[0:02] Okay, good evening everyone. Welcome to
[0:03] the regular council meeting for Tuesday,
[0:05] July 21st. It's currently 7:00. Before
[0:08] we get started,
[0:09] the Village of Anmore would like to open
[0:11] our meeting by recognizing the many
[0:12] indigenous peoples of our area,
[0:14] including the following First Nations
[0:16] with communities that are now located in
[0:17] the region that we know as Metro
[0:18] Vancouver.
[0:20] It'll be the Musqueam, Squamish,
[0:21] Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem.
[0:24] Further, we'd like to honor the
[0:25] important place in history occupied by
[0:26] the many tutorial keepers of these lands
[0:28] and waters around us since time
[0:29] immemorial.
[0:30] I'll call the meeting to order. Could I
[0:31] get someone to move the agenda as
[0:34] circulated?
[0:36] >> Second.
[0:37] >> Call the question. All those in favor?
[0:40] Carried unanimously. Uh
[0:42] we have public input. Uh
[0:44] public is to uh come forward and ask any
[0:47] questions regarding to business that's
[0:49] on the agenda. Uh
[0:50] Agenda items only. 2-minute time limit
[0:52] applies to speakers. Anybody wishing to
[0:54] come forward and discuss anything on
[0:57] tonight's agenda?
[1:01] Nope.
[1:02] Okay.
[1:03] Move on to uh delegations. We have a
[1:04] delegation from Lina Aziz to present
[1:07] regarding Lower Fraser Valley Flood
[1:09] Plains Coalition, a regional request.
[1:18] I'm going to
[1:19] I I'm just going to ask Did Did you want
[1:22] to come to public input comment on
[1:23] anything at public input?
[1:25] Okay, I'm just going to if we can just
[1:27] put you on hold, sir.
[1:29] Please come up and state your name and
[1:30] address.
[1:38] » Zane Erickson, 2000 Rich Mountain Drive.
[1:41] I'm just um
[1:43] just wanted to bring up something about
[1:45] the proposed changes to the
[1:47] >> Could you pull the mic up a little?
[1:48] Yeah.
[1:50] There you go. Perfect.
[1:51] >> Just the changes to the zoning bylaw,
[1:54] and I'm just looking for more
[1:56] specificity
[1:57] in what's written.
[1:59] Specifically regarding
[2:01] basements
[2:02] and
[2:04] I found a little bit
[2:05] vague where it was described that
[2:08] um they're wanting to limit it to a
[2:11] partially exposed.
[2:13] I didn't see a definition
[2:15] of what partially exposed means.
[2:18] And I think by reading it that I find
[2:20] the intention that limiting the height
[2:22] to 2.75 m from the basement floor to the
[2:26] main floor
[2:28] is what would be the guiding definition
[2:30] of partially exposed.
[2:32] And I'm just concerned that in Ann Arbor
[2:35] uh if we reduce
[2:38] basement ceiling heights to 8 ft
[2:41] uh with large spans, with the way that
[2:43] houses are designed in Ann Arbor
[2:45] we're going to have people with
[2:47] you know, 7-ft ceiling heights in
[2:48] basements if you need to do large spans
[2:51] with floor trusses like we do so we can
[2:53] run all their ducts and what not through
[2:55] there. And so I
[2:56] I'm just concerned that
[2:59] these changes that are being made are
[3:03] maybe academic more than um real-world
[3:08] examples happening in the village. And
[3:10] so I think some of that just needs to be
[3:12] looked at a little bit more.
[3:14] >> Good. Thank you very much.
[3:16] >> Yeah.
[3:17] >> Any other public comments before I vote?
[3:19] Sorry. We'll get back to our delegation
[3:21] now, Ms. Lena Aziz. Thank you. And thank
[3:24] you for your patience.
[3:25] >> I just think we're just
[3:26] putting out
[3:27] like that
[3:28] you know, our website and a little bit
[3:30] of teaching a little bit about it.
[3:36] Sure.
[3:42] » And please feel Yeah, feel free to
[3:43] change that. Move that. Yeah.
[3:53] » Uh good evening, Mayor Kumpel. My name
[3:55] is Lina Lee. I'm the Watershed Programs
[3:57] Director at Watershed Watch Society, a
[4:00] conservation charity based in Fort
[4:02] Langley,
[4:03] BC. Our work goes where salmon goes and
[4:05] where problems lie.
[4:07] >> Today
[4:08] >> Sorry.
[4:11] » Okay. Is this all right?
[4:13] >> Yes, it's fine.
[4:14] >> All right. Today, I'm speaking as a
[4:15] member of the Lower Fraser Floodplain
[4:17] Coalition. The coalition is a group of
[4:19] organizations, experts, and advocates
[4:22] working toward integrated,
[4:24] fish-friendly, and climate-resilient
[4:26] floodplain management across the Lower
[4:28] Mainland.
[4:29] Our vision is simple.
[4:31] That the people and the non-human
[4:32] relatives of the Lower Mainland are
[4:34] healthy, safe, and resilient to
[4:36] flooding.
[4:39] I'm here with a request that the Village
[4:40] of Anmore join other communities in
[4:42] becoming a signatory to the Regional
[4:44] Joint Statement on Action for Floodplain
[4:46] Resilience in the Lower Mainland.
[4:49] Since uh 2022, we've been convening
[4:52] local governments and First Nation
[4:54] leaders and experts from across the
[4:55] region to build the relationships, the
[4:57] knowledge foundation, and momentum
[4:59] needed to ready our region for flood
[5:01] resilience.
[5:02] Over the seven dialogues we've hosted,
[5:05] themes around coordinated action,
[5:07] regional action, sustained funding
[5:09] sources, and advocacy to the feds and
[5:10] the province keep coming to the surface.
[5:14] Those seven uh meetings are represented
[5:16] by the seven reports we have on the
[5:18] slide there.
[5:21] Uh something else that's emerged from
[5:22] the regional discussion is that it's
[5:24] time for multi-benefit flood management
[5:26] in the Lower Mainland. We are stuck with
[5:28] the approach to flood control
[5:29] infrastructure that was developed rather
[5:31] hastily in 1948-49,
[5:34] and that combined with provincial
[5:35] downloading of flood management to local
[5:37] governments leaves us confined to
[5:39] piecemeal approaches,
[5:40] but it doesn't have to be that way.
[5:42] Across the border in Washington state,
[5:44] there's a program called Floodplains by
[5:46] Design. The state the the state of
[5:48] Washington has invested five $359
[5:50] million
[5:52] in large-scale multi-benefit projects
[5:54] that have reduced flood risk for 88
[5:56] communities, restored over 275 km of
[6:00] salmon habitat,
[6:01] supported local farms and boosted
[6:03] regional economies since 2013.
[6:05] These investments have already saved
[6:07] nearly $2 million in avoided flood
[6:09] damages. Beyond safety and habitat
[6:12] gains, the program is a powerful
[6:13] economic driver. Every million dollars
[6:16] um
[6:17] invested generates 2.2 to 2.5 million in
[6:20] economic local economic activity, with
[6:22] about 80% of that money staying in the
[6:24] community. The program has leveraged has
[6:27] leveraged funding for local from local
[6:29] and federal partners at a 3:2:1 ratio,
[6:31] creating thousands of jobs statewide.
[6:34] We have been um learning from and being
[6:36] mentored through that program over the
[6:37] past few years, and we want to create an
[6:40] investment of that kind for British for
[6:42] the the Lower Mainland.
[6:45] But despite all the goodwill
[6:47] demonstrated in the region and the good
[6:50] ideas that are out there, we have to
[6:52] acknowledge that we are in a crisis
[6:53] situation.
[6:55] Flood risks are escalating. In the Lower
[6:57] Mainland alone, we have lived through
[6:59] major flooding in '21,
[7:01] '24, '25, and a bit also this year in
[7:05] the spring of 2026.
[7:07] Aging infrastructure, development on
[7:09] flood plains, and a changing climate are
[7:11] all converging.
[7:14] >> [snorts]
[7:15] >> Uh I should note, of course, the BC
[7:17] flood strategy does exist. It's been
[7:18] around since 2024, [snorts] but there's
[7:20] zero funding to actually implement that
[7:22] strategy.
[7:24] Flood resilience is not discretionary
[7:25] spending. It is prudent financial
[7:27] management. Every time we kick the can
[7:29] down the road, we are gambling with the
[7:31] lives, the homes, food security,
[7:33] infrastructure, and ecosystems in the
[7:35] Lower Mainland.
[7:36] In fact, a single major flood in the in
[7:39] the region could wipe out over $350
[7:41] billion in economic value.
[7:43] The Close to Home report by the Canadian
[7:45] Climate Institute makes clear that BC
[7:47] will be the province hit hardest by
[7:49] escalating flood and wildfire-related
[7:51] disaster costs. And yet we continue to
[7:53] build in high-risk zones, locking in
[7:55] future losses.
[7:57] Of note, I just want to say there has
[7:59] been no significant federal or
[8:00] provincial investments in flood safety
[8:02] in our region since the Fraser River
[8:04] Flood Control Program ended in 1995.
[8:08] But opportunities do exist.
[8:11] The federal government has a clear
[8:12] interest in a resilient Lower Fraser, as
[8:15] mentioned in recent announcements. It's
[8:17] an opportunity to channel investments
[8:19] that deliver regional solutions that
[8:20] work with nature and the economy.
[8:23] It's worth noting, also, that the $150
[8:25] to $164 million awarded through DMAF to
[8:29] the region
[8:30] has been scattered amongst individual
[8:32] projects, not a coordinated regional
[8:34] program,
[8:35] which has made which unfortunately has
[8:37] not made our region flood resilient.
[8:40] A real investment program means
[8:41] sequencing the right tools in the right
[8:43] order, building local capacity,
[8:46] funding applied funding applied
[8:48] research, creating jobs, and
[8:49] prioritizing the most vulnerable
[8:51] communities first.
[8:54] Which all of that brings me to the joint
[8:56] statement that I'm here about today. The
[8:58] aim is to express a unified regional
[9:00] voice across local governments and First
[9:02] Nations and support advocacy to federal
[9:05] and provincial governments for stable,
[9:07] long-term investment in flood resilience
[9:09] that protects people, communities, and
[9:11] ecosystems from
[9:12] flood risk. And this is not just
[9:14] riverine, we're also talking about
[9:15] overland flooding and things like
[9:17] atmospheric rivers.
[9:19] It is an opportunity for the city as as
[9:21] for the village
[9:22] as leaders to send a clear message to
[9:24] Ottawa and Victoria, letting them know
[9:27] that we are ready to work together as a
[9:28] region to build flood resilience for our
[9:30] communities. We know what we need, and
[9:33] federal and provincial governments must
[9:34] step up to protect this region of
[9:36] national significance with a program
[9:38] that reflects the magnitude of the task
[9:40] at hand.
[9:42] To that end, we are calling
[9:44] the joint statement calls for a
[9:45] dedicated long-term flood resilience
[9:47] program for the region, stable committed
[9:49] funding, not project by project funding,
[9:52] regional coordination, investment in
[9:55] critical infrastructure, and the full
[9:57] flood risk reduction toolbox, including
[9:59] nature-based solutions, and capacity
[10:02] support for First Nations and local
[10:04] government leadership
[10:05] to move this work forward.
[10:08] So, on May 29th, the Metro Vancouver
[10:11] Regional District's board endorsed this
[10:13] joint statement, and since then we have
[10:15] been doing delegations to two
[10:17] municipalities across the region. So
[10:19] far, we have got endorsement from Metro
[10:22] Vancouver and the SLRD, the
[10:23] Squamish-Lillooet Regional District. We
[10:25] are
[10:27] seeking endorsement from the FVRD later
[10:29] this month. City-wise, Port Coquitlam,
[10:33] the City of Coquitlam, City of Delta,
[10:35] Township of Langley, and the City of
[10:36] Langley have all signed on. We're in
[10:38] process with the City of Vancouver,
[10:40] Maple Ridge, and City of Surrey as we
[10:43] speak. And we have um
[10:45] more coming up
[10:47] after the after the August break.
[10:51] So,
[10:52] to summarize then,
[10:55] I should turn my sheet over.
[10:57] Essentially, this the statement is
[11:00] calling on the provincial and federal
[11:01] governments to recognize that
[11:02] collaboration, not competition for
[11:04] piecemeal funding, is the foundation of
[11:06] for resilience in the Lower Fraser, and
[11:08] that enabling First Nations and local
[11:10] governments to work together to meet
[11:11] responsibilities to their communities
[11:14] that flow from rights, titles, and
[11:16] jurisdiction is part of that foundation.
[11:19] And we're calling on the federal and
[11:21] provincial governments to develop a
[11:22] sustained long-term investment program
[11:25] for the Lower Fraser adequate to support
[11:27] collaborative work across for federal,
[11:29] provincial, and local governments, First
[11:32] Nations, and the private sector to
[11:34] achieve regional flood plain resilience
[11:36] that works with nature, not against it.
[11:38] This work is bigger than one community,
[11:40] and we're hence we're um trying to bring
[11:43] everyone together so we can work
[11:44] together.
[11:46] Thank you.
[11:48] » Good. Thank you. Um
[11:50] with my role on Metro Vancouver, we we
[11:52] did endorse this, and we've really had a
[11:53] challenge because there is
[11:55] the provincial government and federal
[11:56] governments are not putting any funding
[11:58] towards this very significant issue that
[12:01] is facing uh a lot of our
[12:03] municipalities. I especially feel for
[12:05] like a municipality like Pitt Meadows of
[12:08] very small size just doesn't have the
[12:10] funding to be able to do this, and no
[12:11] money coming from the province or the
[12:12] federal governments to be able to to do
[12:14] a lot of these things. And I know it at
[12:16] Metro Vancouver, we also had the the
[12:18] Fraser Valley
[12:19] uh flood plains task force that we have
[12:21] there, and we we are have a real
[12:22] challenge with it as well to maintain
[12:24] funding for that. So, anyway, I really
[12:26] support uh
[12:28] your what you're what you're doing and
[12:29] getting and us all advocating for the
[12:31] same thing and and helping out. We but
[12:34] it also I think includes dredging as
[12:35] well because a lot of the uh areas of
[12:37] the lower Fraser need to be dredged
[12:39] because they're now the siltation that's
[12:41] come down over the years, and and the
[12:42] federal government, which is their
[12:44] responsibility, is not participating in
[12:45] that at all. So, I'll just open up if
[12:47] anybody has any other further questions,
[12:49] but just wanted to thank you again for
[12:51] coming and for your presentation and the
[12:52] work that you're doing.
[12:54] Any other comments?
[12:57] Councilor Richardson.
[12:58] >> So, I I went to your website to try and
[13:01] understand. Like, I understand it's a
[13:04] group of people coming together to try
[13:06] and raise awareness,
[13:08] but I didn't read any
[13:10] examples. This is what we'd like to do.
[13:12] And in your presentation, you even said,
[13:15] "We're building on flood plains and
[13:16] putting people at risk."
[13:18] Where? How many? Which municipalities?
[13:22] Cuz it seems to me
[13:23] it would be the responsibility of the
[13:25] municipalities not to do that, not the
[13:28] provincial government or the federal
[13:29] government
[13:30] to restrict municipalities from where
[13:32] they want to build. So, I was a bit
[13:34] confused
[13:36] sort of how it would work, where the
[13:38] money would go, and what it would do.
[13:40] >> Yeah. Um actually right now, I think
[13:43] it's bill 44, provincial bill 44, where
[13:47] um the province is kind of directing
[13:50] local governments in one way to build in
[13:52] order to densify communities, which um
[13:55] in some communities are they're
[13:57] considering more development and more
[13:59] denser development in the flood plains.
[14:02] Burnaby is one.
[14:03] PoCo is another.
[14:05] Um
[14:06] so, that's kind of
[14:08] what I mean by we're building more in
[14:09] the flood plain, and perhaps not to
[14:11] certain flood standards that um
[14:14] have to be updated still, especially for
[14:16] the local communities having to update
[14:18] their flood standards. The The second
[14:21] part of What was the What was the second
[14:22] part of the question?
[14:24] >> I was kind of looking for a specific
[14:26] examples of where the money would go,
[14:28] what it would do. Like
[14:31] are they looking to have the federal
[14:32] government come in, and your numbers
[14:34] were huge, raise all dikes on the Fraser
[14:37] Valley,
[14:38] you know, 5 ft?
[14:40] Like I I was a bit
[14:42] confused like even work with nature.
[14:43] Like if you work with nature, the river
[14:45] just flows.
[14:46] So, our point actually is in some ways
[14:49] is to not work with nature.
[14:51] We want to control it and force it into
[14:53] particular channels and paths.
[14:55] >> So, that's what's happened before, Ian.
[14:56] >> So,
[14:58] I I didn't quite understand what the
[15:00] overall goal is.
[15:02] >> Yeah, well,
[15:03] there are many different steps before we
[15:05] actually start breaking ground and, you
[15:06] know, doing any of the flood resilience
[15:07] projects we'd like to see happen. Um
[15:10] right now, we have funding from NRCan,
[15:14] Natural Resources Canada, to do research
[15:16] on critical infrastructure. So, we're
[15:18] starting to identify where are the
[15:21] critical infra-
[15:22] infrastructure at the moment? So,
[15:24] railways, roads, focusing on those,
[15:27] their their their flood risk weaknesses.
[15:31] So, that work current studies currently
[15:32] being conducted through UBC School of
[15:34] Engineering.
[15:36] And we would love to have more
[15:38] communities on board and participating
[15:40] in that study so that their critical
[15:42] infrastructure in the communities are
[15:43] getting
[15:45] studied and addressed.
[15:46] So, that's one thing that's happening.
[15:48] More There is more
[15:50] need
[15:55] There is further need for actually doing
[15:57] more applied research cuz we actually
[15:59] don't know
[16:01] where all of the high-risk flood areas
[16:03] are in the Lower Mainland.
[16:05] It shifts. Right now, everyone's
[16:07] focusing on the Sumas Prairie for
[16:09] obviously good reasons. But, this past
[16:12] March, we had a slide at the top end of
[16:14] the Coquitlam River. Well, that's an
[16:16] area perhaps of high risk as well. So,
[16:18] there are so many different areas of
[16:20] high risk within our communities that we
[16:21] haven't fully identified yet. So, that
[16:24] has to be done.
[16:25] We talk about using the flood risk toolkit, and that is
[16:30] everything from gray infrastructure like
[16:33] dikes, pump stations,
[16:35] you know, channeling things, all the way
[16:38] to green gray solutions like greener
[16:41] dikes,
[16:42] using berms for example, or creating
[16:45] constructed wetlands. So, those are more
[16:46] nature-based solutions, constructed
[16:48] wetlands to hold more water and allow it
[16:50] to flow more slowly because as we are
[16:52] developing and have developed in our
[16:55] floodplains and our slopes, we have
[16:57] taken away the capacity of forests and
[17:00] wetlands to do what they need to do. We
[17:02] have lost 80
[17:05] 82%
[17:07] or so of the wetlands in the Lower
[17:08] Mainland. So, therefore, we've lost the
[17:11] to capacity of to hold water in the
[17:13] region.
[17:14] >> So.
[17:15] >> yes.
[17:15] >> Yeah, I just wanted to kind of wrap this
[17:17] up. Basically, in essence, you're an
[17:19] advocacy group for all the
[17:21] municipalities and different um
[17:24] uh bands up along the the Fraser River,
[17:26] which which is something that you're
[17:28] looking to coordinate a
[17:31] kind of a central
[17:33] um request to both levels of government
[17:34] and work as a as a as a as a unit rather
[17:37] than what happens right now, which is a
[17:39] lot of municipalities, i.e. the
[17:40] Richmonds and that have their own flood
[17:41] plans, but they're not in conjunction
[17:43] with other neighboring municipalities
[17:45] like Delta and such like that. So,
[17:47] really, I think the the essence of of
[17:49] the ask is just to uh sign on with the
[17:52] other municipalities as to this regional
[17:54] body
[17:55] kind of speaking for all of us and
[17:57] getting the required funding that we
[17:58] need to get from the senior levels of
[18:00] government. Is that
[18:02] >> Yeah. Yeah, we do advocacy. We also do
[18:04] convening. We bring local governments
[18:06] and First Nation leadership together. We
[18:08] do this at the regional scale, so Hope
[18:10] to the Salish Sea up to, you know, the
[18:11] Squamish Lil'wat Regional District. Um
[18:14] but we also do this subregionally at
[18:15] smaller groups, so we can we can talk
[18:17] about things at different levels based
[18:18] on what's needed. So, we do we do the
[18:22] advocacy. We do the convening, bringing
[18:24] together people, and we're creating a
[18:25] knowledge hub. We're creating the shared
[18:27] knowledge uh space for communities to
[18:30] access. So, we are not we are not the
[18:33] ones who would
[18:36] In essence, we should not be the ones as
[18:38] uh we're not leadership, right? We're
[18:40] kind of behind the scenes, but we want
[18:42] to support and encourage leadership to
[18:44] have have um
[18:46] uh the words and the knowledge to then
[18:48] go forward and speak to the province and
[18:50] the feds and bring this investment to
[18:52] the region.
[18:53] >> Thank you.
[18:54] Is this something you have a resolution
[18:55] for us or something we can
[18:57] move to endorse?
[18:59] >> Perhaps if council desires um
[19:03] uh a resolution can be um that the uh
[19:06] council uh supports the request uh of
[19:09] the delegation. Something as simple as
[19:11] that, perhaps.
[19:12] >> Would that be Would the Village of
[19:13] Anmore Council support the
[19:17] movement of the I forget what exactly
[19:20] the name is.
[19:20] >> statement.
[19:21] >> The the Lower Mainland Lower Fraser
[19:23] Flood Land Coalition.
[19:25] >> Um yeah, yeah. The exact name of the
[19:27] statement is I believe you have it as
[19:29] well. Yeah, and if you wanted to see the
[19:32] wording, it is on my slide deck as well.
[19:34] >> We can We'll word smith. So, I'll call
[19:35] the question and
[19:37] Do I have someone to move that
[19:38] resolution?
[19:40] To endorse the flood lands. Okay,
[19:42] Counselor Krygier.
[19:44] >> So, are we requesting to send a letter
[19:46] of support or
[19:49] >> I did
[19:50] >> I Is it a
[19:51] >> What is the actual action? That's what
[19:53] I'm a little confused about.
[19:54] >> we've been what we've been receiving
[19:55] from other local governments is a very
[19:58] brief letter showing reflecting support
[20:01] for the joint statement, as well as a
[20:03] logo that we can then put up on our
[20:05] presentation and on our website.
[20:07] So, that's that's the basic ask.
[20:08] >> Okay.
[20:09] >> And then, of course, as we're moving
[20:10] forward, if there's interest in being
[20:11] part of our convenings and being part of
[20:14] any advocacy that does happen at the at
[20:16] the high upper levels of government,
[20:18] being invited to participate in that as
[20:20] well.
[20:21] >> Okay.
[20:23] So, could I get someone Does somebody
[20:25] want to move that motion to submit a
[20:26] letter? Moved.
[20:28] Anybody want to second? I see Paul's
[20:30] going to second it.
[20:31] Okay, any further discussion?
[20:34] Councilor Richardson.
[20:36] >> Yes, I kind of mentioned earlier, like I couldn't really understand who you
[20:40] were, how you were funded. You said you
[20:42] were a non-profit.
[20:43] And I I
[20:45] didn't quite understand your role.
[20:47] And in order to send a letter saying I
[20:50] support you, I kind of have to know
[20:52] more.
[20:53] >> Okay.
[20:53] >> So, I I can try and find out offline,
[20:57] but I couldn't find it before. So, maybe
[20:59] we can have a conversation or something.
[21:01] >> I'm happy to chat. But, very quickly, we
[21:03] are really just like a a of different
[21:05] organizations who are who think the
[21:07] region needs to be organized in a in a
[21:10] better way. We don't have a regional
[21:11] flood plan.
[21:12] Um and we're at risk because of that on
[21:14] many different levels. Environmentally,
[21:16] but also economically, our community is
[21:18] at risk. So, for all of those reasons, a
[21:20] number of organizations came together.
[21:21] If you go to our website, you will see
[21:23] who we are on there. We're uh like
[21:26] researchers, engineers, uh environmental
[21:29] organizations, um
[21:31] a legal like West Coast Environmental
[21:32] Law Society, they provide legal legal
[21:34] advice. Um
[21:36] uh Farm We also have uh Farmland
[21:38] Advantage, so we have like a
[21:39] agricultural um
[21:41] part
[21:43] members part of our coalition.
[21:45] So, we
[21:46] >> question from Councillor Craig. Are you
[21:49] a registered Well, you're not a charity,
[21:51] but are you a an organization, a
[21:53] society?
[21:54] >> coalition. So, a coalition of different
[21:57] organizations who are like Watershed
[21:59] Watch, who I work for, is a registered
[22:01] charity.
[22:02] Um the the First Nations led emergency
[22:05] planning uh secretariat is um is a What
[22:10] are they? They're a nonprofit, they're
[22:11] not a registered charity, but they're
[22:12] First Nations led and our work is very
[22:15] much based in and supported by what they
[22:17] do. So, all of the different um
[22:19] organizations that are part that are in
[22:21] the coalition, um we we are like we have
[22:24] our own charters and mandates and all of
[22:26] that, but we come together for this
[22:28] cause
[22:29] and try
[22:30] to bring the region together.
[22:31] >> Okay.
[22:34] >> I think that's the coalition.
[22:36] >> So, you don't have a
[22:37] Do you have a budget? Do you have Is
[22:39] everyone paid by their organization that
[22:41] represents? Sorry for these questions,
[22:43] but
[22:44] >> no, totally, it's fine. Um
[22:46] So, yeah, so we I can speak for myself.
[22:49] I do have a budget that pays for my time
[22:51] that I apply for grants. Um like to
[22:54] foundations, and that's at Watershed
[22:57] Watch Salmon Society, but the coalition
[22:59] to help with some of our studies I
[23:00] mentioned ENR We have $1.8 million from
[23:04] NRCan. We recently were awarded some
[23:07] money through the through the Ministry
[23:09] of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship
[23:11] as well as the Ministry of Agriculture
[23:13] because they want us to continue our
[23:15] engagement with between farmers and
[23:17] First Nations in the Valley. So, that's
[23:18] some other work that we're doing. Um so,
[23:21] you know,
[23:22] little pots of money here and there to
[23:24] help
[23:25] us do our work.
[23:25] >> Thank you.
[23:27] Okay, I'll call the question. All those
[23:29] it's been moved and seconded. All those
[23:30] in favor?
[23:31] Opposed? I don't even see Oh,
[23:35] uh motion's carried. Thank you. Thank
[23:37] you very much for coming out and
[23:38] presenting.
[23:41] Okay, uh we have the minutes of the
[23:43] regular council meeting held on July
[23:45] 7th, 2026. Recommendation that those uh
[23:49] minutes be adopted as circulated. Could
[23:51] I get someone to move that? Move,
[23:52] second. Any discussion on those minutes?
[23:56] See none. All those in favor?
[23:58] Opposed?
[24:00] Carried. Any business arising from the
[24:02] minutes?
[24:04] No? Okay. We have a consent agenda. Um
[24:09] we only have one item on the consent
[24:10] agenda, the Orphan Dyke advocacy letter
[24:12] to the province.
[24:17] Uh
[24:19] Who uh who should I go to about
[24:21] explaining this?
[24:23] Ms. Elder?
[24:24] >> I It is just for a receipt.
[24:26] >> Oh, it's just for a receipt. Okay.
[24:28] Someone to to move receipt.
[24:32] Move, second. Any discussion?
[24:36] See none. All those in favor?
[24:39] Opposed? Carried. I didn't ask you.
[24:41] Okay. We're on to uh
[24:43] legislative reports 9A OCP bylaw
[24:45] amendment 722-2025
[24:48] infield development first and second
[24:50] reading report dated July 17th, 2026
[24:52] from Manager of Development Services
[24:54] attached.
[24:55] Mr. Joseph.
[24:56] >> Uh excuse me before we begin, I will
[24:59] recuse myself.
[25:00] >> Okay.
[25:00] >> We'll be We'll be doing infill,
[25:02] hopefully, in the future.
[25:06] >> Okay. Mr. Joseph.
[25:22] » Okay, thank you, Mayor and Council. If
[25:24] you can put the mic a little closer.
[25:26] So, this report is to present updated
[25:28] draft of the official community plan
[25:29] amendment bylaw number 722-2025,
[25:32] which proposes updates to OCP policy RLU
[25:34] 16, along with corresponding amendments
[25:36] to the infill policy number 61 for
[25:38] Council's consideration of first and
[25:40] second reading, and to seek direction on
[25:41] referring this amendment to external
[25:43] agencies as required under section 475
[25:45] and 476 of the Local Government Act.
[25:47] So, back at the May 20th, uh, 2025
[25:49] meeting, Council directed staff to
[25:51] propose amendments to OCP policy RLU 16.
[25:54] Staff returned in September 2026 with
[25:56] proposed amendments, and Council passed
[25:57] a resolution directing staff to prepare
[25:59] changes to both the infill policy, as
[26:02] well, uh, RLU 16 and the infill policy.
[26:05] At the May 19th meeting, Council
[26:06] directed that the amendments be deferred
[26:08] as it was identified that the proposed
[26:09] new minimum lot size provision for
[26:11] double fronting parcels would permit a
[26:13] density greater than that what was
[26:14] allowed under the most recent OCP
[26:16] updates.
[26:17] So, staff have further revised the draft
[26:19] amendment bylaw and infill policy number
[26:21] 61 for Council consideration based on
[26:23] this feedback, and have since removed
[26:24] the density specific provision for
[26:26] double fronting parcels altogether.
[26:28] The previous inclusion for parcels
[26:29] between 2800 and 3924 square meters to
[26:32] be eligible for infill, where the parcel
[26:35] double fronts onto two separate public
[26:36] highways, would have equated to a
[26:38] density of a of around 8.67 units per
[26:41] acre, which exceeds the OCP, uh, policy
[26:44] RLU 17 associated with recent OCP
[26:46] amendments that have been established
[26:48] that has established a maximum density
[26:50] of six units per acre for infill lots.
[26:53] Uh so, the standard minimum lot size
[26:55] range of roughly 1 to 2 acres uh
[26:58] and the current maximum density of 2.04
[26:59] parcels per acre per acre will continue
[27:02] to be to apply to all infill parcels,
[27:04] including those for double frontage. So,
[27:06] staff recommend that any further review
[27:07] of infill density uh be considered as
[27:09] part of a future OCP update.
[27:12] The amendment also proposes to remove
[27:13] number three of RLU 16 for the
[27:16] requirement that the entire parcel have
[27:18] an average slope of 20% or less. While
[27:20] keeping a number four of the policy for
[27:22] the requirement that the building site
[27:23] have an average grade of 20% or less.
[27:26] This gives more flexibility for lots
[27:27] with varied topography while maintaining
[27:29] control of the siting that keeps
[27:30] development uh off steep slopes. It's
[27:33] also worth noting that the steep slopes
[27:34] development permit area adopted through
[27:36] the recent OCP amendments still applies
[27:38] to lots with an overall average grade of
[27:40] 20% and will require a development
[27:42] permit and geotechnical assessments
[27:43] where needed.
[27:45] The amendment also provides additional
[27:46] flexibility on frontage requirements
[27:48] described in RLU 16 number six. So,
[27:50] panhandle lots and lots using an access
[27:52] easement are treated as comparable
[27:53] scenarios, both requiring similar
[27:55] standards for emergency access.
[27:58] The previous draft amendment had a 50-m
[27:59] frontage requirement for panhandle lots
[28:02] and this has since been revised down to
[28:03] 25 m matching what's proposed for the
[28:05] lots utilizing an access easement
[28:07] alternative.
[28:12] In regards to updates to infill policy
[28:14] number 61 section two requires that the access
[28:20] strip of a panhandle not be included in
[28:22] the calculation of the minimum lot size.
[28:25] Section four of the policy exempts
[28:26] panhandle lots and lots utilizing access
[28:28] easements uh from a 25-m frontage
[28:30] requirement, but but requires that the
[28:33] parcel width and depth be at least 25 m
[28:35] in length to maintain green space
[28:36] between homes as illustrated in figure
[28:39] three and four of the policy as attached
[28:41] to the report, matching the intent of
[28:42] the 25-m uh road frontage requirement.
[28:45] Staff have also consulted with the
[28:47] assessment Volunteer Fire Department on
[28:48] emergency access requirements for these
[28:50] lot configurations, which have informed
[28:52] section 5 of the info policy number 61,
[28:54] which requires panhandle lots and lots
[28:56] using an access easement to meet a set
[28:58] of criteria that will be enforced uh
[29:00] through covenants on title.
[29:02] These include a minimum of seven 7.5 m
[29:04] access strip for panhandle lots, a
[29:06] minimum 6 m wide paved access for
[29:08] panhandle lots and access alternatives, use existing
[29:12] driveways where feasible, maximum of 12%
[29:15] driveway grades or access grades,
[29:17] uh adequate overhead clearance for fire
[29:19] apparatus where an arborist report and
[29:20] tree management plan may be required at
[29:22] rezoning,
[29:23] clear and visible address signage from
[29:24] the highway, safe and accessible
[29:26] emergency entry at all times, and only
[29:28] one parcel that may be created uh
[29:30] utilizing an access by easement.
[29:33] So, a council approval of a waiver
[29:34] permitting subdivision where the
[29:36] frontage is less than 10% of the parcel
[29:37] perimeter uh will be required uh when
[29:40] warranted for these lots. And also
[29:42] referral to the fire chief may occur at
[29:44] any stage in the info process.
[29:46] Finally, amendments to section 8 of the
[29:47] policy proposes to update the list of
[29:49] desirable community amenities since the
[29:51] community hub is now complete and
[29:52] upgrades to the Spirit Park are
[29:53] underway, staff have replaced the
[29:55] municipal hall with park enhancements
[29:57] and park acquisition as an active CAC
[29:59] priority.
[30:00] Staff has not proposed a change to the
[30:02] actual CAC target value at this time,
[30:04] though council may direct staff to
[30:05] commission a new land lift study or
[30:07] adjust in the current figure based on
[30:08] CPI indexing as recommended by the
[30:11] previous report, uh which would bring it
[30:12] to approximately $189,633.
[30:17] So, if council wants to pursue this uh
[30:18] either um
[30:20] two options, uh direction can be given
[30:22] tonight along with uh the other
[30:23] recommendations.
[30:27] Local Government Act requires a
[30:28] consultation with potentially affected
[30:30] agencies before public hearing, so staff
[30:32] recommend referral to the Miss Palaces
[30:33] Belcarra, Port Moody, School District
[30:35] number 43, and the Musqueam, Squamish,
[30:38] Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem First
[30:39] Nations with all responses brought back
[30:42] to council as part of a public hearing
[30:43] package.
[30:44] Would you like me to read the
[30:46] recommendation?
[30:47] >> Sure.
[30:49] >> So the recommendation is that Village of
[30:50] Bel Air Official Community Plan Bylaw
[30:51] Amendment number 722-2025
[30:54] be given first and second reading and
[30:56] that Bel Air Official Community Plan
[30:57] Amendment Bylaw number 722-2025
[31:00] be referred to the following committees
[31:01] as it relates to the mandate of each
[31:02] committee.
[31:04] And that in relation to Village of Bel
[31:05] Air Official Community Plan Amendment
[31:06] Bylaw number 722-2025
[31:09] amendments associated with the proposed
[31:10] updates to policy RLU 16 and full
[31:12] development council will provide the
[31:14] following additional opportunities it
[31:15] considers appropriate for consultation
[31:17] with persons, organizations, or
[31:18] authorities it considers
[31:20] will be affected including the
[31:22] municipalities of Village of Bel Air and
[31:23] the City of Port Moody, School District
[31:25] number 43, and the Musqueam, Squamish,
[31:27] Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem First
[31:28] Nations. And that all information
[31:30] resulting from the Section 475 and 476
[31:32] referral
[31:34] and received by the Village will be
[31:35] brought forward to a council as part of
[31:36] a public hearing package and that a
[31:38] public hearing be scheduled following
[31:39] the referral process. Thank you.
[31:42] >> Good. Can I get someone to move that?
[31:45] Move seconded. Seconded. I'll open up
[31:47] for discussion.
[31:49] Councilor Richardson.
[31:53] Okay. So,
[31:55] when I
[31:56] read through this,
[31:58] we just did an OCP amendment. We're now
[32:01] doing another one and I'm
[32:03] worried we're bumping into an election
[32:05] and maybe it's not the right thing to
[32:07] do. So, if you just kind of
[32:09] qualify times. If this is passed, when
[32:12] would the public hearing be?
[32:15] » I think the next council meeting is in
[32:18] September.
[32:19] I think in the 20-something, 22nd.
[32:22] Should be a sufficient time for a
[32:24] referral process to take place as well
[32:26] as to schedule a public hearing. So,
[32:27] that would be probably when the public
[32:28] hearing would take place.
[32:30] >> Okay. And then after that, it would be
[32:31] third reading.
[32:32] >> At the same meeting, potentially the
[32:34] >> But then you have to do a fourth
[32:35] reading.
[32:36] >> Correct. October.
[32:37] >> Which would
[32:38] >> Or
[32:40] Oh, third and adopt because of it's OCP.
[32:42] So, you could potentially do the
[32:43] adoption at
[32:45] third reading as well. So, September
[32:47] meeting.
[32:48] >> Third and fourth.
[32:50] Okay, cuz it's banging into the election
[32:52] and I'm
[32:55] for some reason it it's I'm a bit leery
[32:57] on it. With that said,
[32:58] um
[32:59] I'm good with like the pan handles. I'm
[33:01] good on the 20%, you know, for the
[33:03] building area only.
[33:05] Um
[33:07] good on the size of the double roaded
[33:09] lots.
[33:10] I'm I'm struggling with the manifestations and maneuvering to
[33:17] allow the you know, 0.89 or the 8.9
[33:21] versus the six in the OCP.
[33:23] And I was wondering if that cannot be
[33:25] done or held done better in zoning.
[33:28] So, like right now we say all lots 1/3
[33:31] of an acre can have a carriage house a
[33:33] suite and a building.
[33:35] But we could change that if you're a
[33:37] double side infill, you don't get that.
[33:40] And then it cleans it up a little bit
[33:43] and this becomes more about enabling and
[33:46] less about massaging the OCP. And I
[33:49] don't know if that's possible or not,
[33:52] but my I'm leaning more that direction.
[33:56] >> Yeah, so to the chair, I think that
[33:57] you're running up against one other
[33:59] issue and that's the 2.0
[34:01] uh for uh
[34:02] lots per acre. Um so, that I guess for
[34:05] the double frontage purposes, you could
[34:06] have two lots uh sort of uh there, but
[34:10] we've since removed that um
[34:12] sort of uh section for the RLU 16 policy
[34:16] under previous direction um
[34:18] because it it just exceeds the dense the
[34:20] current density of the OCP. So, you
[34:23] could potentially include it an
[34:25] additional zoning bylaw or a zone for
[34:28] the specific lots
[34:30] where you wouldn't allow for um let's
[34:32] say all all three of the units per lot.
[34:35] So then maybe if it's two, then you
[34:36] would still be in line with the OCP that
[34:39] was currently passed.
[34:40] >> Cuz that's my concern. How much of this
[34:42] is to enable
[34:45] uh more flexible infill
[34:47] and how much of this is to change the
[34:50] current OCP to allow the potential exit
[34:53] extra density on like a 0.8 acre lot
[34:56] that's divided into with three units on
[34:58] each side?
[34:59] >> Yeah, so through the chair, for tonight,
[35:01] the current bylaw that's in front of you
[35:03] for consideration does not consider
[35:04] additional density at all. That's since
[35:07] been striked out since the last meeting.
[35:09] So the double frontage lot is not under
[35:11] consideration at this time.
[35:13] >> Okay.
[35:15] So then I'm
[35:16] confused.
[35:18] Cuz I read a whole bunch of this stuff
[35:19] is about
[35:20] adjusting the 0.6 the six units per acre
[35:25] density in the OCP to allow something
[35:28] more. Am I Did I misread that?
[35:30] >> Yeah, no, through the chair, this was it
[35:31] was just a clarification segment. Yeah.
[35:34] >> Okay, and then my last question is it an issue at all? Like say we boot
[35:39] it down the path to the next council,
[35:42] are there like 10 people lined up that
[35:44] say, "I want this today?" Do we have
[35:46] anybody or can it be left until like
[35:50] we're going to redo the OCP in the next
[35:52] term is my understanding. So can it be
[35:55] wait till then?
[35:56] >> Yeah, I mean, we have had active
[35:58] interest numerous active interest in in
[36:00] sort of these type of configurations.
[36:03] Uh we do have one active application in
[36:05] regards to 20% average slope. However,
[36:09] you know, those considerations uh
[36:12] they also have to conform to the active
[36:13] policy and of course the option to defer
[36:16] it to it all OCP update is is always a
[36:19] possibility.
[36:21] >> Okay.
[36:24] Couple of uh questions I have for you.
[36:26] Um
[36:28] you know, uh
[36:30] again, when I struck the task force back
[36:32] in 2018, I've done infill. That's why
[36:34] I've no longer recused myself. I'm
[36:36] beyond that. Um
[36:38] you know, infill was to provide gentle
[36:40] densification,
[36:42] no new infrastructure,
[36:44] not on a steep slope, and it was to
[36:46] retain the semi
[36:48] semi-rural feel of the village. Very, specific. And I think um
[36:53] the uh
[36:55] councillors uh
[36:56] Webber and uh
[36:58] and Trolbridge actually did a really
[36:59] good job was they set up a group and and
[37:01] met several times and and discussed
[37:02] this. I've had a couple people who
[37:05] couldn't be here tonight, but are pretty
[37:07] concerned about these new changes, and
[37:09] the one being the panhandle.
[37:11] They said, "Are you aware that most of
[37:13] the panhandles are strata roads? And so,
[37:15] what you're doing is you're literally
[37:17] putting a neighbor against other
[37:18] neighbors on the strata road to allow
[37:19] them access to that to that panhandle."
[37:23] Number two is will this also allow lots
[37:26] that are very deep allow them to put a
[37:28] panhandle in to be able to to develop
[37:31] the rear of the property, which again is
[37:32] going to take away from the semi-rural
[37:34] feel that the initial infill was was
[37:37] proposed to do. So, I am not in favor of
[37:40] this at all because I think it opens up
[37:42] Pandora's Box and to creativity that
[37:44] could be had with people putting
[37:46] panhandles. And then I know I think it
[37:48] was in the mid mid-2015, 2016, um we
[37:52] actually had a moratorium about adding
[37:54] panhandles, and I think this will
[37:55] actually add panhandles. So, I do have
[37:58] some concern people are not pleased
[38:00] about this about the about the ability
[38:02] of using panhandles to facilitate their
[38:05] frontage, um
[38:07] because they're using a panhandle to
[38:08] access their property right now, and
[38:10] they're strata, and so there's a big
[38:12] legal concern about that that I don't
[38:13] know has been taken into consideration
[38:15] in this aspect. And then
[38:17] >> Oh, sorry. Go on.
[38:18] >> Yeah, and then furthermore, you know,
[38:20] they when we when we did the initial, we
[38:23] I think there was a lot of parameters
[38:24] that were established out of IE the
[38:27] Ravenswood neighborhood with the 25 m
[38:29] and that and again this get we're
[38:31] starting to get away from that. The the
[38:33] slope aspect I think is
[38:35] you know, I've certainly I have no issue
[38:37] from going a little bit higher to a
[38:40] higher percentage on the on the on the
[38:42] grade if it if it's not going to add any
[38:43] extra and it meets the driveway
[38:45] requirements regarding regarding grade
[38:47] and stuff like that but the the
[38:49] panhandle I I I don't think should be
[38:52] an option used in infill at all. So.
[38:57] Go ahead.
[38:58] >> Yeah, so I just want to address a couple
[38:59] of things. So the panhandle I was for
[39:01] the panhandles would would essentially
[39:04] just be that property's driveway. So
[39:07] there's no strata cuz there's no sharing
[39:08] on a it's just for that specific real
[39:11] estate entity
[39:13] using that panhandle as part of one
[39:15] singular parcel just like any other
[39:16] parcel would use a their their driveway.
[39:19] >> The concern when I read this and the
[39:20] concern that people brought up to my
[39:21] attention is where there's a panhandle
[39:24] that is shared by two or three homes
[39:28] those that is a strata road and it's
[39:30] owned by each one of the owners.
[39:33] And therefore that you're putting owner
[39:34] against owner to be able to allow him to
[39:37] add another title to that another access
[39:38] point to that where it's only to
[39:40] facilitate currently the three homes or
[39:42] two homes or whatever it is right now.
[39:44] So there was some big concerns about
[39:46] that.
[39:47] >> Yeah, so I know there is an option to
[39:48] have sort of a shared interest and and
[39:50] sometimes an access easement that's a
[39:52] specific sort of
[39:55] I would say access alternative that
[39:56] could be sought through a subdivision.
[39:58] However, as it's proposed it's just for
[40:01] the singular access for the current
[40:02] parcel under the application.
[40:04] >> So people could then create their own
[40:06] panhandle if they had their own property
[40:08] to be able to access the rear of the
[40:09] property.
[40:10] >> Yeah, I mean like I guess easements
[40:12] between property owners can can be
[40:13] established at any rate.
[40:15] >> Yeah, okay. I saw a Webberink had his
[40:18] hand up.
[40:20] Go ahead.
[40:21] >> Thank you, Mayor McKeown.
[40:23] I have to agree with Mayor McKeown and
[40:26] Councillor Richardson. I think this is
[40:28] all a little too close to the election.
[40:31] This could all get turned around after
[40:32] the election.
[40:34] So,
[40:35] I would I would not be in favor of
[40:37] moving forward with this at the time.
[40:41] >> Okay. Did I see Councillor Trobridge Did
[40:42] you have your hand up or you just
[40:43] adjusting your
[40:45] Go ahead.
[40:47] >> No, sorry.
[40:49] It was my hand up. I I'm of the same
[40:51] mind. I mean,
[40:53] I like everything uh
[40:55] I'm comfortable with everything, I
[40:57] should say, in terms of the slope
[41:00] applying to just the building envelope,
[41:02] things like that make a lot of sense.
[41:05] But, if it's all packaged together with
[41:07] panhandles, etc., I prefer to defer it.
[41:12] >> Good.
[41:13] Okay, so we have a motion on the table
[41:15] that's moved and seconded. So, to defer it would then simply be to
[41:20] wait to be voted against it. So, all
[41:22] those in favor of
[41:24] Oh, sorry, Councillor Richardson, do you
[41:25] have one more comment?
[41:27] >> Yes, one comment and one suggestion.
[41:31] So,
[41:33] my read of this is existing panhandle
[41:37] lots are not considered in this. Is that
[41:39] true?
[41:41] Like, if you have a lot that's narrower
[41:43] than 20 50 m,
[41:46] you could potentially
[41:48] put something behind your thing and
[41:50] create an access that would look like a
[41:51] panhandle, but current panhandle lots,
[41:55] like the rear part of a
[41:56] any lot that has a panhandle currently,
[41:58] this does not apply to. Correct?
[42:00] >> Yeah, so as the bylaw is currently
[42:02] worded, 50-m frontage is a requirement
[42:05] to be eligible for infill. Okay. So,
[42:06] that unless the panhandle is 50 m wide,
[42:09] which I doubt.
[42:10] >> Okay, fair enough. So, then
[42:12] you know, I would make the amendment
[42:15] that
[42:16] uh be given first second reading and
[42:18] then Ambleside be referred to the
[42:20] following No, not committees.
[42:22] That it be amended so that the only
[42:25] thing considered is that 20% on building
[42:28] area.
[42:29] And then all the other stuff gets passed
[42:32] down the pipe.
[42:34] Because the my understanding in talking
[42:36] with one person that has the 20% issue,
[42:39] like 20.05 or something. That the lot's
[42:42] a bit of a V
[42:44] and they're not planning to build on the
[42:45] V, which is a creek. But that, if you
[42:48] add up the slope, the absolute value,
[42:49] makes a very steep lot, even though the
[42:51] lot's not that steep. So, you know,
[42:54] mathematically how it goes. So, I don't
[42:56] know if we can
[42:57] do that and just limit it to the one
[43:00] thing.
[43:03] >> So, so right now we have a motion on the
[43:04] table that encompasses all everything.
[43:07] We could do an amendment which would
[43:09] take it down to But we'd have to vote
[43:11] those other ones down.
[43:11] >> Okay, fair enough.
[43:12] >> So, I think it's best that we just
[43:13] simply vote it down currently. Or if
[43:16] that's the if that's what the appetite
[43:18] of council is, and then we could come
[43:19] back with another one which is just and
[43:21] describe a little bit more cuz I'd like
[43:23] to get a little bit more details on the
[43:25] grade and why it was actually even
[43:26] initially set up as well at 20% or where
[43:29] that number kind of came from. I think
[43:31] it was kind of arbitrarily kind of taken
[43:33] out of there in our in our one of our
[43:36] GSL maps. And that's so, I'm going to
[43:39] call the question. All those in favor of
[43:41] what's on voting this in favor right
[43:44] now.
[43:46] Opposed?
[43:49] Motion is defeated. Okay. So, we'll come
[43:52] back with something then.
[43:54] Okay.
[43:55] Move on to We're now on to 9B, zoning
[43:58] amendment bylaw classification of
[44:00] basement exemption.
[44:01] >> of order here. So, if we defeated option
[44:05] one
[44:06] how do we get option two onto the table?
[44:09] >> We we debated all of that and I said to
[44:12] Mr. Joseph to bring back the the height
[44:14] requirement if possible and then we can
[44:16] talk about that.
[44:18] Go ahead, Ms. Helwig.
[44:19] >> Thank you. Through the chair, I think
[44:20] that that would be challenging to also
[44:23] be bringing back additional information
[44:26] um given that there's only two meetings
[44:28] uh until the end of the council term.
[44:31] There's a meeting on September 22nd and
[44:33] then another one in October. We could
[44:35] certainly report back uh in
[44:38] the September meeting, but then to
[44:40] schedule a public hearing and bring it
[44:43] forward to adoption would be very
[44:45] challenging um in that time frame.
[44:48] >> To change that
[44:50] threshold, the percentage of the grade
[44:52] percentage,
[44:53] is that a full OCP review?
[44:57] >> To the chair, no. This I mean, it's been
[44:59] considered and reviewed, which is part
[45:00] of this package. However, um as it
[45:02] essentially it would just be to strike
[45:04] out number three of RLU RLU 16 from the bylaw. That's where the bylaw would
[45:09] read.
[45:10] >> But as I said, I would like to
[45:11] understand where that came from and and
[45:13] the ramifications of that as well.
[45:16] >> Yeah, I'm
[45:17] so
[45:18] 20% is is the sort of the number that
[45:21] was chosen for steep slopes generally.
[45:24] Um I don't have the exact history, but I
[45:26] imagine that sort of uh through
[45:28] discussions probably you know, with the
[45:29] village that they decided that infill
[45:32] shouldn't be on steep slopes and if
[45:33] steep slopes equals 20%, then the
[45:35] average grade percentage applies to all.
[45:37] >> So, Ms. Ms. Helwig or Esson,
[45:41] that minor adjustment to go from 20 to
[45:43] say 25%,
[45:45] is that could that be done over two
[45:47] meetings?
[45:49] >> Is it public hearing?
[45:50] >> It's a
[45:51] imma- it's a fairly small change in that
[45:54] regard. So, we're not changing the
[45:55] intent of the bylaw. We're not changing
[45:59] very much of it.
[46:00] >> still would be through the chair. It
[46:01] still would be a bylaw amendment.
[46:03] >> Right.
[46:04] >> So that could be done in two meetings.
[46:06] >> Yeah.
[46:07] >> Um being the first meeting would be
[46:09] September 22nd. Your second meeting in
[46:12] October
[46:14] I want to say
[46:16] seven-ish. Um however, that would also
[46:19] be the public hearing night and there
[46:22] would not be um time for referrals to uh
[46:26] any other municipalities, school
[46:28] district, First Nations, or any
[46:30] committees. If that's council's desire
[46:31] to just do that bylaw amendment, that
[46:34] could be
[46:35] >> So would
[46:35] >> technically achievable in two meetings.
[46:37] >> I just wanted to you know, um
[46:40] it
[46:40] by it increasing the threshold doesn't
[46:43] necessarily sort of address what we're doing, the intent of it. The
[46:48] intent is where there is a building site
[46:50] that is less than 20% that we're not up
[46:53] holding it up because
[46:55] 10% is drastically steep and now has
[46:59] contributed to the overall average
[47:00] density. That could be 25 or that could
[47:02] be 30 or 40. But it would what's on the
[47:05] ground is the intent is to just allow
[47:07] for the areas that are completely not in
[47:09] steep slope areas to be developed under
[47:11] development permit guidelines.
[47:14] » So I think it's best My personal view is
[47:16] that we would just leave leave this as
[47:19] be because again, we have a discussion
[47:20] that's been an ongoing discussion about
[47:22] basement heights, which are all about
[47:23] slope as well, which is coming up with
[47:25] the next item at this point in time. So
[47:29] >> You both through the chair. I don't know
[47:30] if they're completely related because
[47:32] you know, development on 30%, 40% is
[47:34] >> Yeah, it's it's dealing with slope uh
[47:36] slope development. So
[47:37] >> Yeah, I understand. It's just not a OCP
[47:39] issue.
[47:39] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[47:41] >> Hello.
[47:42] >> Councilor Trowbridge.
[47:45] >> Yeah, so
[47:46] um
[47:47] I don't quite maybe don't understand,
[47:50] but I don't see the relationship to a
[47:52] slope discussion. My understanding
[47:55] is that removal of 16 RUL or RLU
[48:00] was to allow if if a if a property had a steep slope on it,
[48:08] but it was not in the building envelope,
[48:11] then we would allow the building in the
[48:13] building envelope. It It It's really
[48:16] more about where the slope is, isn't it,
[48:18] George?
[48:20] >> Mr. Chair, that's correct, yeah. So
[48:22] >> Yeah, so I would be fine
[48:25] uh with with an amended motion going
[48:28] forward with that component without the
[48:31] rest, which is, I think, what Councillor
[48:33] Richardson suggested.
[48:35] >> So, we voted
[48:36] Procedurally, we voted down the motion
[48:38] that was on the table, which included
[48:40] everything which Mr. Joseph put on the
[48:42] thing. So, it would have to be a new
[48:43] motion forward that if somebody wants to
[48:46] put it forward that we would we would
[48:47] entertain.
[48:49] >> I'll put that motion forward that we
[48:52] entertain the one segment.
[48:56] » I'd second that.
[48:58] >> What What do we put What is the motion
[48:59] that you're seconding?
[49:00] >> The My understanding the motion is,
[49:04] which we're going to get from our
[49:05] corporate officer in a very exacting and
[49:07] precise way very shortly,
[49:10] is that
[49:12] on lots where the or the average
[49:14] gradient may be more than 20% if there
[49:18] is a building area less than 20% that would be allowed in infill. And And
[49:24] the reason I would support that is like
[49:26] here's two examples. You have a lot,
[49:29] it's an acre,
[49:30] half of it's dead flat,
[49:32] half of it's at 40%.
[49:35] Okay? That would not be allowed.
[49:38] Half of it's dead flat, the other half
[49:39] is at 30%, that would be allowed. And I
[49:42] really don't see the difference between
[49:44] those two lots other than the steepness
[49:46] of the embankment down to the creek or
[49:48] whatever it happens to be. So, I I'm all
[49:51] in favor of if you have a building area
[49:54] that's suitable, you get to build.
[49:57] >> Okay, so do we have a motion on
[49:59] >> Mr. Chair, I can read out a motion. Um
[50:02] so, I suppose where's the original?
[50:11] So, the recommendation is that the
[50:12] Village of Anmore Official Community
[50:13] Plan Amendment Bylaw number 722-2025
[50:17] as amended.
[50:19] >> No, it's not amended. We didn't amend
[50:21] that motion was voted down.
[50:23] So, there's a new motion.
[50:25] >> No, but if we're going to amend what's
[50:26] on currently.
[50:29] Well, we could.
[50:40] I don't either.
[50:45] » Can we just take the one section and put it as a motion?
[50:54] » Um
[50:55] I need um Counselor Richardson, through
[50:58] the chair, if you could please give me a
[51:00] complete sentence,
[51:02] that would be very helpful.
[51:05] Okay.
[51:09] Yep.
[51:11] >> Your mic's not on.
[51:15] » Back to the beginning. I don't know the
[51:16] exact wording, but that the
[51:20] existing bylaw or the policy 61 be
[51:24] amended so that on
[51:28] that you're allowed to do infill on lots
[51:31] where a building area is available less
[51:34] than 20%.
[51:40] Is Is that sentence enough?
[51:44] >> [laughter]
[51:46] >> I I know.
[51:48] >> [snorts]
[51:48] >> Cuz cuz this will drive to the public
[51:50] hearing, right?
[51:53] If we give it first and second, public
[51:54] hearing is next, so it should be pretty
[51:56] clear what we're saying.
[51:57] >> Absolutely.
[51:59] >> Okay, can I
[52:00] Do you want me to try something?
[52:03] here
[52:04] that hopefully we captures it? So, the
[52:06] motion would read that
[52:08] um where a building site is equal or
[52:11] less than the 20% slope, infill
[52:14] properties would be accepted under our
[52:16] current policy.
[52:22] » Perfect.
[52:25] » So, through the chair and just um
[52:28] chatting with Mr. Joseph here,
[52:30] we could potentially
[52:32] amend
[52:34] um
[52:35] 722-2025
[52:38] that is included in the agenda package
[52:41] in a way that we could give it two
[52:43] readings this evening if Mr. Squizzero
[52:45] Cara
[52:46] is
[52:47] uh all right with that. Uh Mr. Joseph
[52:50] has the sections of that bylaw, which is
[52:52] on 20 page 25 and 26 of your agenda that
[52:56] could be amended, um given two readings,
[53:00] and then we could move forward
[53:03] that way this evening and go to public
[53:05] hearing in September.
[53:07] >> Um so, just to clarify, um updating the sentence on the
[53:13] um
[53:14] item three
[53:15] on page 25, is that what I'm looking at?
[53:20] Mr. Joseph.
[53:21] >> Yeah, that's correct, yeah.
[53:22] >> Okay.
[53:24] Um
[53:25] we can we can potentially say that the
[53:28] um
[53:29] the bylaw section
[53:32] two uh item three be amended, and then
[53:36] whatever the amendment needs to be, that
[53:40] we can add
[53:41] the amendment and uh go forward with
[53:44] that.
[53:47] So,
[53:49] >> Councilor Richardson,
[53:51] if I read 722-2025,
[53:55] it actually be able to identify building
[53:58] site sites that are equal to less than
[53:59] 20% slope. It's actually already in
[54:01] there. It doesn't have to be amended.
[54:04] >> We would need to amend to delete the
[54:06] parts of the bylaw that you do not wish
[54:08] to include. So, um if you will indulge
[54:11] for a moment, Mr. Joseph can read that
[54:14] out for council.
[54:15] >> Okay.
[54:24] It was a hot day out there today.
[54:31] This doesn't talk about pan handles.
[54:34] Thank you all for your patience.
[54:40] Yeah, that's right. Um
[54:42] so, I'll just start from here.
[54:45] We don't need to do anything with it.
[54:49] Okay, so the amendments uh would be to
[54:51] number two of the bylaw.
[54:53] Uh that the Village of Anmore Official
[54:55] Community Plan Designation Bylaw number
[54:57] 532-2014
[54:58] be amended under chapter 4, Land Use, as
[55:01] follows.
[55:02] So, delete policy RLU 16 in its entirety and replace it with the
[55:06] following.
[55:08] And uh I'll just read out the sections.
[55:11] So, policy RLU 16, and this is uh what
[55:14] it is already currently written for this
[55:16] intro paragraph. The village supports
[55:18] infill development and subsequent
[55:19] creation of new residences that maintain
[55:21] the existing semi-rural nature of
[55:22] Anmore. Infill development is the
[55:24] creation of new parcels within the
[55:25] existing developed area of the Village
[55:27] of Anmore that are serviced by existing
[55:29] infrastructure. The intent of infill
[55:30] development is that it will enhance and
[55:31] not take away from the look and feel of
[55:33] the neighborhood. It is expected that
[55:35] any new infill homes will blend into the
[55:37] existing neighborhood, minimize the
[55:38] disturbance to natural environment, and
[55:40] will adhere to the same setbacks as the
[55:41] existing neighborhood. Infill
[55:43] development should be guided by infill
[55:44] development policy that aligns with
[55:45] specific requirements that the community
[55:47] expects expects from infill development
[55:49] to ensure that it meets the intent of
[55:51] this policy. The maximum density allowed
[55:53] for infill development is 2.04 parcels
[55:55] per acre.
[55:57] Parcels that are eligible for
[55:58] consideration under this policy must not
[56:00] have been created through previous
[56:01] comprehensive development plan,
[56:03] be between 300 3 3,925 square meters and
[56:07] 8,900 8,094 square meters in area,
[56:13] be able to identify building sites that
[56:15] are equal to or greater than 20% slope,
[56:20] not require the extension, expansion,
[56:22] extension or expansion of any village
[56:24] road or water infrastructure,
[56:26] and have at least 50 m frontage on a
[56:28] public highway,
[56:30] and have been in existence for at least
[56:31] 5 years as of the date of the
[56:33] application.
[56:39] » Yes.
[56:41] We're So, for those people listening,
[56:43] we're striking off the back half of item
[56:46] five.
[56:47] >> Correct.
[56:52] » Okay.
[56:53] >> I move it.
[56:54] >> Move it. Could I get someone to second
[56:55] it?
[56:57] >> Second.
[56:58] Open up for discussion.
[57:02] Any discussion?
[57:03] Seeing none, I'll call the question.
[57:05] >> All those in favor?
[57:07] Opposed? Motion's carried.
[57:10] >> Okay.
[57:10] >> And that's ordered through the chair.
[57:11] I'll just read out the rest of the
[57:12] recommendations for the referrals that
[57:14] are required,
[57:15] as well as public hearing.
[57:17] >> Oh, what what's now required for public
[57:20] hearing?
[57:20] >> Yes.
[57:21] >> Yeah, that cuz yeah, yeah, it was the
[57:23] package.
[57:25] >> Um so, following that uh and that uh and
[57:29] more official community plan amendment
[57:31] bylaw number 722-2025 be referred to the
[57:33] following committees as it relates to
[57:35] the mandate of each committee.
[57:37] And that in relation to the Village of
[57:39] Anmore Official Community Plan Amendment
[57:40] Bylaw number 722-2025,
[57:42] amendments associated with the proposed
[57:44] updates to policy R only 16 infill
[57:46] development, Council will provide the
[57:47] following additional opportunities it
[57:48] considers appropriate for consultation
[57:49] with persons, organizations, or
[57:51] authorities it considers will be
[57:52] affected, including the municipalities
[57:54] of the Village of Belcarra and the City
[57:56] of Port Moody, School District number
[57:58] 43, Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh,
[58:01] and Kwikwetlem First Nations, and that a
[58:02] public hearing be scheduled following
[58:03] the referral process.
[58:06] >> Do we need to move that in
[58:09] Okay, [clears throat] can someone to
[58:10] move that? Second? I'll
[58:13] call the question. All those in favor?
[58:16] Carried.
[58:18] Do we have more to add?
[58:20] >> Did you want to add any committees for
[58:22] >> No.
[58:22] >> Okay.
[58:23] >> We Yeah.
[58:24] >> That's right.
[58:27] » Okay. So, can we move on to uh 9B?
[58:33] Are we good?
[58:40] Oh, right. Oh, you can get
[59:18] Okay, we're now on to uh 9B Zoning
[59:21] Amendment Bylaw classification on
[59:23] basement exemption report dated July
[59:25] 17th, 2020 from Manager of Development
[59:27] Services attached. Mr. Joseph.
[59:29] >> Thank you.
[59:31] So, the purpose of this report is to
[59:32] present bylaw number 745-2026,
[59:34] a zoning amendment bylaw that clarifies
[59:36] how the basement exemption applies under
[59:37] section 5.25 of the zoning bylaw, along
[59:40] with the related housekeeping correction
[59:41] to section 5.6. So, at the May 5th
[59:44] regular council meeting, staff brought
[59:45] forward proposed amendments to the
[59:47] section 5.25, the basement exemption
[59:49] provision. Council deferred that
[59:51] discussion and asked staff to come back
[59:52] with visual impact modeling to see what
[59:53] the current regulations allow in terms
[59:55] of building massing. Staff returned on
[59:57] the June 12th with a report that
[59:59] included visual representations of
[1:00:00] what's permitted under the under the
[1:00:02] existing rule and identified the
[1:00:04] specific sections proposed to be
[1:00:05] clarified. At that meeting, council
[1:00:07] passed a motion directing staff to
[1:00:09] initiate amendments to section 5.25 and
[1:00:11] section 5.6. Additional sections are
[1:00:14] being proposed to provide greater
[1:00:15] clarity in relation to the basement
[1:00:16] exemption.
[1:00:17] So, the current formula in section 5.25
[1:00:20] from
[1:00:21] letters A through D that determines how
[1:00:23] much basement floor area is exempt from
[1:00:25] the floor area ratio calculation will
[1:00:27] remain the same. What the amendment does
[1:00:29] is add three new sections, E, F, and G,
[1:00:32] that address how the exemption applies
[1:00:33] across the building. Uh because the
[1:00:35] current wording may incentivize numerous
[1:00:36] exposed basement floors that would be
[1:00:38] eligible for 100% basement exemption,
[1:00:41] which would increase the apparent
[1:00:42] massing of the building.
[1:00:44] There is currently no limit on how many
[1:00:45] stories in a single building can qualify for the full basement exemption.
[1:00:49] So, on slope lots, final finished grade
[1:00:51] and building design can produce two or
[1:00:53] more stories that each meet the
[1:00:54] definition of a basement, some of them
[1:00:56] partially exposed, which can make a
[1:00:57] building look like it's four to six
[1:00:59] stories tall from the street level.
[1:01:01] Subsection E fixes this by limiting the
[1:01:03] exemption to no more than one uppermost
[1:01:05] basement story per building.
[1:01:07] Sub-basement stories below that would
[1:01:09] still be permitted, but they would count
[1:01:10] towards the lot's maximum floor area
[1:01:12] ratio like any other floor area.
[1:01:15] The second consideration is height of a
[1:01:17] story. As currently worded, there's no
[1:01:18] cap on the floor-to-floor height that
[1:01:20] the exempt story uh would apply to,
[1:01:23] which means a single basement story
[1:01:24] could be built well beyond the typical
[1:01:26] story height and still only count count
[1:01:28] as one story for the purposes of
[1:01:30] subsection E. So, subsection F caps the
[1:01:33] exempt story at 3.66 m, which is 1/3 of
[1:01:36] our 111 m maximum building height,
[1:01:39] essentially the height of one story
[1:01:40] within a standard three-story envelope.
[1:01:42] However, staff have also included
[1:01:44] subsection G. It provides a full 100%
[1:01:46] exemption for stories below the exempt
[1:01:48] basement story, but only where that
[1:01:50] story is completely buried entirely
[1:01:51] below finished grade at every point
[1:01:53] around the building's perimeter.
[1:01:57] Staff recognize that the story with no
[1:01:58] exterior exposure at all doesn't
[1:02:00] contribute to the parent massing of the
[1:02:01] building, so staff have included the
[1:02:02] section to differentiate between a
[1:02:04] partially exposed stories.
[1:02:06] Finally, staff are proposing a
[1:02:07] housekeeping amendment to section 5.6.1,
[1:02:09] which clarifies how building height is
[1:02:10] measured, so that it's based on a lower
[1:02:12] of the average natural grade or average
[1:02:14] finished grade. Right now, that section
[1:02:15] doesn't quite line up with section
[1:02:17] 5.5.2,
[1:02:19] which already uses that standard, and
[1:02:20] this brings the two into alignment, and
[1:02:22] it also reflects the current staff
[1:02:23] practice.
[1:02:25] So, the recommendation is that council
[1:02:26] give first and second reading to
[1:02:27] Ambleside Amendment Bylaw number
[1:02:29] 745-2026
[1:02:30] related to section 5.25 basement
[1:02:32] exemption and section 5.6 building and
[1:02:34] structure height, and that a public
[1:02:36] hearing be scheduled for Bylaw 745-2026.
[1:02:39] Thank you.
[1:02:40] >> Could I get someone to move that?
[1:02:43] Move, second, open up for discussion.
[1:02:47] Anybody? Uh okay, I I I have a couple of
[1:02:49] questions. And so,
[1:02:53] I can't support this if it doesn't at
[1:02:55] least offer a 9-ft ceiling height for
[1:02:57] the basement. I don't have a problem
[1:03:00] with basements going deeper
[1:03:02] um than that, but I just wanted to
[1:03:04] clarify cuz it's this is kind of compli-
[1:03:06] I saw in here there was a calculation of
[1:03:08] 2.75 m for the basement floor, but most
[1:03:12] basements that I'm going into right now
[1:03:14] are minimum 9-ft finished. And I I can't
[1:03:17] do an 8-ft finish because again, we're
[1:03:18] also supposed to be promoting suites in
[1:03:21] the in these in these buildings as well.
[1:03:23] So, if you can you confirm what the
[1:03:25] finished height would be or
[1:03:27] presume
[1:03:28] you could give me the rough height as
[1:03:29] well. It would probably be It would have
[1:03:30] to be about 10 ft then.
[1:03:32] >> Yeah, so the full story is 12 ft.
[1:03:35] >> Okay.
[1:03:35] >> So, it's 3.66 in the amendment bylaws.
[1:03:38] >> So, it says on page seven
[1:03:41] no greater than 2.75 m.
[1:03:44] Which is 9 ft.
[1:03:47] On page seven or sorry, 46 of your
[1:03:49] report if there's a color picture of the
[1:03:51] house up above it.
[1:03:52] >> Yeah, so I think what you're referring
[1:03:55] to is the previous report where I
[1:03:56] referenced what West Vancouver's height
[1:03:58] limit is for exempted story. What What
[1:04:01] we're proposing is 1/3 of our current
[1:04:03] height, which is 3.66.
[1:04:04] >> 3.6 m. So, can you tell me what is 3 3.6
[1:04:08] in
[1:04:08] >> 12 ft.
[1:04:09] So, basement height would be 12
[1:04:12] ft. Could go down
[1:04:13] >> from floor to floor.
[1:04:14] >> Right. And it can go down into the
[1:04:15] ground to make that 12 ft.
[1:04:18] >> This only for the exempted portion is 12
[1:04:21] ft. Anything that's completely buried
[1:04:23] there's no height there's no height.
[1:04:26] cap.
[1:04:28] >> Okay.
[1:04:28] >> There's a full exemption. There's no
[1:04:29] height cap.
[1:04:30] >> Okay.
[1:04:34] Do I have
[1:04:36] Councillor Do you
[1:04:38] >> Just to clarify, this is the 3.66 m is
[1:04:42] only on the additional floor on the
[1:04:45] exempted part when you're like building
[1:04:47] on a hillside.
[1:04:48] >> Correct. Correct.
[1:04:52] Just on a hillside.
[1:04:54] >> No, it it doesn't apply. This is just
[1:04:56] primarily where the problem would exist.
[1:04:58] >> Throughout, right? Yeah. Cuz you can on
[1:05:00] a on a
[1:05:01] slope or fairly fairly level lot, you
[1:05:03] can still go down.
[1:05:05] As you want, right?
[1:05:06] >> Yeah, so they you could.
[1:05:08] >> Yeah, and I guess one of my questions
[1:05:11] that I had as well was on I guess it's the color one here which is page
[1:05:15] six or 45. Just about where
[1:05:19] average grade is and how that's
[1:05:21] calculated.
[1:05:24] » Yes, so we mean the average grade is is
[1:05:26] >> If you could use that photo there just
[1:05:28] to kind of give me I
[1:05:30] an understanding
[1:05:30] >> Which figure? Sorry.
[1:05:31] >> The the bottom one.
[1:05:33] >> Three? Figure three?
[1:05:34] >> I guess it's the color probably one,
[1:05:36] yeah.
[1:05:37] >> Yeah, so it's it's where the perimeter
[1:05:40] of the building meets the ground. And so
[1:05:42] if it's going up a slope, that perimeter
[1:05:44] goes up the slope with it. So if it's on
[1:05:46] a fairly, you know, uh
[1:05:48] even path, then the average grade
[1:05:50] becomes the halfway number of where the perimeter meets the ground.
[1:05:55] >> Okay.
[1:05:59] That was all the questions. So you've
[1:06:00] confirmed that the the basement there is
[1:06:02] not a limit of of an 8-point, which is
[1:06:03] great. So any other questions before I
[1:06:05] call the questions?
[1:06:07] Seeing none, all those in favor?
[1:06:11] Carried unanimously. Thank you, Mr.
[1:06:12] Joseph.
[1:06:13] >> Thank you.
[1:06:14] >> Okay.
[1:06:15] Uh we'll now move on to
[1:06:18] uh 12A Committee of the Whole meeting.
[1:06:21] The following recreation was made. Uh
[1:06:23] Mr. Boyd.
[1:06:26] » Thank [clears throat] you, Worship.
[1:06:28] Uh so the The purpose of this report is
[1:06:30] to uh follows the introduction of the
[1:06:33] development cost charges by the law,
[1:06:35] which uh was uh
[1:06:37] shown to council at Committee of the
[1:06:39] Whole. It Uh this report provides a
[1:06:40] brief summary of that introduction,
[1:06:42] presents the proposed 2026 DCC
[1:06:45] uh rate schedule for the village, and it
[1:06:47] seeks council's direction to prepare a
[1:06:49] draft DCC bylaw.
[1:06:52] So a quick background. At the Committee
[1:06:53] of the Whole, staff introduced the DCC
[1:06:55] framework and the case for updating the
[1:06:58] villages and charges. And just to
[1:06:59] summarize that that is that the DCCs are
[1:07:02] one-time charge for new development
[1:07:04] authorized in the part 14 division 19 of
[1:07:06] the LGA.
[1:07:08] Uh that allows us to recover the growth
[1:07:10] related share of capital costs of
[1:07:12] infrastructure required to service new
[1:07:13] development.
[1:07:15] The village's existing DCC bylaw dates
[1:07:17] to the 20 2005 and no longer reflects
[1:07:20] current construction costs, the village
[1:07:22] capital planning, or anticipated growth.
[1:07:24] Provincial best practice is to update
[1:07:26] the TCC program every 3 to 5 years.
[1:07:30] Rates are established through a defined
[1:07:31] methodology, projecting growth,
[1:07:33] identifying the growth related capital
[1:07:35] projects,
[1:07:36] and costs, assigning each a benefit
[1:07:39] allocation between existing and new
[1:07:40] development, applying a municipal assist
[1:07:42] factor, and dividing the recoverable
[1:07:44] costs across the expected growth units.
[1:07:48] Staff worked through the recreation tool
[1:07:50] with council committee of the whole,
[1:07:51] illustrating how the inputs
[1:07:53] input assumptions produce the proposed
[1:07:55] rates. A comparison with the neighboring
[1:07:57] municipalities was provided for context,
[1:07:59] and staff outlined the process ahead, uh
[1:08:01] preparation of draft bylaw,
[1:08:02] consultation, readings, approval by
[1:08:05] inspector of municipalities, and then
[1:08:07] adoption.
[1:08:08] This report is just to advance this to
[1:08:10] council uh for their consideration.
[1:08:13] >> Good.
[1:08:14] >> So, as we can see in the rate table
[1:08:15] below, uh these were developed based on
[1:08:17] the conversations that we had at the
[1:08:19] committee of the whole. Um
[1:08:22] Uh so, the residential rates are based
[1:08:24] on occupancy assumptions of one suite
[1:08:27] per single family house, adding an
[1:08:28] incremental 1/2 person per lot,
[1:08:30] consistent with the current small-scale
[1:08:32] multi-use uh housing provision. This was
[1:08:35] a conversation that we had at the
[1:08:37] committee of the whole on whether we
[1:08:39] should assume that there was going to be
[1:08:41] more uptake or not of uh suites within
[1:08:43] the village. Um staff could take this
[1:08:46] away as well and and continue to look at
[1:08:48] past uh building permit applications to
[1:08:51] determine what the occupancy rate of
[1:08:53] suites have been in the village over the
[1:08:54] past 5 years. We currently haven't done
[1:08:56] that.
[1:08:58] Uh
[1:08:59] okay, next one. Uh sundry sewer is is
[1:09:02] not applicable cuz we don't have
[1:09:03] sanitary sewers within the villages a
[1:09:05] service. We currently only have it
[1:09:07] within AGP.
[1:09:10] And we don't anticipate building any
[1:09:11] sewers of our own, so therefore there
[1:09:12] are no projects.
[1:09:14] Um, an important note was regarding
[1:09:16] protective services. Although recent
[1:09:18] provincial legislation added fire and
[1:09:20] police facilities as eligible DCC
[1:09:22] categories, fire protection in the
[1:09:23] village is delivered through the Sasamat
[1:09:25] fire protection service, a Metro
[1:09:27] Vancouver regional district function.
[1:09:29] And policing capital was not a cost
[1:09:30] borne by the directly by the village.
[1:09:32] therefore has no eligible
[1:09:33] protective services capital cost on
[1:09:36] which to base a charge. As noted above,
[1:09:38] the
[1:09:40] fire protection in the village is
[1:09:41] delivered through fire Sasamat fire
[1:09:42] protection service, a Metro Vancouver
[1:09:44] regional district function, and the
[1:09:46] associated capital assets, including the
[1:09:47] fire hall,
[1:09:48] are regional assets funded through the
[1:09:50] service rather than by the village
[1:09:52] directly. For this reason, the
[1:09:53] growth-related capital cost for the
[1:09:54] anticipated fire hall upgrades cannot be
[1:09:57] recovered through the village's own
[1:09:58] development cost charges. It is
[1:10:00] nonetheless appropriate for the
[1:10:01] development to contribute its fair share
[1:10:03] towards these services. So, I therefore
[1:10:05] recommend the village formally request
[1:10:07] that Metro Vancouver consider
[1:10:08] establishing a DCC for Sasamat fire
[1:10:10] protection service to recover the
[1:10:12] growth-related portion of the fire hall
[1:10:14] upgrades cost consistent with the newly
[1:10:16] eligible fire protection service
[1:10:17] category under the LGA. Any such, uh,
[1:10:20] charges would be developed, adopted, and
[1:10:22] administered by Metro Vancouver through
[1:10:24] its own bylaw and cost allocation
[1:10:26] process in consultation with the Village
[1:10:28] of Anmore and Belcarra as being
[1:10:30] participating members of the service and
[1:10:32] would apply in addition to the village's
[1:10:34] DCC rather than through them. So, we
[1:10:37] also, uh, prior, sorry, following the
[1:10:39] publication of this report, we've also
[1:10:41] received word back
[1:10:44] from the province to clarify this note.
[1:10:46] And I'll just read, uh, one particular
[1:10:47] note from within their their email that
[1:10:50] was, and I quote, "Our interpretation of
[1:10:52] capital cost is that the capital asset
[1:10:55] be owned or controlled by the local
[1:10:57] government such that it is capitalized
[1:10:59] on the audited financial statements of
[1:11:01] the local government. So,
[1:11:03] based on on that coming back from the
[1:11:05] province, they kind of substantiated
[1:11:06] what we thought in the past that that
[1:11:08] because we don't actually own the asset,
[1:11:10] we're not allowed to collect DCC. Again,
[1:11:12] it's important to note that we we do
[1:11:14] have a mechanism to collect it, but Amur
[1:11:16] itself cannot collect it directly based
[1:11:17] on legislation.
[1:11:20] Uh okay, land use categories and zoning.
[1:11:22] Uh the rate schedule presents charges
[1:11:25] for a full range of land use categories.
[1:11:26] So, the DCC framework is completely and
[1:11:28] internally consistent. Some of these
[1:11:30] categories do not currently permit or or
[1:11:32] contemplated under the villages zone and
[1:11:34] bylaw or OCP. The inclusion in the
[1:11:37] schedule is for the calculation and
[1:11:38] information purposes only. It does not
[1:11:40] imply or confer any development
[1:11:42] entitlement, zoning permissions, or
[1:11:44] rights to develop these uses in the
[1:11:46] village until the zone and bylaw is
[1:11:47] amended to permit a given use. The
[1:11:50] corresponding DCC rate has no
[1:11:51] application, and the value set in the
[1:11:53] rates now is that should council of the
[1:11:55] future consider
[1:11:57] enabling any of these uses, a defensible
[1:11:59] charge would be already be established
[1:12:01] and showing that any such development
[1:12:03] contributes fair share towards
[1:12:04] growth-related infrastructure.
[1:12:06] And then lastly, uh park acquisition
[1:12:09] charges. Uh the proposed schedule does
[1:12:11] not include a park acquisition DCC.
[1:12:13] While park acquisition is an eligible
[1:12:15] category under the Local Government Act,
[1:12:16] a defensible parks DCC must be grounded
[1:12:19] in adopted parkland
[1:12:21] provision standard, typically expressed
[1:12:23] as an amount of parkland per capita or
[1:12:25] per dwelling, from which the quan- the
[1:12:28] quantity and cost of the land need to be
[1:12:30] need to serve growth can be determined.
[1:12:32] The village does not currently have a
[1:12:33] policy establishing a park provision
[1:12:35] standard. In its absence, there is no
[1:12:37] defensible basis on which to determine
[1:12:39] the per capita land requirement or the
[1:12:41] associated acquisition cost, and the
[1:12:43] parks acquisition charge has therefore
[1:12:44] been excluded at this time. Should
[1:12:46] council wish to pursue parkland
[1:12:48] acquisition funding through DCC in in in
[1:12:50] the future, staff would first recommend
[1:12:52] adoption of the park acquisition policy
[1:12:54] standard and would then allow a park DCC
[1:12:57] to be calculated and incorporated into
[1:12:59] the bylaw amendment.
[1:13:02] Then finally, financial implications.
[1:13:04] The the the financial implication
[1:13:06] obviously there's there's none related
[1:13:08] to staff direct the the
[1:13:11] uh to the village directly. The
[1:13:13] However, there would obviously be a cost
[1:13:15] association with managing the DCC's work
[1:13:19] and once adopted the DCC charges are
[1:13:20] expected to materially improve the
[1:13:22] village's ability to fund growth related
[1:13:24] water drainage and road infrastructure
[1:13:26] from development rather than from
[1:13:28] general tax base.
[1:13:31] Lastly, next steps
[1:13:33] from staff recommendations would be to
[1:13:35] prepare the draft development cost
[1:13:36] charges bylaw incorporating the proposed
[1:13:38] rate schedule and supporting background
[1:13:39] study, consult with the development
[1:13:41] community and other interested parties
[1:13:43] consistent with the provincial
[1:13:44] guidelines, request Metro Vancouver
[1:13:47] consider establishing a development cost
[1:13:48] charge for Semiahmoo fire protection
[1:13:50] services to recover the growth related
[1:13:52] cost of the firehall upgrades, and bring
[1:13:54] the draft bylaw to council for
[1:13:56] consideration.
[1:13:59] Okay, I can read the resolution if
[1:14:02] you wish you wish to.
[1:14:04] >> Sure.
[1:14:04] >> Okay, that staff be directed to bring
[1:14:06] the draft development cost charges bylaw
[1:14:09] forward to council for consideration and
[1:14:11] that staff be directed to undertake
[1:14:13] consultation with the development
[1:14:14] community and other interested parties
[1:14:16] on the proposed development cost charges
[1:14:18] and that staff be directed to contact
[1:14:19] Metro Vancouver in relation to
[1:14:21] consideration of the establishing a
[1:14:23] development cost charge bylaw for
[1:14:24] Semiahmoo fire protection services.
[1:14:27] >> Good. Can I get someone to move that?
[1:14:30] Moved and second open up for some
[1:14:32] discussion.
[1:14:33] Mr. Boyd, just for clarity, I just
[1:14:35] wanted to who did you talk to at the
[1:14:37] province regarding the Metro Vancouver's
[1:14:39] role with the Semiahmoo volunteer fire
[1:14:41] department so I can follow up with them.
[1:14:44] >> One second.
[1:14:49] » Or Ms. Elwork, who did it that
[1:14:50] >> I've got it. It's uh Ministry of Housing
[1:14:52] and Municipal Affairs uh the financial
[1:14:54] office and uh
[1:14:55] >> And is there a Do you have a person
[1:14:56] there?
[1:14:57] >> Uh the person that sent to us was Jenny
[1:15:00] Chang.
[1:15:00] >> Could I get a copy of that, please?
[1:15:03] >> I can circulate it to all of council.
[1:15:04] >> Perfect. Thanks.
[1:15:05] Um the reason I say that, Mr. Boyd, is
[1:15:07] that we um
[1:15:09] I was concerned about this because
[1:15:10] again, there is such confusion when it
[1:15:12] comes to the fire department um and the
[1:15:14] real clarity of it is is that the uh
[1:15:17] Metro Vancouver
[1:15:18] simply we pay them a service to operate
[1:15:20] the fire department and the assets are
[1:15:22] actually owned by each of the
[1:15:23] municipalities. And they've given a
[1:15:25] legal ruling saying that we should be
[1:15:27] collecting the DCCs and it should be
[1:15:28] part of this program. So I'd I'd
[1:15:30] certainly like to to flush that out a
[1:15:32] little bit because I know it is somewhat
[1:15:33] confusing. So but anyway, it's been uh
[1:15:36] I'll I'll follow up cuz I Metro
[1:15:38] Vancouver had some interest there. Ms.
[1:15:39] Alaric.
[1:15:40] >> Sorry, Mayor McKeown. I may have
[1:15:42] misunderstood. Um did you say who gave a
[1:15:45] legal ruling regarding this?
[1:15:46] >> No, that opinion that we that I
[1:15:48] distributed to staff and council was
[1:15:50] there from a legal aspect.
[1:15:55] From I think it was Mr. Brant, Brant
[1:15:57] Smith or whatever sent that out this
[1:15:58] morning.
[1:16:00] So
[1:16:01] anyway, open up any
[1:16:03] Councilor Craig.
[1:16:04] >> Did we have a
[1:16:05] Why was it sent to Metro? Did we have a
[1:16:07] motion to send it to them? I thought
[1:16:09] that was done after. Yeah, as a
[1:16:11] >> As a fire trustee, I sent it there cuz I
[1:16:13] was sure unclear of it why it was being
[1:16:15] uh separated here. So
[1:16:18] >> Okay.
[1:16:20] Councilor Richardson.
[1:16:24] » Okay, I'm trying to wrap my head around
[1:16:25] all that.
[1:16:27] So in summary, cuz it was a bit hard to
[1:16:29] hear.
[1:16:31] If the village owns the asset, we can
[1:16:34] charge or plans to own the asset, we can
[1:16:37] charge DCCs.
[1:16:40] Is that correct?
[1:16:41] >> So yeah, it has to be on our financial.
[1:16:43] That's right.
[1:16:44] >> Sorry, through the chair, it must be
[1:16:47] owned or controlled by the local
[1:16:49] government such that it is capitalized
[1:16:51] on the audited financial statements of
[1:16:53] the local government, which in this case
[1:16:55] it is not.
[1:16:57] >> Okay, so ju- just just on that cuz when
[1:16:59] I read the letter from Metro,
[1:17:02] I didn't hear a clear opinion that we
[1:17:05] could collect DCCs on them. I thought
[1:17:08] our plan was that we were going to ask
[1:17:10] Metro, since it's their asset, to
[1:17:12] collect DCCs like they do for
[1:17:17] uh water and sewer directly to the
[1:17:20] village. So, Metro Vancouver would
[1:17:21] charge the DCCs. Is that correct?
[1:17:23] >> Mitch would collect DCCs for the water
[1:17:25] that is outside of the village that
[1:17:27] comes to the village.
[1:17:30] >> Yeah, but they they do collect for those
[1:17:33] services.
[1:17:35] So, Metro Vancouver we haven't got an
[1:17:37] answer back from Metro Vancouver that
[1:17:38] they can they can collect.
[1:17:41] >> Through the chair, we have not formally
[1:17:43] reached out to Metro Vancouver. Um Mayor
[1:17:45] McKeown, uh I understand reached out to
[1:17:47] Metro Vancouver, but we're waiting for
[1:17:49] direction from council. And as part of
[1:17:52] the process, we would be reaching out to
[1:17:53] Metro Vancouver. Um as we indicated,
[1:17:56] we've already reached out and got
[1:17:58] response back from the province. And
[1:17:59] additionally, we will be um
[1:18:02] seeking legal advice through the village
[1:18:04] solicitor who will be uh preparing the
[1:18:07] bylaw for us, and we have had some
[1:18:09] preliminary discussion with them on
[1:18:10] this, and will continue to explore
[1:18:12] options on um
[1:18:15] how we may collect DCCs.
[1:18:17] >> Okay. And then my last question is,
[1:18:20] like if we were planning to build a
[1:18:22] water reservoir in 20 years to support
[1:18:26] our growth, we could collect DCCs on
[1:18:29] that project, could we not?
[1:18:33] Mr. Boyd?
[1:18:33] >> Mr. Boyd's shaking his head as I think
[1:18:35] yes.
[1:18:36] >> Yeah, correct. It is provided it it was being built in relation to the
[1:18:41] growth within the village. So So,
[1:18:43] typically that would be the answer to
[1:18:44] that.
[1:18:45] >> So, therefore, if we got commitment from
[1:18:47] Metro Vancouver that once it was all
[1:18:49] paid off, they would transfer
[1:18:52] the fire hall to Anmore,
[1:18:55] then that would be the same thing. We're
[1:18:57] just going through some other path, are
[1:18:59] we not?
[1:19:01] >> I suppose the answer would be
[1:19:03] >> No, concurrently.
[1:19:04] >> Sorry, to share the um assets that are
[1:19:07] already developed, we can't post a DCC
[1:19:10] after the fact. So, the assets are
[1:19:13] currently held under Metro's financial
[1:19:16] statements. As such, that's why we we
[1:19:18] would propose to go through Metro's DCC
[1:19:21] bylaw.
[1:19:25] » I I What's the question, Councillor
[1:19:27] Richardson? Could we transfer the
[1:19:28] ownership for the fire hall to the
[1:19:30] village?
[1:19:32] >> Yeah, Lena kind of answered it. It's
[1:19:34] like
[1:19:35] it We already [clears throat] The
[1:19:36] asset's already there, but we just get
[1:19:39] it transferred at the end doesn't count
[1:19:40] is what I heard. But, you know, I was at
[1:19:43] the Well, we could build it for 20 years
[1:19:45] and then maybe it would, but
[1:19:47] anyway.
[1:19:49] But, you know,
[1:19:50] >> [laughter]
[1:19:51] >> it's it is a bit of a convoluted mess
[1:19:53] cuz we as trustees we went through this
[1:19:55] in the fact if we were to ever to
[1:19:56] separate, how do the assets get divided?
[1:20:00] And so, it is a very it's not an easy easy ask whatsoever. So, I've got
[1:20:05] uh Councillor Trowbridge.
[1:20:08] » Thank you. Yeah, my understanding of the
[1:20:10] motion that's in front of us though is
[1:20:12] that staff is going to explore every
[1:20:14] opportunity to recover DCCs in whatever
[1:20:19] route uh through whatever legal process.
[1:20:23] So,
[1:20:24] uh I'm in favor of just moving this
[1:20:25] forward and letting staff do their job.
[1:20:29] >> Good. Um
[1:20:30] any other questions or anything else? I had one, Mr. Boyd, regarding the park
[1:20:35] DCC.
[1:20:36] Um, I read through the parks master plan
[1:20:39] and from page one on, it talks about us
[1:20:42] implementing a park DCC. And I know
[1:20:44] Metro Vancouver, we've recently done
[1:20:46] that in the last year and it was very well received because again, as
[1:20:50] you're creating and in this case, there
[1:20:52] seems to be possibly an incentive for
[1:20:55] more multi-family because of the costing
[1:20:57] of of the DCCs being proposed. The green
[1:21:00] space that's going to be required in
[1:21:01] that. So, is is that something that
[1:21:03] could be added on to this DCC cuz it's
[1:21:06] referenced quite heavily in the fact in
[1:21:08] the parks master plan, which I guess was
[1:21:10] done sort of 2015-2016.
[1:21:15] » For sure, yeah. I mean, the the village
[1:21:16] have the right to to acquire DCCs for parkland acquisition.
[1:21:22] Again, the policy just needs to be
[1:21:23] written mainly to it. So,
[1:21:25] I wouldn't recommend attaching it to
[1:21:26] this DCC because it's going to take a
[1:21:28] little bit of time consultation to get
[1:21:30] through that unless it's council's will.
[1:21:32] But, most certainly, you you can write a
[1:21:35] DCC for parkland.
[1:21:37] >> Yeah, and I just I also wanted to just
[1:21:39] add that, you know, Metro Vancouver,
[1:21:41] this Friday, we're actually going to
[1:21:43] reduce DCCs that Metro Vancouver's
[1:21:45] employ
[1:21:49] instigated because of the fact of the
[1:21:51] and it has to go to the register of uh
[1:21:54] of municipalities of Victoria and there
[1:21:57] seems to be this big push in reducing
[1:21:58] costs to be able to produce housing. So,
[1:22:00] we're not sure whether this will get
[1:22:02] approved, but we'll we'll certainly put
[1:22:04] it forward, but I'm looking forward to
[1:22:05] some to having some more discussion.
[1:22:07] It's a significant raise to what we're
[1:22:09] currently paying, which is currently
[1:22:10] about $10,700
[1:22:12] per lot that's being created and taking
[1:22:14] it up to 23,000. It's It's significant.
[1:22:17] And then, when you throw on, you know,
[1:22:19] the Metro portion, TransLink, you know,
[1:22:22] we're at $32,000 for the creation of a
[1:22:25] lot, 33,042
[1:22:27] for the creation of a lot, which is significant. So.
[1:22:33] Good. Okay, no further questions. I'll
[1:22:35] call the question. All those in favor?
[1:22:38] Opposed? Carried unanimously. Thank you,
[1:22:40] Mr. Boyd.
[1:22:41] >> Thank you.
[1:22:42] >> Uh okay, now we'll move on to the
[1:22:44] mayor's report. I don't really have a
[1:22:45] lot. Uh please be cautious. The water uh
[1:22:49] restrictions went down to phase or to
[1:22:51] level two.
[1:22:52] So, you are allowed to water shrubs uh
[1:22:55] and hand watering. Allowed to wash your
[1:22:57] car.
[1:22:58] Um fire ban is in. It's I know that a
[1:23:01] new fire just opened up in the Fraser
[1:23:03] Valley tonight. It's it's a very, very
[1:23:06] precarious time right now. We need to
[1:23:07] get through the next couple weeks.
[1:23:08] Hopefully, I think there's going to be
[1:23:09] some rain due on Saturday and Sunday.
[1:23:12] And I think that's about it. I'll move
[1:23:15] on counselor's reports. Counselor
[1:23:17] Richardson.
[1:23:19] >> Okay, three things. One for the public
[1:23:23] and I think
[1:23:24] Miss Elrick might cover this is election
[1:23:27] dates
[1:23:29] uh for the information sessions.
[1:23:33] » Through the chair, is that for candidate
[1:23:36] information
[1:23:37] >> Yes.
[1:23:38] >> sessions?
[1:23:38] Um yes, he stole my thunder.
[1:23:40] >> Okay, so I'll let you
[1:23:42] go ahead.
[1:23:42] >> go ahead.
[1:23:43] >> [laughter]
[1:23:43] >> Okay, go.
[1:23:44] >> No, I
[1:23:45] happy to give you the dates um
[1:23:46] >> No, no, just save it. I don't need to.
[1:23:49] Um the other thing was mentioned
[1:23:50] earlier, this was the last meeting for
[1:23:52] public input until after the election.
[1:23:55] So, what public question period? Say
[1:23:57] your peace or forever hold your more.
[1:24:00] Um
[1:24:01] on garbage days, it's interesting to me
[1:24:03] because the bears go around and tip
[1:24:05] garbage over.
[1:24:06] And unfortunately, or fortunately, it
[1:24:09] lets me see what people are throwing
[1:24:10] out.
[1:24:12] And I have to say I'm a bit appalled on
[1:24:16] the recyclables and compostables that
[1:24:19] are in garbage bins. I don't know if
[1:24:21] there's anything we can do about it, but
[1:24:22] glass bottles, clear plastic, films, etc., etc., etc. And it
[1:24:28] drives me nuts. So, um I just want to
[1:24:30] say
[1:24:32] it doesn't take a lot of time. Please
[1:24:34] put more care in your garbage and
[1:24:36] recyclables.
[1:24:38] And then the last thing is I bumped into
[1:24:40] Jay Sharp a few times at my office,
[1:24:42] which is
[1:24:44] the leftmost seat at Starbucks at 1:30
[1:24:47] most days.
[1:24:49] And we've had chats with other residents
[1:24:51] about the fire halls.
[1:24:53] And I suggested to Mr. Sharp that he
[1:24:57] could do a town hall or something cuz it
[1:24:59] he brings the temperature down of people
[1:25:01] who are quite upset.
[1:25:02] And he informed me that he cannot do
[1:25:05] that without the approval of the
[1:25:07] trustees.
[1:25:08] And really council has this council has
[1:25:11] no say
[1:25:12] on
[1:25:14] the fire thing other than through the
[1:25:15] trustees. So, I make my request to the
[1:25:18] Anmore trustees, could you request or
[1:25:21] give permission to Mr. Sharp to do a
[1:25:23] town hall
[1:25:24] on the fire halls? That would be greatly
[1:25:26] appreciated by the residents at large.
[1:25:29] Thank you.
[1:25:29] >> I I actually believe there's going to be
[1:25:31] an RFP coming out. There'll be an
[1:25:32] actually a special meeting for the for
[1:25:35] the handy note of the RFP for the design
[1:25:37] and everything. So, that would be a
[1:25:38] perfect opportunity to to get people out
[1:25:40] to ask questions. So,
[1:25:42] to me.
[1:25:43] Okay. Uh Chief Administrative Report.
[1:25:48] >> Thank you.
[1:25:50] The election candidate
[1:25:52] um sessions. Um and these are the
[1:25:54] sessions that are uh administered by our
[1:25:58] Chief Election Officer, Lori Darkis,
[1:26:01] um where potential candidates can find
[1:26:04] out uh about the election process, about
[1:26:07] uh
[1:26:08] what uh
[1:26:10] being an elected official uh looks like,
[1:26:13] and and responsibilities related to
[1:26:15] that. So, we are looking at holding two
[1:26:17] info sessions this time. Um all of this
[1:26:19] information will be up on the village
[1:26:21] website in the coming weeks as well, but
[1:26:23] the dates for the info sessions will be
[1:26:25] in the evening August 27th and September
[1:26:29] 2nd
[1:26:30] uh right now. And uh so, please check
[1:26:33] for that and other information and
[1:26:35] updates on the election uh page, which
[1:26:38] is on the Village of Anmore website, and
[1:26:40] we will be uh more targeted uh
[1:26:43] communication coming out on that. Um and
[1:26:45] then additionally further to um the
[1:26:49] recommendation this evening, uh watch
[1:26:51] for um
[1:26:53] early September. We expect that we will
[1:26:55] be having uh an information session um
[1:26:59] firstly for the development community,
[1:27:00] but then secondly um for the broader
[1:27:03] public on uh development cost charges
[1:27:06] and uh what exactly they are and uh how
[1:27:10] they're determined and and projects and
[1:27:12] whatnot um just so that the general
[1:27:14] public uh understands the uh DCCs and
[1:27:18] the bylaw before it comes back to
[1:27:20] council uh hopefully later in September.
[1:27:23] That's it for me.
[1:27:24] >> Good. Thank you. I've got uh some
[1:27:27] general correspondence letter dated from
[1:27:28] the chair of the regional district of
[1:27:30] the Central Okanagan and town of Lake
[1:27:32] Country. Public input and question
[1:27:34] period. This is the last one, so
[1:27:37] I thought you said it was the Is it the
[1:27:39] last one? It is, yeah. So, please name and address, please.
[1:27:43] >> Is this working?
[1:27:44] >> You're
[1:27:45] >> product 1815 East Road. I'm just
[1:27:47] wondering if the municipality proper, I
[1:27:51] mean,
[1:27:52] uh the village is exempt from the water
[1:27:55] restrictions. I see, for example, circle
[1:27:58] hoses out here and
[1:27:59] uh or something that's making the plants
[1:28:02] grow quite well. And I was just
[1:28:04] wondering if the village is uh exempt from water
[1:28:08] restrictions
[1:28:09] uh when we were
[1:28:11] uh obeying them.
[1:28:12] >> Well, the water restrictions now are
[1:28:14] down back to a level two, so you are
[1:28:16] allowed to hand water shrubs and that,
[1:28:18] yeah.
[1:28:18] >> But, water is we uh
[1:28:20] the residents were restricted from using
[1:28:22] soaker hoses.
[1:28:24] >> I don't know how the vegetation out here
[1:28:26] grew out
[1:28:27] quite
[1:28:28] quickly and must have been fed by water.
[1:28:31] I'm just wondering if there's exemptions
[1:28:33] for the village and not for residents.
[1:28:36] >> Just for clarity, are you talking about
[1:28:38] the ferns that came up from the dirt
[1:28:40] area in the front?
[1:28:41] >> and also at the steps here.
[1:28:43] >> Uh I don't know about the steps, but
[1:28:44] those darned ferns,
[1:28:46] they they come up no matter what you do.
[1:28:50] So, in the front around like on the east
[1:28:53] Sunny Side Road section, all the green
[1:28:55] that came up through the newly laid in
[1:28:56] soil, I don't think that was watered at
[1:28:58] all.
[1:28:59] >> Okay, Joe.
[1:29:00] And I was just curious. Thank you.
[1:29:02] >> Thank you.
[1:29:12] » Hi, this is Mike 2555 Sunny Side Road.
[1:29:15] Um
[1:29:17] I don't know if I'm allowed to how I'm
[1:29:18] going to be able to ask these questions.
[1:29:20] Do I do it through you?
[1:29:22] >> Yeah.
[1:29:22] >> Because it's a contractor and it's also
[1:29:25] a member of the staff
[1:29:27] that I have these questions for.
[1:29:30] >> Can you send me an email about it or
[1:29:32] >> Uh
[1:29:34] >> Can you generalize what what it
[1:29:35] >> Okay. Well,
[1:29:37] >> Uh we don't want anybody's name
[1:29:38] mentioned or anything like that.
[1:29:40] >> No, I'm not Well, May 5th, I uh we had
[1:29:43] the council meeting. After the meeting,
[1:29:46] we talked about the drainage of the
[1:29:47] Spirit Park. After the meeting, I met
[1:29:50] with the city ca- the municipal
[1:29:52] contractor in charge of that and we set
[1:29:56] up for a time, 2:00 the next day to
[1:29:59] go and and meet over there. Um I was
[1:30:03] there for more than half an hour,
[1:30:06] gave up because he never showed up. So,
[1:30:08] May 6th, the next day or that day, um I
[1:30:12] phoned city hall when I went in and I I
[1:30:16] asked the receptionist or whoever
[1:30:17] answered the phone, um what do I do? Can
[1:30:20] I have his number? She said, "No, I'll
[1:30:22] leave a posted note for him. I will get
[1:30:25] him to contact you and also email him."
[1:30:29] So, I emailed him. That was on May 6th.
[1:30:34] June 23rd, I I also left my phone
[1:30:36] number. June 23rd, I sent another email.
[1:30:39] This time I CC'd one of the staff. I'm
[1:30:42] not allowed to say which staff because
[1:30:45] we're not allowed to say names. Uh that
[1:30:47] was June 23rd. I emailed the staff
[1:30:49] saying, "Hey, um well, not the staff. I
[1:30:52] CC'd the staff and I emailed the
[1:30:54] contractor.
[1:30:56] And I said, um we were supposed to meet.
[1:30:59] That was a month ago. I waited a month.
[1:31:02] How come we didn't meet? Here's my phone
[1:31:04] number. Can we please meet?" Then, um
[1:31:07] today is the 20
[1:31:09] >> first of July. I still have not received
[1:31:13] any correspondence from the city staff
[1:31:16] and the contractor in charge and they've
[1:31:18] already um sent the tender out for that
[1:31:22] or awarded the tender. So, so who do I
[1:31:24] What do I do?
[1:31:25] >> If I can ask if you can send me that
[1:31:29] string of emails
[1:31:30] and and that and then I will I'll talk
[1:31:33] to Karen
[1:31:33] >> Okay.
[1:31:34] >> uh Ms. Halbert.
[1:31:34] >> Okay. Yeah, because
[1:31:36] >> Okay.
[1:31:36] >> I'm I'm frustrated that it's been 2
[1:31:38] months and it's been a month for the
[1:31:41] city staff to get back to me as well as
[1:31:43] the contractor. 2 months.
[1:31:45] >> Okay. So.
[1:31:45] >> Okay.
[1:31:46] Any other questions before
[1:31:50] Okay, motion to adjourn.
[1:31:52] Moved. Second. All those in favor?
[1:31:54] Carried unanimously and thank you
[1:31:55] everyone. Have a great summer.
[1:31:58] We'll see you in September.
[1:32:08] » Mhm.