here and there to

351
00:23:24,240 --> 00:23:27,240
help
us do our work.

352
00:23:25,920 --> 00:23:30,200
» Thank you.
Okay, I'll call the question. All those

353
00:23:29,160 --> 00:23:35,240
it's been moved and seconded. All those
in favor?

354
00:23:31,880 --> 00:23:38,520
Opposed? I don't even see Oh,
uh motion's carried. Thank you. Thank

355
00:23:37,280 --> 00:23:41,120
you very much for coming out and
presenting.

356
00:23:41,640 --> 00:23:49,240
Okay, uh we have the minutes of the
regular council meeting held on July

357
00:23:45,240 --> 00:23:52,960
7th, 2026. Recommendation that those uh
minutes be adopted as circulated. Could

358
00:23:51,000 --> 00:23:58,520
I get someone to move that? Move,
second. Any discussion on those minutes?

359
00:23:56,240 --> 00:24:02,120
See none. All those in favor?
Opposed?

360
00:24:00,000 --> 00:24:09,560
Carried. Any business arising from the
minutes?

361
00:24:04,520 --> 00:24:12,840
No? Okay. We have a consent agenda. Um
we only have one item on the consent

362
00:24:10,800 --> 00:24:16,600
agenda, the Orphan Dyke advocacy letter
to the province.

363
00:24:17,160 --> 00:24:23,200
Uh
Who uh who should I go to about

364
00:24:21,440 --> 00:24:26,760
explaining this?
Ms. Elder?

365
00:24:24,600 --> 00:24:32,600
» I It is just for a receipt.
>> Oh, it's just for a receipt. Okay.

366
00:24:28,880 --> 00:24:32,600
Someone to to move receipt.

367
00:24:32,720 --> 00:24:41,080
Move, second. Any discussion?
See none. All those in favor?

368
00:24:39,160 --> 00:24:45,840
Opposed? Carried. I didn't ask you.
Okay. We're on to uh

369
00:24:43,600 --> 00:24:50,280
legislative reports 9A OCP bylaw
amendment 722-2025

370
00:24:48,560 --> 00:24:54,160
infield development first and second
reading report dated July 17th, 2026

371
00:24:52,840 --> 00:24:56,960
from Manager of Development Services
attached.

372
00:24:55,480 --> 00:25:00,000
Mr. Joseph.
>> Uh excuse me before we begin, I will

373
00:24:59,120 --> 00:25:02,920
recuse myself.
>> Okay.

374
00:25:00,960 --> 00:25:09,560
» We'll be We'll be doing infill,
hopefully, in the future.

375
00:25:06,000 --> 00:25:09,560
» Okay. Mr. Joseph.

376
00:25:22,840 --> 00:25:28,080
» Okay, thank you, Mayor and Council. If
you can put the mic a little closer.

377
00:25:26,720 --> 00:25:32,200
So, this report is to present updated
draft of the official community plan

378
00:25:29,520 --> 00:25:36,880
amendment bylaw number 722-2025,
which proposes updates to OCP policy RLU

379
00:25:34,680 --> 00:25:40,080
16, along with corresponding amendments
to the infill policy number 61 for

380
00:25:38,760 --> 00:25:43,080
Council's consideration of first and
second reading, and to seek direction on

381
00:25:41,920 --> 00:25:47,920
referring this amendment to external
agencies as required under section 475

382
00:25:45,360 --> 00:25:51,200
and 476 of the Local Government Act.
So, back at the May 20th, uh, 2025

383
00:25:49,920 --> 00:25:56,280
meeting, Council directed staff to
propose amendments to OCP policy RLU 16.

384
00:25:54,200 --> 00:25:59,920
Staff returned in September 2026 with
proposed amendments, and Council passed

385
00:25:57,720 --> 00:26:05,240
a resolution directing staff to prepare
changes to both the infill policy, as

386
00:26:02,040 --> 00:26:08,400
well, uh, RLU 16 and the infill policy.
At the May 19th meeting, Council

387
00:26:06,600 --> 00:26:11,880
directed that the amendments be deferred
as it was identified that the proposed

388
00:26:09,920 --> 00:26:14,760
new minimum lot size provision for
double fronting parcels would permit a

389
00:26:13,360 --> 00:26:17,920
density greater than that what was
allowed under the most recent OCP

390
00:26:16,600 --> 00:26:21,120
updates.
So, staff have further revised the draft

391
00:26:19,360 --> 00:26:24,720
amendment bylaw and infill policy number
61 for Council consideration based on

392
00:26:23,440 --> 00:26:28,280
this feedback, and have since removed
the density specific provision for

393
00:26:26,160 --> 00:26:32,800
double fronting parcels altogether.
The previous inclusion for parcels

394
00:26:29,440 --> 00:26:36,680
between 2800 and 3924 square meters to
be eligible for infill, where the parcel

395
00:26:35,000 --> 00:26:41,000
double fronts onto two separate public
highways, would have equated to a

396
00:26:38,080 --> 00:26:46,920
density of a of around 8.67 units per
acre, which exceeds the OCP, uh, policy

397
00:26:44,000 --> 00:26:50,360
RLU 17 associated with recent OCP
amendments that have been established

398
00:26:48,760 --> 00:26:55,200
that has established a maximum density
of six units per acre for infill lots.

399
00:26:53,560 --> 00:26:59,880
Uh so, the standard minimum lot size
range of roughly 1 to 2 acres uh

400
00:26:58,000 --> 00:27:04,400
and the current maximum density of 2.04
parcels per acre per acre will continue

401
00:27:02,280 --> 00:27:07,880
to be to apply to all infill parcels,
including those for double frontage. So,

402
00:27:06,400 --> 00:27:12,680
staff recommend that any further review
of infill density uh be considered as

403
00:27:09,840 --> 00:27:16,440
part of a future OCP update.
The amendment also proposes to remove

404
00:27:13,920 --> 00:27:20,600
number three of RLU 16 for the
requirement that the entire parcel have

405
00:27:18,200 --> 00:27:23,480
an average slope of 20% or less. While
keeping a number four of the policy for

406
00:27:22,240 --> 00:27:27,400
the requirement that the building site
have an average grade of 20% or less.

407
00:27:26,080 --> 00:27:30,960
This gives more flexibility for lots
with varied topography while maintaining

408
00:27:29,200 --> 00:27:34,760
control of the siting that keeps
development uh off steep slopes. It's

409
00:27:33,400 --> 00:27:38,400
also worth noting that the steep slopes
development permit area adopted through

410
00:27:36,720 --> 00:27:42,120
the recent OCP amendments still applies
to lots with an overall average grade of

411
00:27:40,080 --> 00:27:45,280
20% and will require a development
permit and geotechnical assessments

412
00:27:43,680 --> 00:27:48,000
where needed.
The amendment also provides additional

413
00:27:46,520 --> 00:27:52,200
flexibility on frontage requirements
described in RLU 16 number six. So,

414
00:27:50,400 --> 00:27:55,760
panhandle lots and lots using an access
easement are treated as comparable

415
00:27:53,680 --> 00:27:59,920
scenarios, both requiring similar
standards for emergency access.

416
00:27:58,000 --> 00:28:03,640
The previous draft amendment had a 50-m
frontage requirement for panhandle lots

417
00:28:02,120 --> 00:28:07,520
and this has since been revised down to
25 m matching what's proposed for the

418
00:28:05,640 --> 00:28:10,200
lots utilizing an access easement
alternative.

419
00:28:12,760 --> 00:28:18,120
In regards to updates to infill policy
number 61 section

420
00:28:19,080 --> 00:28:25,080
Section two requires that the access
strip of a panhandle not be included in

421
00:28:22,480 --> 00:28:28,720
the calculation of the minimum lot size.
Section four of the policy exempts

422
00:28:26,560 --> 00:28:33,360
panhandle lots and lots utilizing access
easements uh from a 25-m frontage

423
00:28:30,840 --> 00:28:36,960
requirement, but but requires that the
parcel width and depth be at least 25 m

424
00:28:35,600 --> 00:28:41,040
in length to maintain green space
between homes as illustrated in figure

425
00:28:39,000 --> 00:28:45,920
three and four of the policy as attached
to the report, matching the intent of

426
00:28:42,800 --> 00:28:48,560
the 25-m uh road frontage requirement.
Staff have also consulted with the

427
00:28:47,000 --> 00:28:52,080
assessment Volunteer Fire Department on
emergency access requirements for these

428
00:28:50,160 --> 00:28:56,520
lot configurations, which have informed
section 5 of the info policy number 61,

429
00:28:54,640 --> 00:29:00,320
which requires panhandle lots and lots
using an access easement to meet a set

430
00:28:58,120 --> 00:29:04,680
of criteria that will be enforced uh
through covenants on title.

431
00:29:02,200 --> 00:29:08,640
These include a minimum of seven 7.5 m
access strip for panhandle lots, a

432
00:29:06,800 --> 00:29:12,520
minimum 6 m wide paved access for
panhandle lots and access alternatives,

433
00:29:11,160 --> 00:29:17,520
access alternatives use existing
driveways where feasible, maximum of 12%

434
00:29:15,160 --> 00:29:20,920
driveway grades or access grades,
uh adequate overhead clearance for fire

435
00:29:19,120 --> 00:29:23,520
apparatus where an arborist report and
tree management plan may be required at

436
00:29:22,360 --> 00:29:26,320
rezoning,
clear and visible address signage from

437
00:29:24,800 --> 00:29:30,560
the highway, safe and accessible
emergency entry at all times, and only

438
00:29:28,480 --> 00:29:34,920
one parcel that may be created uh
utilizing an access by easement.

439
00:29:33,440 --> 00:29:37,840
So, a council approval of a waiver
permitting subdivision where the

440
00:29:36,200 --> 00:29:42,320
frontage is less than 10% of the parcel
perimeter uh will be required uh when

441
00:29:40,040 --> 00:29:46,240
warranted for these lots. And also
referral to the fire chief may occur at

442
00:29:44,000 --> 00:29:49,080
any stage in the info process.
Finally, amendments to section 8 of the

443
00:29:47,560 --> 00:29:52,320
policy proposes to update the list of
desirable community amenities since the

444
00:29:51,000 --> 00:29:55,120
community hub is now complete and
upgrades to the Spirit Park are

445
00:29:53,440 --> 00:29:59,320
underway, staff have replaced the
municipal hall with park enhancements

446
00:29:57,000 --> 00:30:02,240
and park acquisition as an active CAC
priority.

447
00:30:00,680 --> 00:30:05,640
Staff has not proposed a change to the
actual CAC target value at this time,

448
00:30:04,360 --> 00:30:08,960
though council may direct staff to
commission a new land lift study or

449
00:30:07,520 --> 00:30:12,840
adjust in the current figure based on
CPI indexing as recommended by the

450
00:30:11,120 --> 00:30:17,000
previous report, uh which would bring it
to approximately $189,633.

451
00:30:17,040 --> 00:30:20,800
So, if council wants to pursue this uh
either

452
00:30:19,760 --> 00:30:23,760
either um
two options, uh direction can be given

453
00:30:22,360 --> 00:30:26,520
tonight along with uh the other
recommendations.

454
00:30:27,560 --> 00:30:32,160
Local Government Act requires a
consultation with potentially affected

455
00:30:30,160 --> 00:30:35,520
agencies before public hearing, so staff
recommend referral to the Miss Palaces

456
00:30:33,520 --> 00:30:39,680
Belcarra, Port Moody, School District
number 43, and the Musqueam, Squamish,

457
00:30:38,280 --> 00:30:43,400
Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem First
Nations with all responses brought back

458
00:30:42,000 --> 00:30:46,080
to council as part of a public hearing
package.

459
00:30:44,880 --> 00:30:49,040
Would you like me to read the
recommendation?

460
00:30:47,280 --> 00:30:51,880
» Sure.
>> So the recommendation is that Village of

461
00:30:50,440 --> 00:30:56,160
Bel Air Official Community Plan Bylaw
Amendment number 722-2025

462
00:30:54,240 --> 00:31:00,320
be given first and second reading and
that Bel Air Official Community Plan

463
00:30:57,320 --> 00:31:02,920
Amendment Bylaw number 722-2025
be referred to the following committees

464
00:31:01,640 --> 00:31:05,240
as it relates to the mandate of each
committee.

465
00:31:04,000 --> 00:31:09,360
And that in relation to Village of Bel
Air Official Community Plan Amendment

466
00:31:06,440 --> 00:31:12,800
Bylaw number 722-2025
amendments associated with the proposed

467
00:31:10,640 --> 00:31:15,720
updates to policy RLU 16 and full
development council will provide the

468
00:31:14,480 --> 00:31:18,800
following additional opportunities it
considers appropriate for consultation

469
00:31:17,200 --> 00:31:22,200
with persons, organizations, or
authorities it considers

470
00:31:20,520 --> 00:31:25,320
will be affected including the
municipalities of Village of Bel Air and

471
00:31:23,360 --> 00:31:28,760
the City of Port Moody, School District
number 43, and the Musqueam, Squamish,

472
00:31:27,400 --> 00:31:32,840
Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem First
Nations. And that all information

473
00:31:30,560 --> 00:31:35,360
resulting from the Section 475 and 476
referral

474
00:31:34,040 --> 00:31:38,520
and received by the Village will be
brought forward to a council as part of

475
00:31:36,760 --> 00:31:42,040
a public hearing package and that a
public hearing be scheduled following

476
00:31:39,800 --> 00:31:47,200
the referral process. Thank you.
>> Good. Can I get someone to move that?

477
00:31:45,160 --> 00:31:51,920
Move seconded. Seconded. I'll open up
for discussion.

478
00:31:49,120 --> 00:31:51,920
Councilor Richardson.

479
00:31:53,320 --> 00:31:58,400
Okay. So,
when I

480
00:31:56,160 --> 00:32:03,360
read through this,
we just did an OCP amendment. We're now

481
00:32:01,200 --> 00:32:07,480
doing another one and I'm
worried we're bumping into an election

482
00:32:05,480 --> 00:32:12,040
and maybe it's not the right thing to
do. So, if you just kind of

483
00:32:09,400 --> 00:32:15,320
qualify times. If this is passed, when
would the public hearing be?

484
00:32:15,760 --> 00:32:22,400
» I think the next council meeting is in
September.

485
00:32:19,680 --> 00:32:26,120
I think in the 20-something, 22nd.
Should be a sufficient time for a

486
00:32:24,000 --> 00:32:28,960
referral process to take place as well
as to schedule a public hearing. So,

487
00:32:27,320 --> 00:32:31,800
that would be probably when the public
hearing would take place.

488
00:32:30,040 --> 00:32:34,640
» Okay. And then after that, it would be
third reading.

489
00:32:32,840 --> 00:32:36,200
» At the same meeting, potentially the
>> But then you have to do a fourth

490
00:32:35,680 --> 00:32:38,360
reading.
>> Correct. October.

491
00:32:37,440 --> 00:32:40,680
» Which would
>> Or

492
00:32:40,840 --> 00:32:45,400
Oh, third and adopt because of it's OCP.
So, you could potentially do the

493
00:32:43,840 --> 00:32:48,240
adoption at
third reading as well. So, September

494
00:32:47,040 --> 00:32:52,840
meeting.
>> Third and fourth.

495
00:32:50,320 --> 00:32:57,000
Okay, cuz it's banging into the election
and I'm

496
00:32:55,200 --> 00:32:59,880
for some reason it it's I'm a bit leery
on it. With that said,

497
00:32:58,840 --> 00:33:03,840
um
I'm good with like the pan handles. I'm

498
00:33:01,960 --> 00:33:07,000
good on the 20%, you know, for the
building area only.

499
00:33:05,680 --> 00:33:10,600
Um
good on the size of the double roaded

500
00:33:09,240 --> 00:33:14,400
lots.
I'm I'm struggling with the

501
00:33:14,800 --> 00:33:23,880
the manifestations and maneuvering to
allow the you know, 0.89 or the 8.9

502
00:33:21,480 --> 00:33:28,760
versus the six in the OCP.
And I was wondering if that cannot be

503
00:33:25,520 --> 00:33:33,360
done or held done better in zoning.
So, like right now we say all lots 1/3

504
00:33:31,640 --> 00:33:37,080
of an acre can have a carriage house a
suite and a building.

505
00:33:35,240 --> 00:33:43,080
But we could change that if you're a
double side infill, you don't get that.

506
00:33:40,840 --> 00:33:49,040
And then it cleans it up a little bit
and this becomes more about enabling and

507
00:33:46,240 --> 00:33:56,240
less about massaging the OCP. And I
don't know if that's possible or not,

508
00:33:52,040 --> 00:33:59,040
but my I'm leaning more that direction.
>> Yeah, so to the chair, I think that

509
00:33:57,760 --> 00:34:02,840
you're running up against one other
issue and that's the 2.0

510
00:34:01,320 --> 00:34:06,720
uh for uh
lots per acre. Um so, that I guess for

511
00:34:05,400 --> 00:34:12,159
the double frontage purposes, you could
have two lots uh sort of uh there, but

512
00:34:10,000 --> 00:34:18,720
we've since removed that um
sort of uh section for the RLU 16 policy

513
00:34:16,120 --> 00:34:23,320
under previous direction um
because it it just exceeds the dense the

514
00:34:20,399 --> 00:34:28,560
current density of the OCP. So, you
could potentially include it an

515
00:34:25,879 --> 00:34:32,360
additional zoning bylaw or a zone for
the specific lots

516
00:34:30,120 --> 00:34:36,679
where you wouldn't allow for um let's
say all all three of the units per lot.

517
00:34:35,120 --> 00:34:40,679
So then maybe if it's two, then you
would still be in line with the OCP that

518
00:34:39,480 --> 00:34:45,080
was currently passed.
>> Cuz that's my concern. How much of this

519
00:34:42,760 --> 00:34:50,000
is to enable
uh more flexible infill

520
00:34:47,720 --> 00:34:56,159
and how much of this is to change the
current OCP to allow the potential exit

521
00:34:53,480 --> 00:34:59,480
extra density on like a 0.8 acre lot
that's divided into with three units on

522
00:34:58,720 --> 00:35:03,000
each side?
>> Yeah, so through the chair, for tonight,

523
00:35:01,640 --> 00:35:07,000
the current bylaw that's in front of you
for consideration does not consider

524
00:35:04,800 --> 00:35:11,000
additional density at all. That's since
been striked out since the last meeting.

525
00:35:09,200 --> 00:35:15,200
So the double frontage lot is not under
consideration at this time.

526
00:35:13,920 --> 00:35:18,000
» Okay.
So then I'm

527
00:35:16,640 --> 00:35:20,720
confused.
Cuz I read a whole bunch of this stuff

528
00:35:19,480 --> 00:35:28,360
is about
adjusting the 0.6 the six units per acre

529
00:35:25,640 --> 00:35:31,640
density in the OCP to allow something
more. Am I Did I misread that?

530
00:35:30,360 --> 00:35:36,840
» Yeah, no, through the chair, this was it
was just a clarification segment. Yeah.

531
00:35:34,640 --> 00:35:42,000
» Okay, and then my last question is
is it an issue at all? Like say we boot

532
00:35:39,000 --> 00:35:46,720
it down the path to the next council,
are there like 10 people lined up that

533
00:35:44,120 --> 00:35:52,160
say, "I want this today?" Do we have
anybody or can it be left until like

534
00:35:50,120 --> 00:35:56,560
we're going to redo the OCP in the next
term is my understanding. So can it be

535
00:35:55,080 --> 00:36:00,880
wait till then?
>> Yeah, I mean, we have had active

536
00:35:58,560 --> 00:36:05,720
interest numerous active interest in in
sort of these type of configurations.

537
00:36:03,680 --> 00:36:12,520
Uh we do have one active application in
regards to 20% average slope. However,

538
00:36:09,400 --> 00:36:16,360
you know, those considerations uh
they also have to conform to the active

539
00:36:13,840 --> 00:36:21,480
policy and of course the option to defer
it to it all OCP update is is always a

540
00:36:19,360 --> 00:36:23,760
possibility.
>> Okay.

541
00:36:24,040 --> 00:36:28,680
Couple of uh questions I have for you.
Um

542
00:36:28,800 --> 00:36:34,880
you know, uh
again, when I struck the task force back

543
00:36:32,600 --> 00:36:38,720
in 2018, I've done infill. That's why
I've no longer recused myself. I'm

544
00:36:36,960 --> 00:36:42,320
beyond that. Um
you know, infill was to provide gentle

545
00:36:40,680 --> 00:36:46,760
densification,
no new infrastructure,

546
00:36:44,640 --> 00:36:50,280
not on a steep slope, and it was to
retain the semi

547
00:36:48,160 --> 00:36:55,240
semi-rural feel of the village. Very,
very specific. And I think um

548
00:36:53,160 --> 00:36:58,360
the uh
councillors uh

549
00:36:56,960 --> 00:37:01,320
Webber and uh
and Trolbridge actually did a really

550
00:36:59,440 --> 00:37:05,000
good job was they set up a group and and
met several times and and discussed

551
00:37:02,920 --> 00:37:09,400
this. I've had a couple people who
couldn't be here tonight, but are pretty

552
00:37:07,000 --> 00:37:13,320
concerned about these new changes, and
the one being the panhandle.

553
00:37:11,360 --> 00:37:17,040
They said, "Are you aware that most of
the panhandles are strata roads? And so,

554
00:37:15,880 --> 00:37:19,960
what you're doing is you're literally
putting a neighbor against other

555
00:37:18,400 --> 00:37:26,520
neighbors on the strata road to allow
them access to that to that panhandle."

556
00:37:23,560 --> 00:37:31,360
Number two is will this also allow lots
that are very deep allow them to put a

557
00:37:28,920 --> 00:37:34,480
panhandle in to be able to to develop
the rear of the property, which again is

558
00:37:32,800 --> 00:37:40,600
going to take away from the semi-rural
feel that the initial infill was was

559
00:37:37,320 --> 00:37:44,880
proposed to do. So, I am not in favor of
this at all because I think it opens up

560
00:37:42,680 --> 00:37:48,320
Pandora's Box and to creativity that
could be had with people putting

561
00:37:46,120 --> 00:37:54,400
panhandles. And then I know I think it
was in the mid mid-2015, 2016, um we

562
00:37:52,600 --> 00:37:58,600
actually had a moratorium about adding
panhandles, and I think this will

563
00:37:55,840 --> 00:38:02,840
actually add panhandles. So, I do have
some concern people are not pleased

564
00:38:00,480 --> 00:38:07,400
about this about the about the ability
of using panhandles to facilitate their

565
00:38:05,320 --> 00:38:10,280
frontage, um
because they're using a panhandle to

566
00:38:08,720 --> 00:38:13,880
access their property right now, and
they're strata, and so there's a big

567
00:38:12,040 --> 00:38:17,840
legal concern about that that I don't
know has been taken into consideration

568
00:38:15,960 --> 00:38:20,760
in this aspect. And then
>> Oh, sorry. Go on.

569
00:38:18,480 --> 00:38:24,800
» Yeah, and then furthermore, you know,
they when we when we did the initial, we

570
00:38:23,080 --> 00:38:29,600
I think there was a lot of parameters
that were established out of IE the

571
00:38:27,000 --> 00:38:33,560
Ravenswood neighborhood with the 25 m
and that and again this get we're

572
00:38:31,360 --> 00:38:37,960
starting to get away from that. The the
slope aspect I think is

573
00:38:35,800 --> 00:38:42,040
you know, I've certainly I have no issue
from going a little bit higher to a

574
00:38:40,000 --> 00:38:45,800
higher percentage on the on the on the
grade if it if it's not going to add any

575
00:38:43,960 --> 00:38:49,480
extra and it meets the driveway
requirements regarding regarding grade

576
00:38:47,920 --> 00:38:57,440
and stuff like that but the the
panhandle I I I don't think should be

577
00:38:52,520 --> 00:38:57,440
an option used in infill at all. So.

578
00:38:57,720 --> 00:39:01,760
Go ahead.
>> Yeah, so I just want to address a couple

579
00:38:59,720 --> 00:39:04,480
of things. So the panhandle I was for
the

580
00:39:02,600 --> 00:39:08,680
the panhandles would would essentially
just be that property's driveway. So

581
00:39:07,080 --> 00:39:13,160
there's no strata cuz there's no sharing
on a it's just for that specific real

582
00:39:11,600 --> 00:39:16,520
estate entity
using that panhandle as part of one

583
00:39:15,080 --> 00:39:20,480
singular parcel just like any other
parcel would use a their their driveway.

584
00:39:19,160 --> 00:39:24,600
» The concern when I read this and the
concern that people brought up to my

585
00:39:21,960 --> 00:39:30,960
attention is where there's a panhandle
that is shared by two or three homes

586
00:39:28,560 --> 00:39:34,920
those that is a strata road and it's
owned by each one of the owners.

587
00:39:33,160 --> 00:39:38,920
And therefore that you're putting owner
against owner to be able to allow him to

588
00:39:37,000 --> 00:39:42,800
add another title to that another access
point to that where it's only to

589
00:39:40,080 --> 00:39:46,400
facilitate currently the three homes or
two homes or whatever it is right now.

590
00:39:44,440 --> 00:39:48,920
So there was some big concerns about
that.

591
00:39:47,320 --> 00:39:52,720
» Yeah, so I know there is an option to
have sort of a shared interest and and

592
00:39:50,880 --> 00:39:56,640
sometimes an access easement that's a
specific sort of

593
00:39:55,400 --> 00:40:01,160
I would say access alternative that
could be sought through a subdivision.

594
00:39:58,760 --> 00:40:04,560
However, as it's proposed it's just for
the singular access for the current

595
00:40:02,680 --> 00:40:08,080
parcel under the application.
>> So people could then create their own

596
00:40:06,040 --> 00:40:10,160
panhandle if they had their own property
to be able to access the rear of the

597
00:40:09,400 --> 00:40:13,960
property.
>> Yeah, I mean like I guess easements

598
00:40:12,040 --> 00:40:18,160
between property owners can can be
established at any rate.

599
00:40:15,280 --> 00:40:21,600
» Yeah, okay. I saw a Webberink had his
hand up.

600
00:40:20,440 --> 00:40:26,840
Go ahead.
>> Thank you, Mayor McKeown.

601
00:40:23,440 --> 00:40:31,240
I have to agree with Mayor McKeown and
Councillor Richardson. I think this is

602
00:40:28,720 --> 00:40:34,520
all a little too close to the election.
This could all get turned around after

603
00:40:32,960 --> 00:40:37,520
the election.
So,

604
00:40:35,680 --> 00:40:42,920
I would I would not be in favor of
moving forward with this at the time.

605
00:40:41,160 --> 00:40:45,360
» Okay. Did I see Councillor Trobridge Did
you have your hand up or you just

606
00:40:43,960 --> 00:40:49,040
adjusting your
Go ahead.

607
00:40:47,160 --> 00:40:53,000
» No, sorry.
It was my hand up. I I'm of the same

608
00:40:51,640 --> 00:40:57,080
mind. I mean,
I like everything uh

609
00:40:55,720 --> 00:41:02,560
I'm comfortable with everything, I
should say, in terms of the slope

610
00:41:00,200 --> 00:41:07,400
applying to just the building envelope,
things like that make a lot of sense.

611
00:41:05,040 --> 00:41:13,440
But, if it's all packaged together with
panhandles, etc., I prefer to defer it.

612
00:41:12,480 --> 00:41:17,640
» Good.
Okay, so we have a motion on the table

613
00:41:15,560 --> 00:41:22,640
that's moved and seconded. So,
so to defer it would then simply be to

614
00:41:20,680 --> 00:41:25,760
wait to be voted against it. So, all
those in favor of

615
00:41:24,440 --> 00:41:31,080
Oh, sorry, Councillor Richardson, do you
have one more comment?

616
00:41:27,080 --> 00:41:37,080
» Yes, one comment and one suggestion.
So,

617
00:41:33,200 --> 00:41:41,200
my read of this is existing panhandle
lots are not considered in this. Is that

618
00:41:39,800 --> 00:41:46,000
true?
Like, if you have a lot that's narrower

619
00:41:43,200 --> 00:41:50,040
than 20 50 m,
you could potentially

620
00:41:48,040 --> 00:41:55,000
put something behind your thing and
create an access that would look like a

621
00:41:51,760 --> 00:41:58,360
panhandle, but current panhandle lots,
like the rear part of a

622
00:41:56,520 --> 00:42:02,800
any lot that has a panhandle currently,
this does not apply to. Correct?

623
00:42:00,360 --> 00:42:06,920
» Yeah, so as the bylaw is currently
worded, 50-m frontage is a requirement

624
00:42:05,000 --> 00:42:10,320
to be eligible for infill. Okay. So,
that unless the panhandle is 50 m wide,

625
00:42:09,440 --> 00:42:15,200
which I doubt.
>> Okay, fair enough. So, then

626
00:42:12,560 --> 00:42:18,640
you know, I would make the amendment
that

627
00:42:16,320 --> 00:42:22,680
uh be given first second reading and
then Ambleside be referred to the

628
00:42:20,440 --> 00:42:28,360
following No, not committees.
That it be amended so that the only

629
00:42:25,040 --> 00:42:32,280
thing considered is that 20% on building
area.

630
00:42:29,600 --> 00:42:36,800
And then all the other stuff gets passed
down the pipe.

631
00:42:34,560 --> 00:42:42,480
Because the my understanding in talking
with one person that has the 20% issue,

632
00:42:39,400 --> 00:42:45,440
like 20.05 or something. That the lot's
a bit of a V

633
00:42:44,080 --> 00:42:49,960
and they're not planning to build on the
V, which is a creek. But that, if you

634
00:42:48,120 --> 00:42:54,560
add up the slope, the absolute value,
makes a very steep lot, even though the

635
00:42:51,640 --> 00:42:57,760
lot's not that steep. So, you know,
mathematically how it goes. So, I don't

636
00:42:56,240 --> 00:43:03,200
know if we can
do that and just limit it to the one

637
00:43:00,520 --> 00:43:07,640
thing.
>> So, so right now we have a motion on the

638
00:43:04,680 --> 00:43:11,000
table that encompasses all everything.
We could do an amendment which would

639
00:43:09,000 --> 00:43:12,600
take it down to But we'd have to vote
those other ones down.

640
00:43:11,840 --> 00:43:16,320
» Okay, fair enough.
>> So, I think it's best that we just

641
00:43:13,880 --> 00:43:19,920
simply vote it down currently. Or if
that's the if that's what the appetite

642
00:43:18,240 --> 00:43:23,280
of council is, and then we could come
back with another one which is just and

643
00:43:21,560 --> 00:43:26,760
describe a little bit more cuz I'd like
to get a little bit more details on the

644
00:43:25,280 --> 00:43:31,640
grade and why it was actually even
initially set up as well at 20% or where

645
00:43:29,840 --> 00:43:36,040
that number kind of came from. I think
it was kind of arbitrarily kind of taken

646
00:43:33,920 --> 00:43:41,040
out of there in our in our one of our
GSL maps. And that's so, I'm going to

647
00:43:39,040 --> 00:43:46,160
call the question. All those in favor of
what's on voting this in favor right

648
00:43:44,160 --> 00:43:48,960
now.
Opposed?

649
00:43:49,480 --> 00:43:55,160
Motion is defeated. Okay. So, we'll come
back with something then.

650
00:43:54,160 --> 00:44:00,600
Okay.
Move on to We're now on to 9B, zoning

651
00:43:58,840 --> 00:44:05,200
amendment bylaw classification of
basement exemption.

652
00:44:01,480 --> 00:44:09,840
» of order here. So, if we defeated option
one

653
00:44:06,400 --> 00:44:14,640
how do we get option two onto the table?
>> We we debated all of that and I said to

654
00:44:12,200 --> 00:44:18,000
Mr. Joseph to bring back the the height
requirement if possible and then we can

655
00:44:16,560 --> 00:44:20,720
talk about that.
Go ahead, Ms. Helwig.

656
00:44:19,320 --> 00:44:26,480
» Thank you. Through the chair, I think
that that would be challenging to also

657
00:44:23,360 --> 00:44:31,200
be bringing back additional information
um given that there's only two meetings

658
00:44:28,960 --> 00:44:35,640
uh until the end of the council term.
There's a meeting on September 22nd and

659
00:44:33,680 --> 00:44:40,840
then another one in October. We could
certainly report back uh in

660
00:44:38,880 --> 00:44:45,400
the September meeting, but then to
schedule a public hearing and bring it

661
00:44:43,400 --> 00:44:50,160
forward to adoption would be very
challenging um in that time frame.

662
00:44:48,240 --> 00:44:53,840
» To change that
threshold, the percentage of the grade

663
00:44:52,440 --> 00:44:59,320
percentage,
is that a full OCP review?

664
00:44:57,440 --> 00:45:02,800
» To the chair, no. This I mean, it's been
considered and reviewed, which is part

665
00:45:00,680 --> 00:45:07,960
of this package. However, um as it
essentially it would just be to strike

666
00:45:04,440 --> 00:45:10,440
out number three of RLU RLU 16 from the
the bylaw. That's where the bylaw would

667
00:45:09,440 --> 00:45:13,560
read.
>> But as I said, I would like to

668
00:45:11,840 --> 00:45:17,440
understand where that came from and and
the ramifications of that as well.

669
00:45:16,120 --> 00:45:21,680
» Yeah, I'm
so

670
00:45:18,920 --> 00:45:26,280
20% is is the sort of the number that
was chosen for steep slopes generally.

671
00:45:24,040 --> 00:45:29,880
Um I don't have the exact history, but I
imagine that sort of uh through

672
00:45:28,200 --> 00:45:33,720
discussions probably you know, with the
village that they decided that infill

673
00:45:32,320 --> 00:45:37,480
shouldn't be on steep slopes and if
steep slopes equals 20%, then the

674
00:45:35,800 --> 00:45:43,160
average grade percentage applies to all.
>> So, Ms. Ms. Helwig or Esson,

675
00:45:41,120 --> 00:45:47,320
that minor adjustment to go from 20 to
say 25%,

676
00:45:45,480 --> 00:45:50,680
is that could that be done over two
meetings?

677
00:45:49,560 --> 00:45:54,480
» Is it public hearing?
>> It's a

678
00:45:51,400 --> 00:45:59,640
imma- it's a fairly small change in that
regard. So, we're not changing the

679
00:45:55,840 --> 00:46:01,800
intent of the bylaw. We're not changing
very much of it.

680
00:46:00,400 --> 00:46:04,360
» still would be through the chair. It
still would be a bylaw amendment.

681
00:46:03,760 --> 00:46:07,000
» Right.
>> So that could be done in two meetings.

682
00:46:06,440 --> 00:46:12,840
» Yeah.
>> Um being the first meeting would be

683
00:46:09,960 --> 00:46:16,440
September 22nd. Your second meeting in
October

684
00:46:14,600 --> 00:46:22,200
I want to say
seven-ish. Um however, that would also

685
00:46:19,640 --> 00:46:28,120
be the public hearing night and there
would not be um time for referrals to uh

686
00:46:26,360 --> 00:46:31,680
any other municipalities, school
district, First Nations, or any

687
00:46:30,040 --> 00:46:35,200
committees. If that's council's desire
to just do that bylaw amendment, that

688
00:46:34,160 --> 00:46:37,680
could be
>> So would

689
00:46:35,760 --> 00:46:40,840
» technically achievable in two meetings.
>> I just wanted to you know, um

690
00:46:40,160 --> 00:46:46,480
it
by it increasing the threshold doesn't

691
00:46:43,800 --> 00:46:50,160
necessarily sort of address what we're
we're doing, the intent of it. The

692
00:46:48,320 --> 00:46:55,560
intent is where there is a building site
that is less than 20% that we're not up

693
00:46:53,600 --> 00:47:00,440
holding it up because
10% is drastically steep and now has

694
00:46:59,000 --> 00:47:05,520
contributed to the overall average
density. That could be 25 or that could

695
00:47:02,720 --> 00:47:09,440
be 30 or 40. But it would what's on the
ground is the intent is to just allow

696
00:47:07,360 --> 00:47:14,520
for the areas that are completely not in
steep slope areas to be developed under

697
00:47:11,280 --> 00:47:14,520
development permit guidelines.

698
00:47:14,720 --> 00:47:20,920
» So I think it's best My personal view is
that we would just leave leave this as

699
00:47:19,040 --> 00:47:23,720
be because again, we have a discussion
that's been an ongoing discussion about

700
00:47:22,360 --> 00:47:29,120
basement heights, which are all about
slope as well, which is coming up with

701
00:47:25,560 --> 00:47:32,040
the next item at this point in time. So
>> You both through the chair. I don't know

702
00:47:30,120 --> 00:47:36,680
if they're completely related because
you know, development on 30%, 40% is

703
00:47:34,600 --> 00:47:39,480
» Yeah, it's it's dealing with slope uh
slope development. So

704
00:47:37,840 --> 00:47:41,120
» Yeah, I understand. It's just not a OCP
issue.

705
00:47:39,960 --> 00:47:45,280
» Yeah. Yeah.
>> Hello.

706
00:47:42,640 --> 00:47:47,520
» Councilor Trowbridge.
>> Yeah, so

707
00:47:46,600 --> 00:47:52,400
um
I don't quite maybe don't understand,

708
00:47:50,120 --> 00:48:00,640
but I don't see the relationship to a
slope discussion. My understanding

709
00:47:55,360 --> 00:48:08,760
is that removal of 16 RUL or RLU
was to allow if if a if a

710
00:48:05,600 --> 00:48:13,600
if a property had a steep slope on it,
but it was not in the building envelope,

711
00:48:11,560 --> 00:48:18,520
then we would allow the building in the
building envelope. It It It's really

712
00:48:16,000 --> 00:48:22,600
more about where the slope is, isn't it,
George?

713
00:48:20,240 --> 00:48:28,080
» Mr. Chair, that's correct, yeah. So
>> Yeah, so I would be fine

714
00:48:25,360 --> 00:48:33,280
uh with with an amended motion going
forward with that component without the

715
00:48:31,120 --> 00:48:36,880
rest, which is, I think, what Councillor
Richardson suggested.

716
00:48:35,400 --> 00:48:40,360
» So, we voted
Procedurally, we voted down the motion

717
00:48:38,920 --> 00:48:43,360
that was on the table, which included
everything which Mr. Joseph put on the

718
00:48:42,240 --> 00:48:47,560
thing. So, it would have to be a new
motion forward that if somebody wants to

719
00:48:46,080 --> 00:48:52,080
put it forward that we would we would
entertain.

720
00:48:49,880 --> 00:48:56,080
» I'll put that motion forward that we
entertain the one segment.

721
00:48:56,760 --> 00:49:00,880
» I'd second that.
>> What What do we put What is the motion

722
00:48:59,800 --> 00:49:05,120
that you're seconding?
>> The My understanding the motion is,

723
00:49:04,200 --> 00:49:10,120
which we're going to get from our
corporate officer in a very exacting and

724
00:49:07,600 --> 00:49:14,920
precise way very shortly,
is that

725
00:49:12,080 --> 00:49:21,360
on lots where the or the average
gradient may be more than 20% if there

726
00:49:18,080 --> 00:49:26,520
is a building area less than 20% that
that would be allowed in infill. And And

727
00:49:24,480 --> 00:49:30,800
the reason I would support that is like
here's two examples. You have a lot,

728
00:49:29,320 --> 00:49:35,040
it's an acre,
half of it's dead flat,

729
00:49:32,800 --> 00:49:39,560
half of it's at 40%.
Okay? That would not be allowed.

730
00:49:38,000 --> 00:49:44,280
Half of it's dead flat, the other half
is at 30%, that would be allowed. And I

731
00:49:42,280 --> 00:49:48,600
really don't see the difference between
those two lots other than the steepness

732
00:49:46,800 --> 00:49:54,480
of the embankment down to the creek or
whatever it happens to be. So, I I'm all

733
00:49:51,800 --> 00:49:59,400
in favor of if you have a building area
that's suitable, you get to build.

734
00:49:57,840 --> 00:50:06,560
» Okay, so do we have a motion on
>> Mr. Chair, I can read out a motion. Um

735
00:50:02,520 --> 00:50:06,560
so, I suppose where's the original?

736
00:50:11,720 --> 00:50:17,400
So, the recommendation is that the
Village of Anmore Official Community

737
00:50:13,920 --> 00:50:21,240
Plan Amendment Bylaw number 722-2025
as amended.

738
00:50:19,480 --> 00:50:25,400
» No, it's not amended. We didn't amend
that motion was voted down.

739
00:50:23,760 --> 00:50:29,320
So, there's a new motion.
>> No, but if we're going to amend what's

740
00:50:26,760 --> 00:50:32,000
on currently.
Well, we could.

741
00:50:40,360 --> 00:50:43,000
I don't either.

742
00:50:45,920 --> 00:50:51,560
» Can we just take the one section and put
put it as a motion?

743
00:50:54,120 --> 00:51:00,120
» Um
I need um Counselor Richardson, through

744
00:50:58,160 --> 00:51:05,400
the chair, if you could please give me a
complete sentence,

745
00:51:02,120 --> 00:51:05,400
that would be very helpful.

746
00:51:05,440 --> 00:51:08,040
Okay.

747
00:51:09,440 --> 00:51:14,160
Yep.
>> Your mic's not on.

748
00:51:15,640 --> 00:51:24,880
» Back to the beginning. I don't know the
exact wording, but that the

749
00:51:20,760 --> 00:51:31,520
existing bylaw or the policy 61 be
amended so that on

750
00:51:28,720 --> 00:51:37,240
that you're allowed to do infill on lots
where a building area is available less

751
00:51:34,120 --> 00:51:37,240
than 20%.

752
00:51:40,960 --> 00:51:48,010
Is Is that sentence enough?
>> [laughter]

753
00:51:46,120 --> 00:51:50,720
» I I know.
>> [snorts]

754
00:51:48,840 --> 00:51:54,680
» Cuz cuz this will drive to the public
hearing, right?

755
00:51:53,200 --> 00:51:57,320
If we give it first and second, public
hearing is next, so it should be pretty

756
00:51:56,320 --> 00:52:00,360
clear what we're saying.
>> Absolutely.

757
00:51:59,080 --> 00:52:03,400
» Okay, can I
Do you want me to try something?

758
00:52:03,800 --> 00:52:08,840
Do you want me to try something here
that hopefully we captures it? So, the

759
00:52:06,920 --> 00:52:14,120
motion would read that
um where a building site is equal or

760
00:52:11,400 --> 00:52:19,320
less than the 20% slope, infill
properties would be accepted under our

761
00:52:16,360 --> 00:52:19,320
current policy.

762
00:52:22,800 --> 00:52:25,320
» Perfect.

763
00:52:25,840 --> 00:52:32,800
» So, through the chair and just um
chatting with Mr. Joseph here,

764
00:52:30,840 --> 00:52:35,000
we could potentially
amend

765
00:52:34,280 --> 00:52:38,000
um
722-2025

766
00:52:38,320 --> 00:52:45,640
that is included in the agenda package
in a way that we could give it two

767
00:52:43,000 --> 00:52:47,440
readings this evening if Mr. Squizzero
Cara

768
00:52:46,440 --> 00:52:52,120
is
uh all right with that. Uh Mr. Joseph

769
00:52:50,080 --> 00:53:00,440
has the sections of that bylaw, which is
on 20 page 25 and 26 of your agenda that

770
00:52:56,960 --> 00:53:05,840
could be amended, um given two readings,
and then we could move forward

771
00:53:03,600 --> 00:53:10,000
that way this evening and go to public
hearing in September.

772
00:53:07,000 --> 00:53:14,080
» Um so, just to clarify, um updating the
the sentence on the

773
00:53:13,120 --> 00:53:20,520
um
item three

774
00:53:15,840 --> 00:53:22,720
on page 25, is that what I'm looking at?
Mr. Joseph.

775
00:53:21,440 --> 00:53:25,600
» Yeah, that's correct, yeah.
>> Okay.

776
00:53:24,160 --> 00:53:29,840
Um
we can we can potentially say that the

777
00:53:28,760 --> 00:53:36,960
um
the bylaw section

778
00:53:32,400 --> 00:53:41,960
two uh item three be amended, and then
whatever the amendment needs to be, that

779
00:53:40,000 --> 00:53:47,080
we can add
the amendment and uh go forward with

780
00:53:44,760 --> 00:53:47,080
that.

781
00:53:47,920 --> 00:53:55,040
So,
>> Councilor Richardson,

782
00:53:51,040 --> 00:53:55,040
if I read 722-2025,

783
00:53:55,520 --> 00:54:01,560
it actually be able to identify building
site sites that are equal to less than

784
00:53:59,560 --> 00:54:06,320
20% slope. It's actually already in
there. It doesn't have to be amended.

785
00:54:04,320 --> 00:54:11,760
» We would need to amend to delete the
parts of the bylaw that you do not wish

786
00:54:08,360 --> 00:54:15,160
to include. So, um if you will indulge
for a moment, Mr. Joseph can read that

787
00:54:14,080 --> 00:54:17,160
out for council.
>> Okay.

788
00:54:24,160 --> 00:54:27,520
It was a hot day out there today.

789
00:54:31,160 --> 00:54:38,440
This doesn't talk about pan handles.
Thank you all for your patience.

790
00:54:40,600 --> 00:54:48,720
Yeah, that's right. Um
so, I'll just start from here.

791
00:54:45,600 --> 00:54:48,720
We don't need to do anything with it.

792
00:54:49,080 --> 00:54:55,240
Okay, so the amendments uh would be to
number two of the bylaw.

793
00:54:53,800 --> 00:54:58,800
Uh that the Village of Anmore Official
Community Plan Designation Bylaw number

794
00:54:57,080 --> 00:55:02,600
532-2014
be amended under chapter 4, Land Use, as

795
00:55:01,160 --> 00:55:06,880
follows.
So, delete policy RLU 16 in its entirety

796
00:55:05,400 --> 00:55:11,840
entirety and replace it with the
following.

797
00:55:08,080 --> 00:55:16,760
And uh I'll just read out the sections.
So, policy RLU 16, and this is uh what

798
00:55:14,880 --> 00:55:19,600
it is already currently written for this
intro paragraph. The village supports

799
00:55:18,480 --> 00:55:22,800
infill development and subsequent
creation of new residences that maintain

800
00:55:21,280 --> 00:55:25,920
the existing semi-rural nature of
Anmore. Infill development is the

801
00:55:24,400 --> 00:55:29,000
creation of new parcels within the
existing developed area of the Village

802
00:55:27,240 --> 00:55:31,840
of Anmore that are serviced by existing
infrastructure. The intent of infill

803
00:55:30,400 --> 00:55:35,200
development is that it will enhance and
not take away from the look and feel of

804
00:55:33,440 --> 00:55:38,480
the neighborhood. It is expected that
any new infill homes will blend into the

805
00:55:37,000 --> 00:55:41,680
existing neighborhood, minimize the
disturbance to natural environment, and

806
00:55:40,240 --> 00:55:44,480
will adhere to the same setbacks as the
existing neighborhood. Infill

807
00:55:43,200 --> 00:55:47,200
development should be guided by infill
development policy that aligns with

808
00:55:45,760 --> 00:55:51,120
specific requirements that the community
expects expects from infill development

809
00:55:49,240 --> 00:55:55,760
to ensure that it meets the intent of
this policy. The maximum density allowed

810
00:55:53,440 --> 00:55:58,080
for infill development is 2.04 parcels
per acre.

811
00:55:57,160 --> 00:56:01,440
Parcels that are eligible for
consideration under this policy must not

812
00:56:00,360 --> 00:56:07,600
have been created through previous
comprehensive development plan,

813
00:56:03,720 --> 00:56:13,440
be between 300 3 3,925 square meters and
8,900 8,094 square meters in area,

814
00:56:13,600 --> 00:56:19,880
be able to identify building sites that
are equal to or greater than 20% slope,

815
00:56:20,560 --> 00:56:26,720
not require the extension, expansion,
extension or expansion of any village

816
00:56:24,120 --> 00:56:30,280
road or water infrastructure,
and have at least 50 m frontage on a

817
00:56:28,640 --> 00:56:33,680
public highway,
and have been in existence for at least

818
00:56:31,880 --> 00:56:36,400
5 years as of the date of the
application.

819
00:56:39,840 --> 00:56:46,680
» Yes.
We're So, for those people listening,

820
00:56:43,880 --> 00:56:50,160
we're striking off the back half of item
five.

821
00:56:47,520 --> 00:56:50,160
» Correct.

822
00:56:52,560 --> 00:56:55,640
» Okay.
>> I move it.

823
00:56:54,400 --> 00:56:58,000
» Move it. Could I get someone to second
it?

824
00:56:57,000 --> 00:57:01,920
» Second.
>> Second. Open up for discussion.

825
00:57:02,080 --> 00:57:07,840
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call the question.

826
00:57:05,040 --> 00:57:07,840
» All those in favor?

827
00:57:07,960 --> 00:57:11,360
Opposed? Motion's carried.
>> Okay.

828
00:57:10,400 --> 00:57:14,360
» And that's ordered through the chair.
I'll just read out the rest of the

829
00:57:12,960 --> 00:57:17,960
recommendations for the referrals that
are required,

830
00:57:15,680 --> 00:57:20,920
as well as public hearing.
>> Oh, what what's now required for public

831
00:57:20,000 --> 00:57:23,160
hearing?
>> Yes.

832
00:57:21,280 --> 00:57:29,280
» Yeah, that cuz yeah, yeah, it was the
package.

833
00:57:25,200 --> 00:57:33,720
» Um so, following that uh and that uh and
more official community plan amendment

834
00:57:31,120 --> 00:57:37,840
bylaw number 722-2025 be referred to the
following committees as it relates to

835
00:57:35,080 --> 00:57:40,480
the mandate of each committee.
And that in relation to the Village of

836
00:57:39,240 --> 00:57:44,200
Anmore Official Community Plan Amendment
Bylaw number 722-2025,

837
00:57:42,680 --> 00:57:47,280
amendments associated with the proposed
updates to policy R only 16 infill

838
00:57:46,080 --> 00:57:49,920
development, Council will provide the
following additional opportunities it

839
00:57:48,400 --> 00:57:52,840
considers appropriate for consultation
with persons, organizations, or

840
00:57:51,680 --> 00:57:56,640
authorities it considers will be
affected, including the municipalities

841
00:57:54,760 --> 00:58:01,080
of the Village of Belcarra and the City
of Port Moody, School District number

842
00:57:58,320 --> 00:58:03,840
43, Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh,
and Kwikwetlem First Nations, and that a

843
00:58:02,480 --> 00:58:09,760
public hearing be scheduled following
the referral process.

844
00:58:06,880 --> 00:58:13,280
» Do we need to move that in
Okay, [clears throat] can someone to

845
00:58:10,520 --> 00:58:18,720
move that? Second? I'll
call the question. All those in favor?

846
00:58:16,560 --> 00:58:22,080
Carried.
Do we have more to add?

847
00:58:20,000 --> 00:58:23,920
» Did you want to add any committees for
>> No.

848
00:58:22,560 --> 00:58:27,240
» Okay.
>> We Yeah.

849
00:58:24,960 --> 00:58:27,240
» That's right.

850
00:58:27,680 --> 00:58:33,440
» Okay. So, can we move on to uh 9B?

851
00:58:33,520 --> 00:58:36,080
Are we good?

852
00:58:37,480 --> 00:58:40,080
Are we good?

853
00:58:40,640 --> 00:58:44,120
Oh, right. Oh, you can get

854
00:59:18,160 --> 00:59:25,720
Okay, we're now on to uh 9B Zoning
Amendment Bylaw classification on

855
00:59:23,800 --> 00:59:29,880
basement exemption report dated July
17th, 2020 from Manager of Development

856
00:59:27,720 --> 00:59:32,120
Services attached. Mr. Joseph.
>> Thank you.

857
00:59:31,000 --> 00:59:36,240
So, the purpose of this report is to
present bylaw number 745-2026,

858
00:59:34,640 --> 00:59:40,400
a zoning amendment bylaw that clarifies
how the basement exemption applies under

859
00:59:37,720 --> 00:59:44,560
section 5.25 of the zoning bylaw, along
with the related housekeeping correction

860
00:59:41,840 --> 00:59:47,160
to section 5.6. So, at the May 5th
regular council meeting, staff brought

861
00:59:45,920 --> 00:59:51,040
forward proposed amendments to the
section 5.25, the basement exemption

862
00:59:49,440 --> 00:59:53,960
provision. Council deferred that
discussion and asked staff to come back

863
00:59:52,440 --> 00:59:57,520
with visual impact modeling to see what
the current regulations allow in terms

864
00:59:55,720 --> 01:00:00,960
of building massing. Staff returned on
the June 12th with a report that

865
00:59:59,200 --> 01:00:04,480
included visual representations of
what's permitted under the under the

866
01:00:02,680 --> 01:00:07,880
existing rule and identified the
specific sections proposed to be

867
01:00:05,920 --> 01:00:11,840
clarified. At that meeting, council
passed a motion directing staff to

868
01:00:09,120 --> 01:00:15,280
initiate amendments to section 5.25 and
section 5.6. Additional sections are

869
01:00:14,120 --> 01:00:17,760
being proposed to provide greater
clarity in relation to the basement

870
01:00:16,640 --> 01:00:21,680
exemption.
So, the current formula in section 5.25

871
01:00:20,120 --> 01:00:25,320
from
letters A through D that determines how

872
01:00:23,720 --> 01:00:29,440
much basement floor area is exempt from
the floor area ratio calculation will

873
01:00:27,640 --> 01:00:33,640
remain the same. What the amendment does
is add three new sections, E, F, and G,

874
01:00:32,160 --> 01:00:36,960
that address how the exemption applies
across the building. Uh because the

875
01:00:35,400 --> 01:00:41,480
current wording may incentivize numerous
exposed basement floors that would be

876
01:00:38,480 --> 01:00:44,200
eligible for 100% basement exemption,
which would increase the apparent

877
01:00:42,600 --> 01:00:47,680
massing of the building.
There is currently no limit on how many

878
01:00:45,640 --> 01:00:51,720
stories in a single building can qualify
qualify for the full basement exemption.

879
01:00:49,960 --> 01:00:54,480
So, on slope lots, final finished grade
and building design can produce two or

880
01:00:53,200 --> 01:00:57,800
more stories that each meet the
definition of a basement, some of them

881
01:00:56,160 --> 01:01:01,600
partially exposed, which can make a
building look like it's four to six

882
01:00:59,200 --> 01:01:05,160
stories tall from the street level.
Subsection E fixes this by limiting the

883
01:01:03,400 --> 01:01:09,080
exemption to no more than one uppermost
basement story per building.

884
01:01:07,520 --> 01:01:12,800
Sub-basement stories below that would
still be permitted, but they would count

885
01:01:10,800 --> 01:01:17,240
towards the lot's maximum floor area
ratio like any other floor area.

886
01:01:15,920 --> 01:01:20,720
The second consideration is height of a
story. As currently worded, there's no

887
01:01:18,920 --> 01:01:24,360
cap on the floor-to-floor height that
the exempt story uh would apply to,

888
01:01:23,080 --> 01:01:28,160
which means a single basement story
could be built well beyond the typical

889
01:01:26,040 --> 01:01:33,080
story height and still only count count
as one story for the purposes of

890
01:01:30,040 --> 01:01:39,120
subsection E. So, subsection F caps the
exempt story at 3.66 m, which is 1/3 of

891
01:01:36,480 --> 01:01:42,800
our 111 m maximum building height,
essentially the height of one story

892
01:01:40,600 --> 01:01:46,720
within a standard three-story envelope.
However, staff have also included

893
01:01:44,000 --> 01:01:50,320
subsection G. It provides a full 100%
exemption for stories below the exempt

894
01:01:48,520 --> 01:01:53,360
basement story, but only where that
story is completely buried entirely

895
01:01:51,880 --> 01:01:56,480
below finished grade at every point
around the building's perimeter.

896
01:01:57,240 --> 01:02:01,360
Staff recognize that the story with no
exterior exposure at all doesn't

897
01:02:00,040 --> 01:02:04,320
contribute to the parent massing of the
building, so staff have included the

898
01:02:02,920 --> 01:02:07,280
section to differentiate between a
partially exposed stories.

899
01:02:06,240 --> 01:02:10,880
Finally, staff are proposing a
housekeeping amendment to section 5.6.1,

900
01:02:09,520 --> 01:02:14,240
which clarifies how building height is
measured, so that it's based on a lower

901
01:02:12,600 --> 01:02:17,200
of the average natural grade or average
finished grade. Right now, that section

902
01:02:15,920 --> 01:02:20,840
doesn't quite line up with section
5.5.2,

903
01:02:19,120 --> 01:02:23,920
which already uses that standard, and
this brings the two into alignment, and

904
01:02:22,720 --> 01:02:26,480
it also reflects the current staff
practice.

905
01:02:25,240 --> 01:02:29,040
So, the recommendation is that council
give first and second reading to

906
01:02:27,680 --> 01:02:32,600
Ambleside Amendment Bylaw number
745-2026

907
01:02:30,760 --> 01:02:36,320
related to section 5.25 basement
exemption and section 5.6 building and

908
01:02:34,840 --> 01:02:40,840
structure height, and that a public
hearing be scheduled for Bylaw 745-2026.

909
01:02:39,720 --> 01:02:47,040
Thank you.
>> Could I get someone to move that?

910
01:02:43,000 --> 01:02:47,040
Move, second, open up for discussion.

911
01:02:47,640 --> 01:02:55,520
Anybody? Uh okay, I I I have a couple of
questions. And so,

912
01:02:53,000 --> 01:03:00,320
I can't support this if it doesn't at
least offer a 9-ft ceiling height for

913
01:02:57,800 --> 01:03:04,120
the basement. I don't have a problem
with basements going deeper

914
01:03:02,560 --> 01:03:08,600
um than that, but I just wanted to
clarify cuz it's this is kind of compli-

915
01:03:06,080 --> 01:03:14,120
I saw in here there was a calculation of
2.75 m for the basement floor, but most

916
01:03:12,160 --> 01:03:18,880
basements that I'm going into right now
are minimum 9-ft finished. And I I can't

917
01:03:17,120 --> 01:03:23,200
do an 8-ft finish because again, we're
also supposed to be promoting suites in

918
01:03:21,120 --> 01:03:27,560
the in these in these buildings as well.
So, if you can you confirm what the

919
01:03:25,520 --> 01:03:29,720
finished height would be or
presume

920
01:03:28,600 --> 01:03:32,880
you could give me the rough height as
well. It would probably be It would have

921
01:03:30,840 --> 01:03:35,760
to be about 10 ft then.
>> Yeah, so the full story is 12 ft.

922
01:03:35,520 --> 01:03:41,040
» Okay.
>> So, it's 3.66 in the amendment bylaws.

923
01:03:38,800 --> 01:03:47,320
» So, it says on page seven
no greater than 2.75 m.

924
01:03:44,280 --> 01:03:51,640
Which is 9 ft.
On page seven or sorry, 46 of your

925
01:03:49,680 --> 01:03:55,040
report if there's a color picture of the
house up above it.

926
01:03:52,920 --> 01:03:58,280
» Yeah, so I think what you're referring
to is the previous report where I

927
01:03:56,520 --> 01:04:03,160
referenced what West Vancouver's height
limit is for exempted story. What What

928
01:04:01,160 --> 01:04:08,200
we're proposing is 1/3 of our current
height, which is 3.66.

929
01:04:04,680 --> 01:04:09,320
» 3.6 m. So, can you tell me what is 3 3.6
in

930
01:04:08,440 --> 01:04:13,640
» 12 ft.
>> 12 ft. So, basement height would be 12

931
01:04:12,040 --> 01:04:15,960
ft. Could go down
>> from floor to floor.

932
01:04:14,600 --> 01:04:21,320
» Right. And it can go down into the
ground to make that 12 ft.

933
01:04:18,040 --> 01:04:26,600
» This only for the exempted portion is 12
ft. Anything that's completely buried

934
01:04:23,960 --> 01:04:28,320
there's no height there's no height.
There's no height cap.

935
01:04:28,080 --> 01:04:30,680
» Okay.
>> There's a full exemption. There's no

936
01:04:29,800 --> 01:04:32,880
height cap.
>> Okay.

937
01:04:34,800 --> 01:04:42,960
Do I have
Councillor Do you

938
01:04:38,120 --> 01:04:47,360
» Just to clarify, this is the 3.66 m is
only on the additional floor on the

939
01:04:45,640 --> 01:04:51,160
exempted part when you're like building
on a hillside.

940
01:04:48,160 --> 01:04:51,160
» Correct. Correct.

941
01:04:52,080 --> 01:04:58,400
Just on a hillside.
>> No, it it doesn't apply. This is just

942
01:04:56,960 --> 01:05:01,680
primarily where the problem would exist.
>> Throughout, right? Yeah. Cuz you can on

943
01:05:00,400 --> 01:05:05,880
a on a
slope or fairly fairly level lot, you

944
01:05:03,920 --> 01:05:08,360
can still go down.
As you want, right?

945
01:05:06,720 --> 01:05:13,680
» Yeah, so they you could.
>> Yeah, and I guess one of my questions

946
01:05:11,040 --> 01:05:19,520
that I had as well was on I guess it's
it's the color one here which is page

947
01:05:15,400 --> 01:05:23,960
six or 45. Just about where
average grade is and how that's

948
01:05:21,080 --> 01:05:23,960
calculated.

949
01:05:24,320 --> 01:05:30,120
» Yes, so we mean the average grade is is
>> If you could use that photo there just

950
01:05:28,240 --> 01:05:31,880
to kind of give me I
an understanding

951
01:05:30,880 --> 01:05:34,960
» Which figure? Sorry.
>> The the bottom one.

952
01:05:33,280 --> 01:05:37,560
» Three? Figure three?
>> I guess it's the color probably one,

953
01:05:36,760 --> 01:05:42,200
yeah.
>> Yeah, so it's it's where the perimeter

954
01:05:40,120 --> 01:05:46,160
of the building meets the ground. And so
if it's going up a slope, that perimeter

955
01:05:44,240 --> 01:05:50,640
goes up the slope with it. So if it's on
a fairly, you know, uh

956
01:05:48,400 --> 01:05:55,440
even path, then the average grade
becomes the halfway number of where

957
01:05:53,360 --> 01:05:57,640
where the perimeter meets the ground.
>> Okay.

958
01:05:59,520 --> 01:06:03,920
That was all the questions. So you've
confirmed that the the basement there is

959
01:06:02,200 --> 01:06:07,800
not a limit of of an 8-point, which is
great. So any other questions before I

960
01:06:05,960 --> 01:06:11,000
call the questions?
Seeing none, all those in favor?

961
01:06:11,280 --> 01:06:14,240
Carried unanimously. Thank you, Mr.
Joseph.

962
01:06:13,200 --> 01:06:18,640
» Thank you.
>> Okay.

963
01:06:15,280 --> 01:06:23,600
Uh we'll now move on to
uh 12A Committee of the Whole meeting.

964
01:06:21,360 --> 01:06:26,320
The following recreation was made. Uh
Mr. Boyd.

965
01:06:26,360 --> 01:06:33,040
» Thank [clears throat] you, Worship.
Uh so the The purpose of this report is

966
01:06:30,480 --> 01:06:37,320
to uh follows the introduction of the
development cost charges by the law,

967
01:06:35,120 --> 01:06:40,960
which uh was uh
shown to council at Committee of the

968
01:06:39,000 --> 01:06:45,680
Whole. It Uh this report provides a
brief summary of that introduction,

969
01:06:42,480 --> 01:06:49,200
presents the proposed 2026 DCC
uh rate schedule for the village, and it

970
01:06:47,440 --> 01:06:53,840
seeks council's direction to prepare a
draft DCC bylaw.

971
01:06:52,000 --> 01:06:58,080
So a quick background. At the Committee
of the Whole, staff introduced the DCC

972
01:06:55,560 --> 01:07:02,360
framework and the case for updating the
villages and charges. And just to

973
01:06:59,840 --> 01:07:06,960
summarize that that is that the DCCs are
one-time charge for new development

974
01:07:04,400 --> 01:07:10,600
authorized in the part 14 division 19 of
the LGA.

975
01:07:08,600 --> 01:07:13,800
Uh that allows us to recover the growth
related share of capital costs of

976
01:07:12,240 --> 01:07:17,520
infrastructure required to service new
development.

977
01:07:15,560 --> 01:07:22,000
The village's existing DCC bylaw dates
to the 20 2005 and no longer reflects

978
01:07:20,520 --> 01:07:26,160
current construction costs, the village
capital planning, or anticipated growth.

979
01:07:24,400 --> 01:07:31,400
Provincial best practice is to update
the TCC program every 3 to 5 years.

980
01:07:30,160 --> 01:07:35,480
Rates are established through a defined
methodology, projecting growth,

981
01:07:33,520 --> 01:07:39,040
identifying the growth related capital
projects,

982
01:07:36,520 --> 01:07:42,800
and costs, assigning each a benefit
allocation between existing and new

983
01:07:40,920 --> 01:07:48,360
development, applying a municipal assist
factor, and dividing the recoverable

984
01:07:44,400 --> 01:07:51,680
costs across the expected growth units.
Staff worked through the recreation tool

985
01:07:50,120 --> 01:07:55,160
with council committee of the whole,
illustrating how the inputs

986
01:07:53,280 --> 01:07:59,440
input assumptions produce the proposed
rates. A comparison with the neighboring

987
01:07:57,440 --> 01:08:02,800
municipalities was provided for context,
and staff outlined the process ahead, uh

988
01:08:01,600 --> 01:08:07,000
preparation of draft bylaw,
consultation, readings, approval by

989
01:08:05,040 --> 01:08:10,400
inspector of municipalities, and then
adoption.

990
01:08:08,800 --> 01:08:14,040
This report is just to advance this to
council uh for their consideration.

991
01:08:13,600 --> 01:08:17,680
» Good.
>> So, as we can see in the rate table

992
01:08:15,560 --> 01:08:22,600
below, uh these were developed based on
the conversations that we had at the

993
01:08:19,720 --> 01:08:27,080
committee of the whole. Um
Uh so, the residential rates are based

994
01:08:24,279 --> 01:08:30,600
on occupancy assumptions of one suite
per single family house, adding an

995
01:08:28,640 --> 01:08:35,120
incremental 1/2 person per lot,
consistent with the current small-scale

996
01:08:32,680 --> 01:08:39,200
multi-use uh housing provision. This was
a conversation that we had at the

997
01:08:37,040 --> 01:08:43,600
committee of the whole on whether we
should assume that there was going to be

998
01:08:41,040 --> 01:08:48,560
more uptake or not of uh suites within
the village. Um staff could take this

999
01:08:46,359 --> 01:08:53,520
away as well and and continue to look at
past uh building permit applications to

1000
01:08:51,120 --> 01:08:56,720
determine what the occupancy rate of
suites have been in the village over the

1001
01:08:54,920 --> 01:08:59,359
past 5 years. We currently haven't done
that.

1002
01:08:58,799 --> 01:09:03,799
Uh
okay, next one. Uh sundry sewer is is

1003
01:09:02,160 --> 01:09:07,520
not applicable cuz we don't have
sanitary sewers within the villages a

1004
01:09:05,839 --> 01:09:11,560
service. We currently only have it
within AGP.

1005
01:09:10,080 --> 01:09:14,400
And we don't anticipate building any
sewers of our own, so therefore there

1006
01:09:12,920 --> 01:09:18,720
are no projects.
Um, an important note was regarding

1007
01:09:16,480 --> 01:09:22,120
protective services. Although recent
provincial legislation added fire and

1008
01:09:20,240 --> 01:09:25,359
police facilities as eligible DCC
categories, fire protection in the

1009
01:09:23,880 --> 01:09:29,160
village is delivered through the Sasamat
fire protection service, a Metro

1010
01:09:27,160 --> 01:09:32,120
Vancouver regional district function.
And policing capital was not a cost

1011
01:09:30,720 --> 01:09:36,080
borne by the directly by the village.
The village therefore has no eligible

1012
01:09:33,839 --> 01:09:40,080
protective services capital cost on
which to base a charge. As noted above,

1013
01:09:38,799 --> 01:09:42,920
the
fire protection in the village is

1014
01:09:41,480 --> 01:09:46,200
delivered through fire Sasamat fire
protection service, a Metro Vancouver

1015
01:09:44,680 --> 01:09:48,880
regional district function, and the
associated capital assets, including the

1016
01:09:47,799 --> 01:09:52,080
fire hall,
are regional assets funded through the

1017
01:09:50,440 --> 01:09:54,800
service rather than by the village
directly. For this reason, the

1018
01:09:53,160 --> 01:09:58,320
growth-related capital cost for the
anticipated fire hall upgrades cannot be

1019
01:09:57,040 --> 01:10:01,320
recovered through the village's own
development cost charges. It is

1020
01:10:00,160 --> 01:10:05,440
nonetheless appropriate for the
development to contribute its fair share

1021
01:10:03,480 --> 01:10:08,520
towards these services. So, I therefore
recommend the village formally request

1022
01:10:07,120 --> 01:10:12,360
that Metro Vancouver consider
establishing a DCC for Sasamat fire

1023
01:10:10,920 --> 01:10:16,520
protection service to recover the
growth-related portion of the fire hall

1024
01:10:14,320 --> 01:10:20,480
upgrades cost consistent with the newly
eligible fire protection service

1025
01:10:17,880 --> 01:10:24,160
category under the LGA. Any such, uh,
charges would be developed, adopted, and

1026
01:10:22,760 --> 01:10:28,360
administered by Metro Vancouver through
its own bylaw and cost allocation

1027
01:10:26,440 --> 01:10:32,640
process in consultation with the Village
of Anmore and Belcarra as being

1028
01:10:30,440 --> 01:10:37,160
participating members of the service and
would apply in addition to the village's

1029
01:10:34,200 --> 01:10:41,680
DCC rather than through them. So, we
also, uh, prior, sorry, following the

1030
01:10:39,920 --> 01:10:46,360
publication of this report, we've also
received word back

1031
01:10:44,240 --> 01:10:50,280
from the province to clarify this note.
And I'll just read, uh, one particular

1032
01:10:47,880 --> 01:10:55,200
note from within their their email that
was, and I quote, "Our interpretation of

1033
01:10:52,880 --> 01:10:59,080
capital cost is that the capital asset
be owned or controlled by the local

1034
01:10:57,000 --> 01:11:03,640
government such that it is capitalized
on the audited financial statements of

1035
01:11:01,280 --> 01:11:06,680
the local government. So,
based on on that coming back from the

1036
01:11:05,200 --> 01:11:10,280
province, they kind of substantiated
what we thought in the past that that

1037
01:11:08,520 --> 01:11:14,360
because we don't actually own the asset,
we're not allowed to collect DCC. Again,

1038
01:11:12,160 --> 01:11:17,880
it's important to note that we we do
have a mechanism to collect it, but Amur

1039
01:11:16,080 --> 01:11:22,760
itself cannot collect it directly based
on legislation.

1040
01:11:20,360 --> 01:11:26,960
Uh okay, land use categories and zoning.
Uh the rate schedule presents charges

1041
01:11:25,080 --> 01:11:30,320
for a full range of land use categories.
So, the DCC framework is completely and

1042
01:11:28,640 --> 01:11:34,720
internally consistent. Some of these
categories do not currently permit or or

1043
01:11:32,640 --> 01:11:38,840
contemplated under the villages zone and
bylaw or OCP. The inclusion in the

1044
01:11:37,120 --> 01:11:42,520
schedule is for the calculation and
information purposes only. It does not

1045
01:11:40,360 --> 01:11:46,000
imply or confer any development
entitlement, zoning permissions, or

1046
01:11:44,120 --> 01:11:50,000
rights to develop these uses in the
village until the zone and bylaw is

1047
01:11:47,680 --> 01:11:53,640
amended to permit a given use. The
corresponding DCC rate has no

1048
01:11:51,960 --> 01:11:57,760
application, and the value set in the
rates now is that should council of the

1049
01:11:55,560 --> 01:12:01,400
future consider
enabling any of these uses, a defensible

1050
01:11:59,560 --> 01:12:04,280
charge would be already be established
and showing that any such development

1051
01:12:03,000 --> 01:12:09,000
contributes fair share towards
growth-related infrastructure.

1052
01:12:06,880 --> 01:12:13,080
And then lastly, uh park acquisition
charges. Uh the proposed schedule does

1053
01:12:11,040 --> 01:12:16,880
not include a park acquisition DCC.
While park acquisition is an eligible

1054
01:12:15,040 --> 01:12:21,600
category under the Local Government Act,
a defensible parks DCC must be grounded

1055
01:12:19,840 --> 01:12:25,920
in adopted parkland
provision standard, typically expressed

1056
01:12:23,560 --> 01:12:30,120
as an amount of parkland per capita or
per dwelling, from which the quan- the

1057
01:12:28,160 --> 01:12:33,520
quantity and cost of the land need to be
need to serve growth can be determined.

1058
01:12:32,280 --> 01:12:37,160
The village does not currently have a
policy establishing a park provision

1059
01:12:35,280 --> 01:12:41,560
standard. In its absence, there is no
defensible basis on which to determine

1060
01:12:39,160 --> 01:12:44,840
the per capita land requirement or the
associated acquisition cost, and the

1061
01:12:43,200 --> 01:12:48,280
parks acquisition charge has therefore
been excluded at this time. Should

1062
01:12:46,360 --> 01:12:52,560
council wish to pursue parkland
acquisition funding through DCC in in in

1063
01:12:50,440 --> 01:12:57,440
the future, staff would first recommend
adoption of the park acquisition policy

1064
01:12:54,880 --> 01:13:02,000
standard and would then allow a park DCC
to be calculated and incorporated into

1065
01:12:59,920 --> 01:13:06,240
the bylaw amendment.
Then finally, financial implications.

1066
01:13:04,920 --> 01:13:11,200
The the the financial implication
obviously there's there's none related

1067
01:13:08,040 --> 01:13:15,160
to staff direct the the
uh to the village directly. The

1068
01:13:13,520 --> 01:13:20,840
However, there would obviously be a cost
association with managing the DCC's work

1069
01:13:19,120 --> 01:13:24,800
and once adopted the DCC charges are
expected to materially improve the

1070
01:13:22,640 --> 01:13:28,280
village's ability to fund growth related
water drainage and road infrastructure

1071
01:13:26,840 --> 01:13:33,040
from development rather than from
general tax base.

1072
01:13:31,040 --> 01:13:36,440
Lastly, next steps
from staff recommendations would be to

1073
01:13:35,000 --> 01:13:39,880
prepare the draft development cost
charges bylaw incorporating the proposed

1074
01:13:38,120 --> 01:13:43,120
rate schedule and supporting background
study, consult with the development

1075
01:13:41,440 --> 01:13:47,160
community and other interested parties
consistent with the provincial

1076
01:13:44,840 --> 01:13:50,520
guidelines, request Metro Vancouver
consider establishing a development cost

1077
01:13:48,960 --> 01:13:54,760
charge for Semiahmoo fire protection
services to recover the growth related

1078
01:13:52,560 --> 01:13:59,040
cost of the firehall upgrades, and bring
the draft bylaw to council for

1079
01:13:56,280 --> 01:13:59,040
consideration.

1080
01:13:59,480 --> 01:14:04,760
Okay, I can read the resolution if
you wish you wish to.

1081
01:14:04,160 --> 01:14:09,480
» Sure.
>> Okay, that staff be directed to bring

1082
01:14:06,760 --> 01:14:13,000
the draft development cost charges bylaw
forward to council for consideration and

1083
01:14:11,600 --> 01:14:16,280
that staff be directed to undertake
consultation with the development

1084
01:14:14,280 --> 01:14:19,920
community and other interested parties
on the proposed development cost charges

1085
01:14:18,360 --> 01:14:23,560
and that staff be directed to contact
Metro Vancouver in relation to

1086
01:14:21,600 --> 01:14:27,880
consideration of the establishing a
development cost charge bylaw for

1087
01:14:24,920 --> 01:14:32,440
Semiahmoo fire protection services.
>> Good. Can I get someone to move that?

1088
01:14:30,720 --> 01:14:35,560
Moved and second open up for some
discussion.

1089
01:14:33,880 --> 01:14:39,960
Mr. Boyd, just for clarity, I just
wanted to who did you talk to at the

1090
01:14:37,120 --> 01:14:44,360
province regarding the Metro Vancouver's
role with the Semiahmoo volunteer fire

1091
01:14:41,840 --> 01:14:47,360
department so I can follow up with them.
>> One second.

1092
01:14:49,120 --> 01:14:54,320
» Or Ms. Elwork, who did it that
>> I've got it. It's uh Ministry of Housing

1093
01:14:52,160 --> 01:14:56,560
and Municipal Affairs uh the financial
office and uh

1094
01:14:55,480 --> 01:15:00,000
» And is there a Do you have a person
there?

1095
01:14:57,080 --> 01:15:03,040
» Uh the person that sent to us was Jenny
Chang.

1096
01:15:00,720 --> 01:15:05,920
» Could I get a copy of that, please?
>> I can circulate it to all of council.

1097
01:15:04,680 --> 01:15:09,160
» Perfect. Thanks.
Um the reason I say that, Mr. Boyd, is

1098
01:15:07,560 --> 01:15:12,000
that we um
I was concerned about this because

1099
01:15:10,520 --> 01:15:17,200
again, there is such confusion when it
comes to the fire department um and the

1100
01:15:14,680 --> 01:15:20,760
real clarity of it is is that the uh
Metro Vancouver

1101
01:15:18,960 --> 01:15:23,320
simply we pay them a service to operate
the fire department and the assets are

1102
01:15:22,280 --> 01:15:27,120
actually owned by each of the
municipalities. And they've given a

1103
01:15:25,360 --> 01:15:30,480
legal ruling saying that we should be
collecting the DCCs and it should be

1104
01:15:28,640 --> 01:15:33,920
part of this program. So I'd I'd
certainly like to to flush that out a

1105
01:15:32,400 --> 01:15:38,360
little bit because I know it is somewhat
confusing. So but anyway, it's been uh

1106
01:15:36,760 --> 01:15:40,400
I'll I'll follow up cuz I Metro
Vancouver had some interest there. Ms.

1107
01:15:39,760 --> 01:15:45,360
Alaric.
>> Sorry, Mayor McKeown. I may have

1108
01:15:42,840 --> 01:15:48,800
misunderstood. Um did you say who gave a
legal ruling regarding this?

1109
01:15:46,960 --> 01:15:54,760
» No, that opinion that we that I
distributed to staff and council was

1110
01:15:50,800 --> 01:15:54,760
there from a legal aspect.

1111
01:15:55,600 --> 01:16:00,360
From I think it was Mr. Brant, Brant
Smith or whatever sent that out this

1112
01:15:58,760 --> 01:16:03,400
morning.
So

1113
01:16:01,440 --> 01:16:05,920
anyway, open up any
Councilor Craig.

1114
01:16:04,320 --> 01:16:09,520
» Did we have a
Why was it sent to Metro? Did we have a

1115
01:16:07,560 --> 01:16:13,200
motion to send it to them? I thought
that was done after. Yeah, as a

1116
01:16:11,800 --> 01:16:18,520
» As a fire trustee, I sent it there cuz I
was sure unclear of it why it was being

1117
01:16:15,760 --> 01:16:20,520
uh separated here. So
>> Okay.

1118
01:16:19,080 --> 01:16:23,320
» Okay.
Councilor Richardson.

1119
01:16:24,040 --> 01:16:29,840
» Okay, I'm trying to wrap my head around
all that.

1120
01:16:27,280 --> 01:16:34,920
So in summary, cuz it was a bit hard to
hear.

1121
01:16:31,720 --> 01:16:40,080
If the village owns the asset, we can
charge or plans to own the asset, we can

1122
01:16:37,920 --> 01:16:43,560
charge DCCs.
Is that correct?

1123
01:16:41,800 --> 01:16:47,200
» So yeah, it has to be on our financial.
That's right.

1124
01:16:44,680 --> 01:16:51,200
» Sorry, through the chair, it must be
owned or controlled by the local

1125
01:16:49,000 --> 01:16:55,720
government such that it is capitalized
on the audited financial statements of

1126
01:16:53,440 --> 01:16:59,920
the local government, which in this case
it is not.

1127
01:16:57,160 --> 01:17:05,000
» Okay, so ju- just just on that cuz when
I read the letter from Metro,

1128
01:17:02,760 --> 01:17:10,320
I didn't hear a clear opinion that we
could collect DCCs on them. I thought

1129
01:17:08,400 --> 01:17:17,440
our plan was that we were going to ask
Metro, since it's their asset, to

1130
01:17:12,920 --> 01:17:21,720
collect DCCs like they do for
uh water and sewer directly to the

1131
01:17:20,120 --> 01:17:25,800
village. So, Metro Vancouver would
charge the DCCs. Is that correct?

1132
01:17:23,760 --> 01:17:28,320
» Mitch would collect DCCs for the water
that is outside of the village that

1133
01:17:27,200 --> 01:17:33,560
comes to the
to the village.

1134
01:17:30,840 --> 01:17:37,400
» Yeah, but they they do collect for those
services.

1135
01:17:35,440 --> 01:17:41,000
So, Metro Vancouver we haven't got an
answer back from Metro Vancouver that

1136
01:17:38,680 --> 01:17:45,560
they can they can collect.
>> Through the chair, we have not formally

1137
01:17:43,000 --> 01:17:49,880
reached out to Metro Vancouver. Um Mayor
McKeown, uh I understand reached out to

1138
01:17:47,840 --> 01:17:53,760
Metro Vancouver, but we're waiting for
direction from council. And as part of

1139
01:17:52,080 --> 01:17:58,040
the process, we would be reaching out to
Metro Vancouver. Um as we indicated,

1140
01:17:56,200 --> 01:18:02,120
we've already reached out and got
response back from the province. And

1141
01:17:59,920 --> 01:18:07,120
additionally, we will be um
seeking legal advice through the village

1142
01:18:04,120 --> 01:18:10,880
solicitor who will be uh preparing the
bylaw for us, and we have had some

1143
01:18:09,080 --> 01:18:15,200
preliminary discussion with them on
this, and will continue to explore

1144
01:18:12,880 --> 01:18:20,560
options on um
how we may collect DCCs.

1145
01:18:17,440 --> 01:18:26,160
» Okay. And then my last question is,
like if we were planning to build a

1146
01:18:22,880 --> 01:18:33,160
water reservoir in 20 years to support
our growth, we could collect DCCs on

1147
01:18:29,920 --> 01:18:35,680
that project, could we not?
Mr. Boyd?

1148
01:18:33,920 --> 01:18:39,000
» Mr. Boyd's shaking his head as I think
yes.

1149
01:18:36,720 --> 01:18:43,600
» Yeah, correct. It is provided it it was
it was being built in relation to the

1150
01:18:41,360 --> 01:18:45,160
growth within the village. So So,
typically that would be the answer to

1151
01:18:44,480 --> 01:18:49,400
that.
>> So, therefore, if we got commitment from

1152
01:18:47,200 --> 01:18:55,640
Metro Vancouver that once it was all
paid off, they would transfer

1153
01:18:52,960 --> 01:18:59,480
the fire hall to Anmore,
then that would be the same thing. We're

1154
01:18:57,320 --> 01:19:03,240
just going through some other path, are
we not?

1155
01:19:01,680 --> 01:19:07,880
» I suppose the answer would be
>> No, concurrently.

1156
01:19:04,520 --> 01:19:13,080
» Sorry, to share the um assets that are
already developed, we can't post a DCC

1157
01:19:10,360 --> 01:19:18,960
after the fact. So, the assets are
currently held under Metro's financial

1158
01:19:16,160 --> 01:19:24,040
statements. As such, that's why we we
would propose to go through Metro's DCC

1159
01:19:21,400 --> 01:19:24,040
bylaw.

1160
01:19:25,800 --> 01:19:30,640
» I I What's the question, Councillor
Richardson? Could we transfer the

1161
01:19:28,640 --> 01:19:34,520
ownership for the fire hall to the
village?

1162
01:19:32,000 --> 01:19:36,760
» Yeah, Lena kind of answered it. It's
like

1163
01:19:35,760 --> 01:19:40,960
it We already [clears throat] The
asset's already there, but we just get

1164
01:19:39,200 --> 01:19:45,280
it transferred at the end doesn't count
is what I heard. But, you know, I was at

1165
01:19:43,360 --> 01:19:49,080
the Well, we could build it for 20 years
and then maybe it would, but

1166
01:19:47,960 --> 01:19:51,320
anyway.
But, you know,

1167
01:19:50,725 --> 01:19:55,160
» [laughter]
>> it's it is a bit of a convoluted mess

1168
01:19:53,320 --> 01:20:00,000
cuz we as trustees we went through this
in the fact if we were to ever to

1169
01:19:56,360 --> 01:20:05,000
separate, how do the assets get divided?
And so, it is a very it's not an easy

1170
01:20:02,120 --> 01:20:07,920
easy easy ask whatsoever. So, I've got
uh Councillor Trowbridge.

1171
01:20:08,240 --> 01:20:14,960
» Thank you. Yeah, my understanding of the
motion that's in front of us though is

1172
01:20:12,840 --> 01:20:23,040
that staff is going to explore every
opportunity to recover DCCs in whatever

1173
01:20:19,440 --> 01:20:25,960
route uh through whatever legal process.
So,

1174
01:20:24,040 --> 01:20:30,920
uh I'm in favor of just moving this
forward and letting staff do their job.

1175
01:20:29,600 --> 01:20:35,040
» Good. Um
any other questions or anything else? I

1176
01:20:32,920 --> 01:20:39,480
I had one, Mr. Boyd, regarding the park
DCC.

1177
01:20:36,640 --> 01:20:44,920
Um, I read through the parks master plan
and from page one on, it talks about us

1178
01:20:42,160 --> 01:20:48,960
implementing a park DCC. And I know
Metro Vancouver, we've recently done

1179
01:20:46,480 --> 01:20:52,640
that in the last year and it was very
very well received because again, as

1180
01:20:50,840 --> 01:20:57,120
you're creating and in this case, there
seems to be possibly an incentive for

1181
01:20:55,000 --> 01:21:01,760
more multi-family because of the costing
of of the DCCs being proposed. The green

1182
01:21:00,320 --> 01:21:06,040
space that's going to be required in
that. So, is is that something that

1183
01:21:03,760 --> 01:21:10,400
could be added on to this DCC cuz it's
referenced quite heavily in the fact in

1184
01:21:08,640 --> 01:21:14,640
the parks master plan, which I guess was
done sort of 2015-2016.

1185
01:21:15,080 --> 01:21:22,240
» For sure, yeah. I mean, the the village
have the right to to acquire DCCs for

1186
01:21:20,200 --> 01:21:25,640
for parkland acquisition.
Again, the policy just needs to be

1187
01:21:23,800 --> 01:21:28,440
written mainly to it. So,
I wouldn't recommend attaching it to

1188
01:21:26,920 --> 01:21:32,560
this DCC because it's going to take a
little bit of time consultation to get

1189
01:21:30,440 --> 01:21:37,880
through that unless it's council's will.
But, most certainly, you you can write a

1190
01:21:35,680 --> 01:21:41,760
DCC for parkland.
>> Yeah, and I just I also wanted to just

1191
01:21:39,880 --> 01:21:45,560
add that, you know, Metro Vancouver,
this Friday, we're actually going to

1192
01:21:43,080 --> 01:21:49,040
reduce DCCs that Metro Vancouver's
employ

1193
01:21:47,360 --> 01:21:54,040
employ
instigated because of the fact of the

1194
01:21:51,400 --> 01:21:58,760
and it has to go to the register of uh
of municipalities of Victoria and there

1195
01:21:57,120 --> 01:22:02,440
seems to be this big push in reducing
costs to be able to produce housing. So,

1196
01:22:00,960 --> 01:22:05,480
we're not sure whether this will get
approved, but we'll we'll certainly put

1197
01:22:04,320 --> 01:22:09,240
it forward, but I'm looking forward to
some to having some more discussion.

1198
01:22:07,000 --> 01:22:12,400
It's a significant raise to what we're
currently paying, which is currently

1199
01:22:10,600 --> 01:22:17,320
about $10,700
per lot that's being created and taking

1200
01:22:14,480 --> 01:22:22,720
it up to 23,000. It's It's significant.
And then, when you throw on, you know,

1201
01:22:19,160 --> 01:22:27,120
the Metro portion, TransLink, you know,
we're at $32,000 for the creation of a

1202
01:22:25,320 --> 01:22:32,680
lot, 33,042
for the creation of a lot, which is

1203
01:22:29,040 --> 01:22:32,680
which is significant. So.

1204
01:22:33,760 --> 01:22:40,520
Good. Okay, no further questions. I'll
call the question. All those in favor?

1205
01:22:38,520 --> 01:22:42,720
Opposed? Carried unanimously. Thank you,
Mr. Boyd.

1206
01:22:41,920 --> 01:22:45,640
» Thank you.
>> Uh okay, now we'll move on to the

1207
01:22:44,160 --> 01:22:51,440
mayor's report. I don't really have a
lot. Uh please be cautious. The water uh

1208
01:22:49,520 --> 01:22:55,080
restrictions went down to phase or to
level two.

1209
01:22:52,760 --> 01:22:58,120
So, you are allowed to water shrubs uh
and hand watering. Allowed to wash your

1210
01:22:57,000 --> 01:23:03,760
car.
Um fire ban is in. It's I know that a

1211
01:23:01,760 --> 01:23:07,800
new fire just opened up in the Fraser
Valley tonight. It's it's a very, very

1212
01:23:06,240 --> 01:23:09,920
precarious time right now. We need to
get through the next couple weeks.

1213
01:23:08,920 --> 01:23:15,160
Hopefully, I think there's going to be
some rain due on Saturday and Sunday.

1214
01:23:12,760 --> 01:23:19,920
And I think that's about it. I'll move
on counselor's reports. Counselor

1215
01:23:17,800 --> 01:23:24,600
Richardson.
>> Okay, three things. One for the public

1216
01:23:23,280 --> 01:23:29,040
and I think
Miss Elrick might cover this is election

1217
01:23:27,480 --> 01:23:33,640
dates
uh for the information sessions.

1218
01:23:33,960 --> 01:23:38,240
» Through the chair, is that for candidate
information

1219
01:23:37,720 --> 01:23:40,720
» Yes.
>> sessions?

1220
01:23:38,760 --> 01:23:42,600
Um yes, he stole my thunder.
>> Okay, so I'll let you

1221
01:23:42,040 --> 01:23:43,400
go ahead.
>> go ahead.

1222
01:23:43,253 --> 01:23:45,040
» [laughter]
>> Okay, go.

1223
01:23:44,280 --> 01:23:49,080
» No, I
happy to give you the dates um

1224
01:23:46,560 --> 01:23:52,760
» No, no, just save it. I don't need to.
Um the other thing was mentioned

1225
01:23:50,600 --> 01:23:57,400
earlier, this was the last meeting for
public input until after the election.

1226
01:23:55,600 --> 01:24:01,480
So, what public question period? Say
your peace or forever hold your more.

1227
01:24:00,160 --> 01:24:05,280
Um
on garbage days, it's interesting to me

1228
01:24:03,600 --> 01:24:09,160
because the bears go around and tip
garbage over.

1229
01:24:06,840 --> 01:24:12,400
And unfortunately, or fortunately, it
lets me see what people are throwing

1230
01:24:10,680 --> 01:24:19,240
out.
And I have to say I'm a bit appalled on

1231
01:24:16,000 --> 01:24:22,840
the recyclables and compostables that
are in garbage bins. I don't know if

1232
01:24:21,320 --> 01:24:28,080
there's anything we can do about it, but
glass bottles, clear plastic,

1233
01:24:25,120 --> 01:24:32,080
plastic films, etc., etc., etc. And it
drives me nuts. So, um I just want to

1234
01:24:30,840 --> 01:24:36,520
say
it doesn't take a lot of time. Please

1235
01:24:34,800 --> 01:24:40,000
put more care in your garbage and
recyclables.

1236
01:24:38,040 --> 01:24:44,080
And then the last thing is I bumped into
Jay Sharp a few times at my office,

1237
01:24:42,760 --> 01:24:49,120
which is
the leftmost seat at Starbucks at 1:30

1238
01:24:47,560 --> 01:24:53,840
most days.
And we've had chats with other residents

1239
01:24:51,680 --> 01:24:59,480
about the fire halls.
And I suggested to Mr. Sharp that he

1240
01:24:57,080 --> 01:25:02,880
could do a town hall or something cuz it
he brings the temperature down of people

1241
01:25:01,280 --> 01:25:07,240
who are quite upset.
And he informed me that he cannot do

1242
01:25:05,920 --> 01:25:11,400
that without the approval of the
trustees.

1243
01:25:08,640 --> 01:25:14,000
And really council has this council has
no say

1244
01:25:12,800 --> 01:25:18,840
on
the fire thing other than through the

1245
01:25:15,400 --> 01:25:23,160
trustees. So, I make my request to the
Anmore trustees, could you request or

1246
01:25:21,480 --> 01:25:26,360
give permission to Mr. Sharp to do a
town hall

1247
01:25:24,520 --> 01:25:29,880
on the fire halls? That would be greatly
appreciated by the residents at large.

1248
01:25:29,120 --> 01:25:32,520
Thank you.
>> I I actually believe there's going to be

1249
01:25:31,200 --> 01:25:37,080
an RFP coming out. There'll be an
actually a special meeting for the for

1250
01:25:35,240 --> 01:25:40,440
the handy note of the RFP for the design
and everything. So, that would be a

1251
01:25:38,000 --> 01:25:43,880
perfect opportunity to to get people out
to ask questions. So,

1252
01:25:42,320 --> 01:25:50,040
to me.
Okay. Uh Chief Administrative Report.

1253
01:25:48,320 --> 01:25:54,960
» Thank you.
The election candidate

1254
01:25:52,200 --> 01:26:01,440
um sessions. Um and these are the
sessions that are uh administered by our

1255
01:25:58,440 --> 01:26:07,960
Chief Election Officer, Lori Darkis,
um where potential candidates can find

1256
01:26:04,160 --> 01:26:10,240
out uh about the election process, about
uh

1257
01:26:08,560 --> 01:26:15,080
what uh
being an elected official uh looks like,

1258
01:26:13,200 --> 01:26:19,880
and and responsibilities related to
that. So, we are looking at holding two

1259
01:26:17,320 --> 01:26:23,960
info sessions this time. Um all of this
information will be up on the village

1260
01:26:21,760 --> 01:26:29,040
website in the coming weeks as well, but
the dates for the info sessions will be

1261
01:26:25,680 --> 01:26:33,720
in the evening August 27th and September
2nd

1262
01:26:30,440 --> 01:26:38,360
uh right now. And uh so, please check
for that and other information and

1263
01:26:35,640 --> 01:26:43,040
updates on the election uh page, which
is on the Village of Anmore website, and

1264
01:26:40,200 --> 01:26:49,000
we will be uh more targeted uh
communication coming out on that. Um and

1265
01:26:45,760 --> 01:26:53,080
then additionally further to um the
recommendation this evening, uh watch

1266
01:26:51,480 --> 01:26:59,040
for um
early September. We expect that we will

1267
01:26:55,880 --> 01:27:03,040
be having uh an information session um
firstly for the development community,

1268
01:27:00,800 --> 01:27:10,040
but then secondly um for the broader
public on uh development cost charges

1269
01:27:06,320 --> 01:27:14,280
and uh what exactly they are and uh how
they're determined and and projects and

1270
01:27:12,040 --> 01:27:20,560
whatnot um just so that the general
public uh understands the uh DCCs and

1271
01:27:18,200 --> 01:27:24,600
the bylaw before it comes back to
council uh hopefully later in September.

1272
01:27:23,760 --> 01:27:28,840
That's it for me.
>> Good. Thank you. I've got uh some

1273
01:27:27,120 --> 01:27:32,840
general correspondence letter dated from
the chair of the regional district of

1274
01:27:30,200 --> 01:27:37,760
the Central Okanagan and town of Lake
Country. Public input and question

1275
01:27:34,600 --> 01:27:41,960
period. This is the last one, so
I thought you said it was the Is it the

1276
01:27:39,040 --> 01:27:44,720
last one? It is, yeah. So, please name
Name and address, please.

1277
01:27:43,960 --> 01:27:47,640
» Is this working?
>> You're

1278
01:27:45,040 --> 01:27:52,120
» product 1815 East Road. I'm just
wondering if the municipality proper, I

1279
01:27:51,040 --> 01:27:58,040
mean,
uh the village is exempt from the water

1280
01:27:55,560 --> 01:28:02,200
restrictions. I see, for example, circle
hoses out here and

1281
01:27:59,800 --> 01:28:05,760
uh or something that's making the plants
grow quite well. And I was just

1282
01:28:04,480 --> 01:28:09,840
wondering if
if the village is uh exempt from water

1283
01:28:08,440 --> 01:28:12,520
restrictions
uh when we were

1284
01:28:11,360 --> 01:28:16,080
uh obeying them.
>> Well, the water restrictions now are

1285
01:28:14,280 --> 01:28:18,560
down back to a level two, so you are
allowed to hand water shrubs and that,

1286
01:28:18,120 --> 01:28:22,720
yeah.
>> But, water is we uh

1287
01:28:20,920 --> 01:28:24,640
the residents were restricted from using
soaker hoses.

1288
01:28:24,080 --> 01:28:27,960
» I
>> I don't know how the vegetation out here

1289
01:28:26,960 --> 01:28:31,280
grew out
quite

1290
01:28:28,840 --> 01:28:36,960
quickly and must have been fed by water.
I'm just wondering if there's exemptions

1291
01:28:33,520 --> 01:28:40,600
for the village and not for residents.
>> Just for clarity, are you talking about

1292
01:28:38,600 --> 01:28:43,600
the ferns that came up from the dirt
area in the front?

1293
01:28:41,680 --> 01:28:46,840
» and also at the steps here.
>> Uh I don't know about the steps, but

1294
01:28:44,920 --> 01:28:53,120
those darned ferns,
they they come up no matter what you do.

1295
01:28:50,360 --> 01:28:56,880
So, in the front around like on the east
Sunny Side Road section, all the green

1296
01:28:55,240 --> 01:28:59,920
that came up through the newly laid in
soil, I don't think that was watered at

1297
01:28:58,880 --> 01:29:02,440
all.
>> Okay, Joe.

1298
01:29:00,880 --> 01:29:04,800
And I was just curious. Thank you.
>> Thank you.

1299
01:29:12,160 --> 01:29:18,480
» Hi, this is Mike 2555 Sunny Side Road.
Um

1300
01:29:17,040 --> 01:29:22,680
I don't know if I'm allowed to how I'm
going to be able to ask these questions.

1301
01:29:20,840 --> 01:29:25,520
Do I do it through you?
>> Yeah.

1302
01:29:22,840 --> 01:29:30,280
» Because it's a contractor and it's also
a member of the staff

1303
01:29:27,480 --> 01:29:34,320
that I have these questions for.
>> Can you send me an email about it or

1304
01:29:32,920 --> 01:29:37,240
» Uh
>> Can you generalize what what it

1305
01:29:35,880 --> 01:29:40,080
» Okay. Well,
>> Uh we don't want anybody's name

1306
01:29:38,760 --> 01:29:46,280
mentioned or anything like that.
>> No, I'm not Well, May 5th, I uh we had

1307
01:29:43,360 --> 01:29:50,200
the council meeting. After the meeting,
we talked about the drainage of the

1308
01:29:47,560 --> 01:29:56,000
Spirit Park. After the meeting, I met
with the city ca- the municipal

1309
01:29:52,440 --> 01:30:03,400
contractor in charge of that and we set
up for a time, 2:00 the next day to

1310
01:29:59,760 --> 01:30:08,480
go and and meet over there. Um I was
there for more than half an hour,

1311
01:30:06,120 --> 01:30:16,000
gave up because he never showed up. So,
May 6th, the next day or that day, um I

1312
01:30:12,280 --> 01:30:20,200
phoned city hall when I went in and I I
asked the receptionist or whoever

1313
01:30:17,720 --> 01:30:25,320
answered the phone, um what do I do? Can
I have his number? She said, "No, I'll

1314
01:30:22,880 --> 01:30:34,000
leave a posted note for him. I will get
him to contact you and also email him."

1315
01:30:29,360 --> 01:30:39,920
So, I emailed him. That was on May 6th.
June 23rd, I I also left my phone

1316
01:30:36,600 --> 01:30:45,240
number. June 23rd, I sent another email.
This time I CC'd one of the staff. I'm

1317
01:30:42,360 --> 01:30:49,840
not allowed to say which staff because
we're not allowed to say names. Uh that

1318
01:30:47,200 --> 01:30:54,920
was June 23rd. I emailed the staff
saying, "Hey, um well, not the staff. I

1319
01:30:52,840 --> 01:30:59,520
CC'd the staff and I emailed the
contractor.

1320
01:30:56,360 --> 01:31:04,360
And I said, um we were supposed to meet.
That was a month ago. I waited a month.

1321
01:31:02,280 --> 01:31:09,840
How come we didn't meet? Here's my phone
number. Can we please meet?" Then, um

1322
01:31:07,600 --> 01:31:13,400
today is the 20
>> first

1323
01:31:10,360 --> 01:31:18,400
» first of July. I still have not received
any correspondence from the city staff

1324
01:31:16,120 --> 01:31:24,880
and the contractor in charge and they've
already um sent the tender out for that

1325
01:31:22,240 --> 01:31:29,000
or awarded the tender. So, so who do I
What do I do?

1326
01:31:25,920 --> 01:31:33,240
» If I can ask if you can send me that
string of emails

1327
01:31:30,840 --> 01:31:34,360
and and that and then I will I'll talk
to Karen

1328
01:31:33,920 --> 01:31:36,120
» Okay.
>> uh Ms. Halbert.

1329
01:31:34,920 --> 01:31:38,720
» Okay. Yeah, because
>> Okay.

1330
01:31:36,280 --> 01:31:43,440
» I'm I'm frustrated that it's been 2
months and it's been a month for the

1331
01:31:41,040 --> 01:31:45,600
city staff to get back to me as well as
the contractor. 2 months.

1332
01:31:45,080 --> 01:31:50,160
» Okay. So.
>> Okay.

1333
01:31:46,240 --> 01:31:54,840
Any other questions before
Okay, motion to adjourn.

1334
01:31:52,360 --> 01:31:58,320
Moved. Second. All those in favor?
Carried unanimously and thank you

1335
01:31:55,800 --> 01:32:01,520
everyone. Have a great summer.
We'll see you in September.

1336
01:32:08,400 --> 01:32:10,520
» Mhm.