[8:28] Hi there. If the person that has come in for public participation that says iPad

[8:32] can rename themselves, I'd appreciate that. Thank you.

[10:12] Hi there, this is Marcy Lon from corporate services and I just wanted to

[10:16] ask the person who has come in as iPad to rename themselves please. Thank you.

[12:51] Okay. Well, good evening, ladies and

[12:54] gentlemen. It's great to see a nice full house here. And uh I would like to call

[12:59] the regular council meeting for Monday, August 24th to order. Uh before I start

[13:04] uh we would like to respectfully acknowledge that we are gathered on the

[13:08] traditional territory of the Luangan speaking people represented today by the

[13:12] Esquimal and Zongis nations. We're grateful to work, live and play in this

[13:17] very special place. Item two is approval of the agenda. And uh before I start

[13:23] here, uh I'm I'm going to I never like start with apologies because I know a

[13:28] lot of people came out for uh 420 Tamarak. Uh but uh some information

[13:34] became available late this afternoon and I just got a statement to read right

[13:39] now. Um before uh council proceeds with consideration of 4 420 uh Tamarak Road

[13:47] reszoning application, I'd like to bring um an administrative matter to council's

[13:52] attention. Uh residents within 100 meters of the radius of the property

[13:57] were were notified by postcard that the proposed bylaw and related materials

[14:04] would be available for public inspection between August 10th and August 24th.

[14:10] Following the planning and land use committee meeting on May 4th, 2026,

[14:15] revisions were made to the proposed bylaw, including changes to regulate

[14:20] building height using both maximum in meters and stories.

[14:25] In addition, a new report entitled 420 Tamarak Road reszoning supplementary

[14:33] information following the planning and land use

[14:36] committee review was prepared. Staff has since determined that these

[14:43] updated materials were not included in the P for in the public inspection

[14:49] binder. That's the virtual binder that [snorts] was made available for review.

[14:55] As a result, members of the public may not have had access to all the

[15:01] information intended to be available prior to council's consideration of this

[15:06] application. It is important that both council and

[15:12] the public have the opportunity to review the complete record before a

[15:17] decision is made. To ensure a fair, transparent process, I

[15:24] will be asking council this evening to consider deferring a consideration of

[15:29] the 420 Tamarak Road reszoning application to the next available

[15:35] committee of the whole meeting, thereby providing additional opportunity

[15:40] for public uh review, input, and discussion before council deliberates on

[15:47] this matter. So this is very important to this

[15:51] council transparency and I just want to apologize that uh not

[15:56] all this information was made available. Um CEO do you have anything to add to

[16:01] that please? >> No Mr. Mayor you have covered that off.

[16:04] I think with this application a number of things changed from the time it went

[16:08] to the planning and land use committee which uh was a result of council's

[16:12] deliberations at 3145 machosen about story and height. So, the bylaw was

[16:17] amended to provide that clarity that council wanted and that wasn't in that

[16:22] package as well as the staff report that was put live uh with the agenda review

[16:26] on Wednesday of last week. So, neither of those were added to that uh binder uh

[16:32] as an oversight and with that being the case uh and a lot of the public comments

[16:37] that we received um it seems clear that that information didn't transcribe into

[16:42] some of those uh letters that had come back in. So, we bring this

[16:46] administrative matter uh to council. Obviously, this isn't uh something that

[16:50] anybody uh likes moving forward. We're looking at our processes to ensure that

[16:55] this doesn't happen again. Uh from the perspective of uh council's time and the

[17:00] public's time and the developers time of bringing this forward. Um with that,

[17:05] your worship, these are the things that we will be looking at for service

[17:08] improvements moving forward. Um certainly duly noted and uh apologies on

[17:13] behalf of the administration for missing that key component. Okay. Thank you very

[17:17] much. Um I I have a proposed uh motion. Can you can you put that onto the screen

[17:22] and I'll get a I'll look for a move in a second here, please.

[17:34] » Sorry, Mr. Mayor. I don't have her prepared for the screen right now, but

[17:37] it is that item 9.2 2 420 Tamrock Road reszoning be deferred to the first

[17:43] available committee of the whole meeting.

[17:45] » Thank you very much. Can I get a mover? Uh, councelor Day, please.

[17:52] » Thank you. I'm happy to move that motion, but um I was hoping to provide

[17:58] the public with information on when that will be. I believe it our next available

[18:04] is August, not August, September 28th. [clears throat] This is new information

[18:09] that came forward this afternoon. I haven't looked at the agenda for there,

[18:13] but we will do our best to make sure that it's available at the next

[18:16] committee meeting. I don't have a date for you at this point. It's something I

[18:20] can confirm with both the developer and obviously in the public notices as that

[18:24] go out. Uh we just need the opportunity to look at the upcoming agendas and how

[18:28] that will fit in. >> Thank you.

[18:30] » We can do a special also by the way. >> Right. Okay. Can I get a second? Thank

[18:35] you, Councelor Grove. Uh discussion. Oh, councelor Jensen and then council

[18:41] war. >> Thank you, worship. And uh as

[18:45] disappointing as this might be, especially for the folks who attended,

[18:49] um I think the process is there for a reason. We do need to hold ourselves to

[18:55] account and I think it's apologies to the people who showed up including the

[18:59] proponents for this particular uh location. But can I get some clarity? Uh

[19:05] here it sits on an agenda for council and now we're not moving it to another

[19:10] council agenda. We're moving to committee the whole it might be a nuance

[19:14] but can I have an understanding of what the thinking is there?

[19:17] » Absolutely. Uh I'll tell you what the thinking is. Um there were a total of

[19:22] you know over 40 letters that were submitted. I think it needs a little

[19:26] more discussion and as you know committee as a whole allows that

[19:31] discussion to happen a lot freer than here at council because council is very

[19:36] business-like. So I I think you know but we can do a council meeting thereafter

[19:41] and do whatever we have to do. So >> I think well uh and I know uh the chief

[19:46] administrator mentioned it but uh uh you know what's on the agenda is important

[19:50] as well. So sticking this at the back of some voluminous agenda that's already

[19:55] underway would do it a disservice. Uh so um hopefully we can keep that in mind so

[20:00] we don't make people wait till 10:00 to hear what they came to hear. Right.

[20:04] Thank you very much. Um seeing no other speakers I'll I'll just

[20:09] uh call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed?

[20:14] Uh councelor work. Okay. And uh now uh getting through that the that that that

[20:20] that motion passes. Uh so the the next um I'm looking for a mover and second

[20:26] that the agenda of the regular council meeting of August 24th be adopted as

[20:31] amended. Please move and second. Thank you. Councelor Grove and Councelor

[20:36] Troen. Okay. And uh discussion seeing none. Any opposed? Seeing none.

[20:44] Motion carries. Okay. Hey, I'm going to move on to item three, which is the

[20:48] mayor's message. I just have uh three messages this evening. Uh first of all,

[20:53] I just want to welcome everyone back uh from summer recess. I hope everyone had

[20:58] an opportunity to enjoy a little bit of time off with family and friends. And we

[21:03] only have uh two regular council meetings left here until the end of this

[21:08] term. And uh so uh

[21:15] yeah, I'll let I'll let people pile out here.

[21:28] And uh my second message is uh pretty simple. I'm going to hand my the reigns

[21:32] over to councelor Grove who just wants to take a few minutes to update council

[21:36] on the community garden initiative. Council Grove. [clears throat]

[21:44] Uh thank you mayor. So we have uh under uh direction from council to pursue some

[21:49] uh uh uh community garden possibilities down the lagoon west park that has been

[21:55] taken on by the co garden society and working together. This is very early

[21:59] stages. I think that we have uh some time now to do develop a public

[22:04] engagement uh aspect to this project which will uh roll out hopefully fairly

[22:10] soon and the uh location, the style, the type, the size, all of those things need

[22:16] to be settled and discussed. So, I'm hoping staff can find that to fit and we

[22:22] can get to go going on that soon. Just wanted to let people know that that

[22:26] possibility existed. Thank you. Thanks a lot, David. It's uh it's great that you

[22:32] volunteered to take this on on top of everything else that you do. Thanks a

[22:36] lot, Conver Grove. Uh the last thing I just want to say is um on the evening of

[22:42] August 13th, the Wander Lawn Bowls Club hosted its inaugural Merrill and

[22:50] Counselors Lawn Bowling Challenge. All five Westshore municipalities uh um

[22:56] councils were participated in this tournament. In brief, I'm happy [snorts]

[23:01] to say that and announced that the city of Cowwood represented by councelor

[23:06] Misty Olsen, councelor Ian Ward, councelor David Grove, councelor Dean

[23:11] Jensen, and me uh we won. We won. And uh you know I say the terms I use is

[23:19] through sheer determination, skill and true grit and a whole bunch of luck.

[23:26] But we get to claim the bragging rights as the winner. And uh I have Steve from

[23:31] the Wand Fuca Ults Club here. He wants to make a quick presentation. So Steve,

[23:37] please I'll let you I I think you want to have a word here. So go ahead. Please

[23:41] just have to push the button on the right on there. There you go.

[23:45] » Good evening. I'm Steve Schulhan representing the Wand Fugal Bulls Club.

[23:49] I am excited and thrilled to be able to uh present to the city of Cwood the

[23:55] first annual challenge cup. So congratulations and I very much look

[24:00] forward to seeing you next year when you return to defend your cup.

[24:23] probably

[24:36] work.

[24:43] So I'm going to move on to item four, adoption and receipt of minutes. May

[24:47] have a mover and secondary for the adoption and receipt of the minutes

[24:50] detailed in section 4 [clears throat] under recommendation. Okay, thank you.

[24:54] Councelor Olsen and Councelor Jensen, any errors or omissions?

[25:00] Seeing none, call the question. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion carries.

[25:06] Okay, we're going to move on to item five, which is uh public participation.

[25:12] Uh we have uh we had 26 written submissions that were received prior to

[25:18] agenda publication and they're attached to the agenda. We also had 22 written

[25:25] submissions that were received after agenda publication and they will be

[25:29] appended to the agenda following tonight's meeting. In addition, they

[25:33] will be available on the cities of meetings website tomorrow. Just like to

[25:38] thank the public uh for their written submissions. I I was really impressed by

[25:44] the quality. Uh I finally got through them all. That was uh quite the quite

[25:49] the handful that we had this time. Uh but all worthy of rating. Uh we have uh

[25:56] nine people that have registered to speak uh at uh public participation

[26:01] tonight. nine virtually. Is it is it nine virtual?

[26:04] » That is virtual, but we do have uh a number of the people that have

[26:08] registered that were specifically here to speak about Tamarak.

[26:12] » Um and we do have another one that's here on a different issue. Okay.

[26:16] » Electronically. >> Okay. So, I know that uh we we've got a

[26:21] couple controversial um items on the agenda tonight and I I just want to just

[26:28] state something here that uh um I just like to remind everyone participating in

[26:33] public participation that uh we really truly welcome your comments and

[26:40] opinions. And I I just want to ask everyone to please focus your comments

[26:45] on the issue, the proposal or the concern and not individuals. I want to

[26:50] keep this as respectful as possible and uh uh you know we may disagree on the

[26:57] issues but we can and should do so respectfully and constructively.

[27:03] So at this time uh let's start with the people virtual.

[27:09] Uh hi there. This is Marcy from Cydia Calwood. Uh the first public

[27:13] participation uh participants, Marlene and uh Peter, if you'd like to unmute

[27:18] yourself and address council. Thank you. >> Hello. Hi. Hi. Thank you for the

[27:24] opportunity. I'm Marlene. >> And I'm Peter Lewis.

[27:28] » And uh we live on Triangle Mountain, 863 Kala Crescent. We've been there for 39

[27:34] years. We have probably 30 to 40 really large mature fur and seed mostly fur and

[27:42] cedar trees. So, maple trees on the property. We don't like cutting down

[27:46] trees. We love We really appreciate that the city of Cwood has a tree protection

[27:52] uh policy. We learned recently though earlier this

[27:56] month that two of our large fur trees have a disease. There's also a cedar

[28:01] tree that we haven't applied for a tree cutting permit on, but uh the fur trees

[28:07] we're going to we need to take them down first. Um we've hired a really

[28:12] wellqualified arborist, actually somebody who cuts uh does cutting for

[28:16] Calwood. And um so that bill is $2,500. And then when we were applying for a

[28:24] tree cutting permit, which we didn't know we needed to do, but when we

[28:27] applied, we also learned we have to pay another $750 a tree uh to cut down the

[28:35] tree. And uh if we replant, so we're delaying the cedar tree where if we

[28:42] replant two trees a year later, if they're still alive, we can get the

[28:48] $1,500 back. So the thing that doesn't work for us is um we think there should

[28:57] be a distinction. These trees are being cut for safety, not for profit, not for

[29:01] development, not for views. But if they aren't cut and they blow down, and they

[29:06] will blow down eventually. It won't I don't know when, but they are going to

[29:09] blow down. Um, one of them is for sure going to reach if it it is going to fall

[29:16] towards the street and it's going to fall on hydro wires and probably

[29:20] actually reach the road as well. And the other tree might fall on our house. I

[29:25] don't know which direction it would fall. Um, so these are being cut for

[29:30] safety reasons. And we think that there should be a distinction

[29:35] um between charging uh for tree cutting uh if it's for profit or if it's for

[29:42] safety. It's it's a lot of money to come up with upfront. $4,100 the tree permit

[29:49] uh 7 uh $1,500 in tree uh cutting fees like the city of Cwood and then $2,500

[29:59] to the arborist. It's a lot of money to come up with upfront.

[30:03] » Thank you very much. I've got to uh wrap you up here. That that that beep beep

[30:07] was your time. So I did let you extend, but message message received.

[30:12] » Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you very much.

[30:16] Next, please.

[30:20] » Sorry, Mr. Mayor. I believe a m the remainder of the people wanting to speak

[30:24] during public participation were specifically for Tamarak. So, I'm not

[30:28] sure if they still want to address council or not. Um, they might not be

[30:32] aware that it has been deferred to a future committee of the whole meeting.

[30:39] » Yes, let's let's find out. >> I see that we still have people online,

[30:45] so I'm going to start off with um Shannon B. If you want to unmute

[30:50] yourself and you can go ahead and address council. Thank you.

[30:54] » Hi there. Um, good evening. Um, as you as you just said, my name is Shannon and

[30:59] I live on Whale Road, uh, 2721, uh, which is just a really short walk

[31:04] from Gamble Park and I'm a mother of three young kids. And, um, I know things

[31:09] have kind of changed track here, but I just wanted to, um, just mention that

[31:13] I'm here in support, uh, in support of the proposed development at Tamarack.

[31:17] Um, I want to focus on the park because that's what matters most to my family.

[31:22] Um, Gamma Park is a lovely green open like well-kept space. Um, um, but if

[31:28] you're a parent of young kids like I am, there's nothing really to actually do.

[31:32] So, my kids and I just walk through it. We don't actually stay. Um, the

[31:35] playground upgrade, however, um, which is included in this project project

[31:39] would change that. Uh, real play structure would turn that whole area,

[31:43] Gamble Park, into a place families in this neighborhood would actually, I

[31:46] think, seek out and not just pass through. and uh especially cuz this

[31:50] isn't a private perk for residents um of the development. It's a public park

[31:53] upgrade. Um every family on Whale Road and Beyond could benefit from it. So uh

[31:58] beyond the park, I also think that this project is thoughtfully designed and

[32:02] fits with with what Cwood has planned for this area. Um and I support the

[32:06] housing that helps our community grow um for people who already live here. So I

[32:10] just want to say that and thank you guys so much for your time.

[32:13] » Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Bye-bye.

[32:16] Next. >> Hi there, U. Michael. Under public

[32:20] participation, if you'd like to unmute yourself and you can go ahead and

[32:23] address council. Thank you.

[32:32] » I'm assuming you're meaning Michael Veramp.

[32:39] » You got to bear with me because I'm just getting a cold. Good evening, mayor and

[32:43] council. My name is Mike and my wife Donna and I live on Sun Ridge Valley

[32:48] Drive. We've been in Cwood for over 20 years now. We raised our kids here and

[32:55] they're all adults now out in the real world. So, I want to be clear. We're not

[32:59] speaking tonight because this affects us directly. We're speaking because of what

[33:05] we think this project says about Cwood as a whole.

[33:09] I think there's a pattern in how a lot of cities do this. Apartments and condos

[33:16] get built, sure, but they get pushed to the busy roads, the corridors, the

[33:20] places nobody really wants to live. And the message that sends, even if nobody

[33:26] says it out loud, is that people who live in apartments or condos, don't get

[33:30] to be part of real neighborhoods in the same way a house on a quiet street does.

[33:36] That's not something we ever really questioned until we saw this project.

[33:41] 420 Tamarak is different. It's not on a busy corridor. It's on a quiet culde-sac

[33:46] next to a park in an actual neighborhood. The same kind of setting

[33:51] Donna and I raised our own kids in. And I think this matters more than people

[33:56] realize. It says that this building is just as much a part of this community as

[34:02] any house on any street around it. There's also a practical side to this

[34:07] that shouldn't get lost. 153

[34:12] new households within walking distance of Callwood Corners means real everyday

[34:16] customers for the shops and businesses already there. That's not a small thing

[34:22] for the people who've invested in this commercial area.

[34:26] more people living close by is is how Calwood is how sorry is how that part of

[34:34] Cowwood stays healthy long term. >> Mike, I'm going to have to get you to

[34:37] wrap it up. Uh your time is uh expired. >> Okay. Thank you very much.

[34:42] » Thank you very much. >> Thanks.

[34:47] » Uh hi. Under public participation, Cara King, if you'd like to unmute yourself

[34:50] and you can go ahead and address council. Thank you.

[34:56] Hi, good evening mayor and council. My name is Cara King. My husband Matthew

[35:00] and I live on Leila Place and I grew up in Cwood next to Marcy. Um, so this city

[35:05] is my home in every sense. Um, Matthew is a dentist here and I work alongside

[35:10] him as a dental hygienist. We get to chat with our patients quite often and

[35:14] it's remarkable how frequently the same thing comes up. Retirees wondering where

[35:19] to downsize, young adults wondering if they can afford to stay. The question

[35:23] [snorts] is always, is there room for us here? 420 Tamarack answers that 153

[35:30] homes beside a park, walkable, built to fit in the neighborhood. Cowwood made

[35:35] room for us, so let's make room for the next generation, too. Thank you for the

[35:41] opportunity to be heard. >> Thank you very much, Ka. Next, please.

[35:50] » Hi there. under public participation. We have I believe it's Andrew. Uh go ahead

[35:55] and you can unmute yourself and address council.

[36:00] » Sorry, it's Andrea. My apologies.

[36:18] » Andrea Scott. No, I I believe that. >> Sorry, [laughter]

[36:24] » that's not for public particip.

[36:28] » No. >> Okay. So,

[36:30] » thank you. >> We got everyone virtually. Then, uh

[36:33] we'll ask anyone here that's in attendance tonight to come on up and uh

[36:38] participate. Peace.

[36:47] » Yes. Just so that you know the colors.

[36:52] There's a green light which means you're being timed. Yellow is you got 30

[36:56] seconds left. And the red means you got to stop.

[36:58] » Okay. [laughter]

[37:01] » Yeah. >> Good evening, Mayor Kobayashi and Mayor

[37:07] members of council. My name is Margaret Hill and my husband Ryan and I are the

[37:11] registered owners of unit I won't say the unit in the Eliza B um condo in

[37:17] Royal Bay directly across from the proposed development at 3569 Ryder Hesto

[37:23] Way. We submitted a written objection to DVP 0019 on June 15th and I'm here to

[37:32] tonight to speak briefly to that [snorts] to our concerns. First, I want

[37:36] to clarify one error. In my previous submission, I mistakenly referred to an

[37:40] increase of three six-story buildings. What I meant was the significant

[37:44] increase in permitted height as well as the increased overall size and massing

[37:50] associated with this variance. We've always been aware of the four buildings

[37:55] with the social building between them originally planned directly in front of

[37:58] Eliza and the future Bella complex. We were comfortable with that plan. We also

[38:03] have been aware of the smaller, less obtrusive building to be built on the

[38:07] corner and its position as shown in the rendering. What we did not anticipate

[38:12] was this variance introducing a substantial fifth building into our

[38:16] sight lines and eliminating the breezeway and openness that were part of

[38:20] the original vision presented to purchasers. The site would now contain

[38:25] six buildings, five sixstory buildings and one-story building, which would be

[38:29] the social house. um that is a very different

[38:34] configuration from what was originally presented and it creates a much greater

[38:38] sense of density and enclosure along Ryder Hudgel. The images used to market

[38:42] Royal Bay showed a much smaller building in a different configuration

[38:47] with a breezeway and open space between it and the four larger buildings

[38:51] directly in front of us. from our corner unit. We believe that that breezeway

[38:56] [clears throat] would help maintain a sense of openness

[38:59] with the proposed changes that openness has taken away completely and

[39:05] » I don't have so can I wrap it up? >> Yes.

[39:08] » Okay. Um thank you. I'll talk quick. And the development will instead create a

[39:12] much more imposing wall of buildings directly across from our home which was

[39:16] not what we had been shown when we made the decision. Um I'll skip a bit here.

[39:21] This isn't a vacant neighborhood waiting to be designed. We live there now. We

[39:26] are not opposed to path developing property. We are not opposed to growth

[39:30] in Royal Bay. We are asking council to make sure that the growth respects the

[39:35] neighborhood that's already there. These are the biggest buildings in Royal Bay

[39:40] and they're right in front of all the fourtore buildings. And I'm going to

[39:45] just not say what I said, but um it's just disappointing because it's actually

[39:50] ruining the look, the feel, and the character of the neighborhood.

[39:56] » Thank you very much for your feedback. >> I press that.

[39:59] » Yeah. Next, please.

[40:06] » If you can push there's a little button there,

[40:10] right? You're >> Yes. Good evening, Mayor and councilors.

[40:15] Okay, I'm here to talk about Eliza B as well. Um, and I just want to point out

[40:21] that um, we in Eliza B um, had these two brochures and also the Royal the the

[40:29] Bella Park brochures which clearly showed that the building that we were bu

[40:34] going to buy had um, basically um, laneways and plenty of green space and

[40:42] we were quite happy about that. Um, now we're finding that they're going to put

[40:47] wedge in a six-story building which is going to take away laneways, going to

[40:52] take away the equivalent amount of amount of green space and we we really

[40:58] object to that. Um uh you know um I I feel that in in this having been to some

[41:05] council meetings over the past couple of months um uh these new apartment

[41:11] buildings are getting a lot of families and they have a lot of children and they

[41:14] have a lot of pets as well. All the pets that we have in our building and they

[41:18] need green space. They need grain space and and I think the the we should be

[41:23] encouraging familyfriendly communities and not trying to create a a a concrete

[41:30] jungle which which I believe this building is going to function.

[41:36] Consequently, I think it's very timely that your council is reviewing your OCP

[41:42] and that that that in doing that OCP, you should be looking at these family f

[41:48] friendly communities because um I think that as um Margaret was just saying, we

[41:55] really like living in in Royal Bay and we feel that we'd like to keep the the

[42:00] the atmosphere and the and the friendliness that's there at the moment.

[42:04] I just want to say that you know we sent in 75 signatures were submitted to

[42:09] council and these are all people to wrap up. Sorry.

[42:14] » Okay. These are all people who wish to deny this variation. Thank you.

[42:19] » Thank you very much. >> Okay. Good.

[42:22] » Next. Next, please.

[42:32] Anyone else for public participation

[42:39] going once? >> Oh, Marcy.

[42:43] » My apologies, Mr. Mayor. We do also have uh Mike Riley online that wanted to

[42:47] address council. >> Oh, that's that good looking dude there.

[42:52] » Okay, sure. >> Mr. Riley. There we go. Thank you,

[42:54] » Mr. Riley. Go ahead, please. >> Very funny. Uh, thank thank you, Mr.

[42:59] Mayor and Council, I was actually here for Tamarak, but uh after the terrific

[43:04] tree uh presentation, I've been hooked and I'm staying on.

[43:09] I'll come back.

[43:13] Okay, thank you. Anyone else?

[43:20] Seeing none, I will close uh public participation and we'll move on to item

[43:26] six, which is delegations. And I understand we have the West Shore

[43:30] Chamber of Commerce uh doing the presentation. We have the executive

[43:34] director, Julie Lawler, and she's joined by Kelly Darwin, the president of the

[43:38] West Chamber of Commerce. Welcome, folks. Over to you, Julie.

[45:06] Oh, please. >> No, no, don't worry. I can always do it

[45:09] without if needs be.

[45:18] Couple

[45:25] seconds.

[46:49] Okay, you ready?

[46:53] All right. Oh, I'm already on. Thank you. Uh, good

[46:58] evening, Mayor Mary and Council. Thank you for the opportunity to come to speak

[47:01] to you at a very busy time. I'm executive director Julie Lawler and

[47:08] as stated I'm here with our president, Kelly Darwin. And our purpose in coming

[47:13] before you tonight is to report out on the community service agreement we have

[47:17] with the city of Cwood as well as respond to some points we were asked to

[47:22] address, which of course we're happy to do. The next six slides each relate to a

[47:27] component of our community service agreement.

[47:32] So business support to start as indicated in the slide the Westshore

[47:36] Chamber provides general query response and referral and our e-news social media

[47:42] community calendar and website resources are open to all. We like to say that if

[47:47] we don't have the answer, we can find somebody who does. website resources

[47:52] include a page new for 2026 on business benefits and grants as well as our

[47:58] already standing resources for small business and information on working with

[48:02] rural roads university students. If you're a member of the Westshore

[48:06] Chamber, you can also submit content for our e-news as Westshore Parks and Wreck

[48:11] have done for their 60th anniversary celebrations or have your news shared

[48:15] through our social media. As this is more generalized support, we don't track

[48:20] the callwood business impacts in every case. But if council is interested, I

[48:24] can certainly provide more data on callwood business news shared out

[48:28] through our e-news. The West Chamber's a clearing house of

[48:32] and a trusted source of information. Right now, we're getting ready to act as

[48:37] a conduit of information about support for businesses impacted by the most

[48:41] recent wave of US tariffs. Our membership with the Canadian Chamber of

[48:46] Commerce means we can effectively share this information out as quickly as

[48:50] possible. The Westshore Chamber convenes, facilitates, collaborates or

[48:55] supports in a whole range of areas that directly or indirectly support business.

[49:00] For example, we've recently re reached out to the business community, both

[49:03] members and non for their input on a potential grant application that would

[49:08] provide skills training in areas that businesses identify as a priority.

[49:16] business promotion. I chose this slide as it shows our

[49:21] director Beum Earlas of Oasis Landscape Design of Cowwood business speaking to

[49:26] two other members at a networking event we had at Acera Insurance in Royal Bay.

[49:31] Over the last year, eight out of 30 chamber events have been held at Calwood

[49:35] organizations with this year's AGM and Mixer planned at the Children's Health

[49:40] Foundation. While our networking events are for our members, we always create

[49:45] spaces for people interested in finding out more and offer a non-member option

[49:49] for all of our ticketed events. This has included a futurep proofing your

[49:53] business lunch and learn offered by Ingred Vaughn of My Smart HR at the John

[49:58] Han campus in March and our 70th anniversary quiz night and dance party

[50:02] which is happening at the Langford Legion in September.

[50:09] This slide is from the promotion for last year's joint event in November

[50:13] 2025. Since 2022, we've partnered with the city of Cwood on one or two

[50:18] prosperity roundt lunches per year, building on the online roundts

[50:23] introduced by Cwood during the pandemic. These have varied from generalized

[50:28] check-in conversations to more focused discussion on Callwood's value

[50:32] proposition and retail strategy. from our quarterly meetings with our liaison

[50:37] councelor Misty Olsen and CEO Jason Johnson. We appreciate that this year's

[50:41] event will be deferred into early 2027.

[50:48] So it turns out that I don't have a photo of the four of us meeting for

[50:51] quarterly leaison meetings. So I've included this photo of Mayor Kobayashi

[50:55] presenting at our coffee with the mayor event which took place earlier this

[50:59] year. Consistent quarterly meetings have really helped us work more closely

[51:04] together from events like this to discussing issues impacting Cwood

[51:09] businesses. As the current four-year term draws to a close, I'd like to take

[51:13] this opportunity to thank councelor Misty Olsen for her active leazison work

[51:17] with the West Chamber.

[51:22] We share City of Cowwood information through our enews and social media as a

[51:26] preferred partner. Over the last year, we had over 40,000 emails open with a 5%

[51:32] click rate. Our open rate is 49% and we have a subscriber list of around 930. If

[51:40] council would like more details on what city of Cwood News has been shared, I

[51:44] can certainly provide more data. We can also send direct email to Cwoodbased

[51:50] businesses on our database on business related issues. This currently stands at

[51:55] 361 which we understand is about half of business licenses. So there is still a

[52:01] gap there.

[52:04] Best of the west shore. This slide shows two Colwood based businesses who are

[52:09] winners in 2025 with Island Junk Solutions on the right for best home or

[52:13] trade services and Trillium Westshore Village on the left for best senior

[52:17] services. Overall, 25 Collwood businesses were winners or finalists.

[52:22] And this matters because it is promotion for and attention to these businesses.

[52:27] This contest is open to all businesses and nonprofits who have a location in

[52:32] the West Shore. Callwood Parks were also winners in three out of four community

[52:37] categories. Now that I've touched on the points of

[52:42] the community service agreement, I'd like to touch on some facts and figures.

[52:47] As you can see, our operating budget for the calendar year is just over $353,000.

[52:53] The majority of that is still based on memberships at 42%.

[52:58] If you compare that with 2024, you can see that our operating budget has gone

[53:04] up by 8% over two years and that is reflected largely of the increase in

[53:09] almost all costs. The comparison between the year the two years is like for like

[53:15] for budget areas with one exception. We have been unable to rent out areas of

[53:19] our building in 2026 as we have in prior years and have been fortunate in 2025 to

[53:25] bring in a wage subsidy through the Canada Summer Jobs Program. I've been

[53:29] asked to report on membership growth and retention statistics. Membership was at

[53:34] its lowest in 2021 when we hit 333 members. Since then, we've been

[53:40] gradually increasing overall membership year-on-year, and as of today, we're at

[53:44] 425. However, this has been largely driven by

[53:48] new membership as our drop rate started to go up in autumn of 2024 and is a

[53:53] continuing trend. Reasons range from retirement to value to member capacity,

[53:59] and we will continue to refine what we do based on feedback. But make no

[54:03] mistake, things are challenging for business right now.

[54:07] I'm now going to hand over to our president, Kelly Darwin, to take you

[54:11] through the last couple of slides. Kelly.

[54:20] Hello, Mary Council. As the city of Calwood considers its

[54:25] planning and budgeting for 2027, we wanted to recommend that one tool that

[54:29] could be of use is the implementation of business walks. Many chambers carry out

[54:34] these in partnership with municipalities for the benefit of both and we'd be

[54:39] happy to discuss that in more detail. You'll also be aware that Langford

[54:44] recently launched its economic development strategy and business walks

[54:48] is one of the initiatives we are discussing with them.

[54:53] This segus into a request for an update on the potential move to a new facility.

[54:59] Langford's economic development strategy specifies that the city of Langford's

[55:03] intention to relocate the chamber offices

[55:07] to a more accessible and visible location in downtown Langford to also

[55:12] allow for the full expansion of the Veterans Memorial Park and an important

[55:16] community asset. Negotiations continue and I expect we will have a more we'll

[55:22] be able to provide a more detailed update out to the community very soon.

[55:29] The West Shore Chamber started life as the Cwood and District Chamber in 1956.

[55:36] And as we look back over the and celebrate our 70 years of service to our

[55:40] community this year, I'd like to express our thanks to the city of Cwood. That's

[55:45] my official thanks. I also want to throw in a personal one. Um, as I hit my final

[55:51] 10 years of being in the West Shore Chamber of Commerce or being on the

[55:55] board of the West Shore, I've been looking back at what my achievements

[55:59] have been. And over the past three years as I've

[56:04] been president, I think my biggest achievement has been enforcing the

[56:08] relationships or or strengthening the relationships that we've had with uh our

[56:13] municipalities. And uh I think if we look back 3 years

[56:18] ago, we had a relationship with Gwood. And if you look back 10 years ago, maybe

[56:22] not quite as strong as it is today. So I would like to thank Mayor Kobayashi,

[56:27] Councelor Olsen, and CIO Jason Johnson for their devotion and their hard work

[56:33] in coming to the table, working with the chamber, and create creating a

[56:36] relationship that I hope will will last uh my term as the president of the

[56:41] chamber. Thank you very much.

[56:51] finished to take it the end. Okay. Uh I'll I'll open it up for questions from

[56:56] council. Any questions on the presentation? Uh councelor Jordison,

[57:01] please. >> Thanks, Mayor Kobe Hashi. I just wanted

[57:05] to say thank you for the presentation and for the work you're doing with our

[57:09] business community. Um, but I am and I think the business walks proposal is

[57:15] really interesting because I think that's exactly the kind of direct

[57:19] information council could benefit from hearing about. But I guess um I'm just

[57:25] trying to understand what's behind the numbers more importantly like what co

[57:30] businesses are telling the chamber that they need from us. If you have any of

[57:34] that information

[57:40] Now the key thing there is what co businesses are saying and I I can say

[57:46] some of the things that we're hearing but I I think that one of the the

[57:51] reasons why uh I think looking at something like business walks would be

[57:55] extremely useful for council but also for us as an organization in order order

[58:00] to be able to respond is that businesses need a lot of different things and some

[58:04] of them we can uh we can address together and some of them are are larger

[58:08] than what we can do necessarily. Um you know what we're hearing from businesses

[58:12] generally is about how challenging uh the cost of doing business is and that

[58:17] comes at different levels um from local up through to to federal. But in terms

[58:23] of specific call with businesses, it would probably be more along the lines

[58:27] of sort of one thing here and one thing here and one thing here. So I I I can

[58:32] always go back and look at what data that we have to provide you. But I also

[58:36] feel like because we don't have necessarily a direct line to callwood

[58:42] businesses, uh we know about them when we know about them, but they they don't

[58:48] opt in to have their information sent through to us, then we're missing an

[58:52] opportunity in terms of that conduit. >> Okay. Thank you, Julie.

[58:58] » Thank you. Uh council Olsson, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had a similar uh

[59:03] sentiment as councelor Jordison. Um, and thank you for the presentation and it's

[59:07] been a pleasure working with you both and Kelly. I wish you the best on your

[59:12] next endeavors. It's been a delight. Um, I think the business walks are also a

[59:16] great opportunity for membership drive. Um, you know, way to to get new members

[59:21] on board with the chamber. So, and and this council seems to love data. So any

[59:26] kind of information that we can get even uh with respect to um referrals that are

[59:31] actually being made to the chamber members um and getting a better

[59:34] understanding of how you're um surveying your members uh would be would be great

[59:38] just to get a better understanding of the benefits that they're getting

[59:41] through the chamber. Um you know we yeah we love data but I do appreciate the

[59:46] presentation and I I've enjoyed working with you both. So thank you very much.

[59:51] » Thank you. >> I just will wrap it up here then. Uh

[59:54] again, um really appreciate you coming out, uh this evening, uh you and Kelly.

[1:00:00] That that's phenomenal. And you know, being a past president, of course, of

[1:00:03] the Chamber of Commerce, I I understand the frustrations that you go through.

[1:00:08] It's even tougher now than Well, I wouldn't say that was tougher. I think

[1:00:12] we had different challenges when I was the president. Um but, uh want to thank

[1:00:17] you for everything that you do for the community, for the business community.

[1:00:20] Uh, one of the questions I do have is, um, [clears throat] as we're trying to

[1:00:25] align our own economic development strategy. It won't be in this term. You

[1:00:30] know, the the new council will have that challenge. Uh, that's for sure. How they

[1:00:35] want to do business here. So, you know, I'd like to you you're going to play an

[1:00:40] important role in that because I certainly don't understand what your

[1:00:44] strategic strategic objectives are and we got to make sure that we're not

[1:00:48] crossing over each others or how we can help one another to tell you the truth.

[1:00:52] So, I think that's really really important. So, I mean it's not going to

[1:00:56] happen uh in this term. We're almost finished here. But uh it is uh it is a

[1:01:02] strategic objective in our in our you know in our strategic plan. So do you

[1:01:07] have a strategic plan right now of some sort?

[1:01:10] » Yes, we do. >> Okay. So are we going to can we maybe in

[1:01:14] the early in the new term when the new term joins can can we you know maybe get

[1:01:19] that presentation to the the new council?

[1:01:23] » Absolutely. >> Okay. Great. And and my last question I

[1:01:26] have for you is um I don't quite understand what's happening. You just

[1:01:31] said you're getting kicked out of your building now, right? From

[1:01:34] » I did not say that. [laughter] >> Okay. So I just you you had some

[1:01:42] hesitation here. So I I picked up on that.

[1:01:46] I I mean I think the the point is that it's a there's a very clear statement in

[1:01:51] the Lanford economic development strategy and other than to say that

[1:01:56] there are no negotiations going on, we're not really in a position to say

[1:02:01] anything else publicly at this time. >> I understand. Okay. Thank you very much.

[1:02:05] I I picked up on that. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you very much again.

[1:02:09] » Thanks, Julie. >> Thank you. Thank you.

[1:02:11] » We appreciate it.

[1:02:14] Okay, we'll move on to item seven, which is the consent agenda. There's only two

[1:02:19] items on the consent agenda. Any member can make a request to move any item uh

[1:02:24] for the purpose of individual debate or discussion, and it only takes one

[1:02:28] person, and we move it. Uh, councelor Day, please.

[1:02:32] » Thank you. I'd like to um discuss the age friendly plan.

[1:02:37] » Okay. We'll move that to 8.6 under new business.

[1:02:42] Okay. And okay, that's it. Uh, may I get a motion to approve the U consent

[1:02:50] agenda, please? Council Jensen and Council Olson.

[1:02:55] Discussion. Seeing none any object. Oops. Sorry. Uh, you're still hot.

[1:03:00] Wait, sorry. Oops. Any any objections? Seeing none, motion

[1:03:08] carries. Thank you very much. We'll move on to new business. Uh item 8.1

[1:03:13] development variance permit number DVP 000019

[1:03:17] 3569 Ryder Hedge Way and uh Mr. CEO we get you to introduce us please. Thank

[1:03:26] you. >> Thank you your worship through the mayor

[1:03:27] and council. This is the development variance permit number DVP000019

[1:03:32] for 3569 Ryder Hedge Way. Matt Blakeley, our

[1:03:37] senior planner, has an overview to provide to council the recommended

[1:03:40] motion for council's consideration. Is the uh coming from the this was in came

[1:03:46] from the planning and land use committee that council refer the DBP back to staff

[1:03:50] to work with the applicant to explore revisions to the proposed building use

[1:03:54] and design. Mr. Matt Bley will take council through the application.

[1:04:03] » Would you like full presentation?

[1:04:15] Right.

[1:04:27] Uh thank you mayor and council. Uh so the purpose of tonight's presentation is

[1:04:32] to provide a high level uh summary of development variance permit application

[1:04:36] number DVP 000019 for the property located at 3569 Ryder

[1:04:42] Headshaw Way. Uh more detailed analysis and supporting information are provided

[1:04:47] in the staff report.

[1:04:58] Okay. Uh so this site is approximately 3,099 square meters or 0.765 acres. It's

[1:05:07] located in Ltoria South Royal Bay at the corner of Royal Commons Road and Ryder

[1:05:11] Hedge Stallway. Uh it is within area two of the CD28 zone and the Commons

[1:05:17] neighborhood as identified in the notorious uh south sub area plan. The

[1:05:22] site is bordered by Royal Commons Road to the north, Ryder Hedgehway to the

[1:05:26] west, an internal lane and a fourstory mixeduse building to the east and the

[1:05:32] rest of the parcel B development site immediately to the southeast as you can

[1:05:36] see in the top right corner of uh the screen there. Uh on July 6th, 2023, the

[1:05:43] original development permit uh for parcel B was issued. The approved

[1:05:47] development permit included four six-story apartment buildings, one

[1:05:50] four-story mixeduse building, and one amenity building. For context, the

[1:05:54] original development permit did not include the future park at the corner of

[1:05:58] Ryder Hedgehaw Way and Producer Way or the uh property uh at the corner of

[1:06:04] Royal Commons Road and Roger Hedgeall Way, which is the property that is

[1:06:08] subject to the current variance application this evening.

[1:06:17] Uh so the proposal envisions the construction of a 77 unit mixeduse

[1:06:23] development designed to offer a diverse mix of housing options and ground

[1:06:27] flooror commercial units along Royal Collins Road. Units will include

[1:06:32] onebedroom, onebedroom plus den, two bedrooms and two bedrooms plus den. Uh

[1:06:37] the two commercial units will contribute to the active street frontage of Royal

[1:06:42] Commons Road and align with the intent of the Commons neighborhood uh which is

[1:06:46] to be the commercial, social, and cultural heart of the Ltoria South area.

[1:06:52] The building is proposed to be above two and a half levels of underground parking

[1:06:56] with a total of 88 residential, 13 visitor and six commercial parking

[1:07:02] stalls. The proposal fully complies with the parking requirements set out in the

[1:07:06] off- streetet parking regulations bylaw as well as all requirements in the

[1:07:10] Callwood land use bylaw with exception to the maximum building height that is

[1:07:14] the subject of the variance request today.

[1:07:17] In addition to the variance application, the applicant has also applied for a

[1:07:21] form and character uh development permit for the proposed site. Uh due to the

[1:07:26] variance requests being associated with the overall building height, the

[1:07:29] approval of the variance is required to make the de uh the current development

[1:07:34] feasible. Until that decision is made, staff cannot move forward with

[1:07:37] processing the development permit.

[1:07:42] Uh in terms of the official community plan, the property is designated Seaside

[1:07:46] Village and is located within the Commons neighborhood as set out in the

[1:07:51] Ltoria South sub area plan. That sub area plan identifies this property as

[1:07:56] part of area 2, which is a 2.7 hectare mixeduse precinct intended to support

[1:08:01] the adjacent residential or sorry, support the adjacent retail core. Along

[1:08:07] the northern edge, the plan envisions a pedestrianoriented streetscape along

[1:08:11] common roads with ground floor retail and commercial uses and residential or

[1:08:15] commercial uses above. The plan anticipates building heights of up to

[1:08:20] four stories along the northern edge and up to six stories across the rest of the

[1:08:24] site. It also identifies an overall density of about 3.0 floor area ratio

[1:08:31] with the potential for additional density where the broader city

[1:08:34] objectives are achieved. Overall, the proposed development is consistent with

[1:08:39] that policy direction. It provides a mixeduse pedestrian oriented form along

[1:08:43] Royal Commons Road and then steps up to six stories toward Ryder Hedgeall Way

[1:08:47] which reflects the height for framework established for area 2 and CD28 zone.

[1:08:57] Uh the proposed development has been reviewed against the requirements of the

[1:09:00] CD28 area 2 zone and is in full compliance with all zoning regulations

[1:09:05] with exception to maximum height. One point I want to flag at this stage

[1:09:10] is that the zone distinguishes between apartment buildings which may be up to

[1:09:14] 24 meters in height and mixeduse buildings which are limited to 15

[1:09:17] meters. That distinction is the is central to the variance requests and

[1:09:22] I'll speak to that a little bit more in the staff analysis portion of this

[1:09:25] presentation.

[1:09:30] Uh so as I mentioned the applicant is uh requesting to vary section 10.33.5.2

[1:09:37] two of college land use bylaw 1989 to permit an increase to the maximum

[1:09:42] building height for a mixeduse building from 15 m to 24 meters.

[1:09:47] Um before I move on, I'll just uh pause here on the image. So you can see uh the

[1:09:53] four stories along uh Royal Commons Road on the left side of the screen and then

[1:09:58] it steps back approximately 11 and a half meters before it goes up again to

[1:10:04] uh the sixstory residential component of the building.

[1:10:16] Although the requested variance uh on paper appears uh substantial, it's

[1:10:21] largely due to the building's mixeduse classification rather than the overall

[1:10:25] form or height. The mixeduse frontage along Royal Commons Road generally

[1:10:30] remains within the 15 m limit except for a small parapit reaching 15.44 m while

[1:10:36] the residential portion is stepped back and reaches 21.64 64 meters below the 24

[1:10:43] meter otherwise permitted maximum for apartment uses in the CD28 area 2 zone.

[1:10:50] While the application technically seeks an increase from 15 m to 24 m for a

[1:10:55] mixeduse building, the added height is within the residential portion and is in

[1:10:59] the area where the greater height and density are anticipated in both the OCP

[1:11:04] and the zoning bylaw. The proposal maintains a four-story scale along Royal

[1:11:09] Commons Road and steps back before stepping up along Ryder Hedgehaw Way,

[1:11:14] consistent with the intent of the CD28 area 2 zoning. The upper stories are are

[1:11:20] set back well beyond the 1.5 meter minimum as I mentioned approximately 11

[1:11:26] and a half meters which is intended to reduce the perceived height from Royal

[1:11:31] Commons Road aligning with the neighboring fourstory mixeduse building

[1:11:36] and supporting the OCP direction for pedestrian scale and appropriate height

[1:11:40] transitions. facade articulation, a varied roof line

[1:11:44] and in individual unit articulation further reduces the massing and adds

[1:11:48] visual interest. Overall um staff consider the the variance technical in

[1:11:54] nature and have worked with the applicant through this application uh to

[1:11:59] design mitigating height or sorry to uh reduce the impacts of the height uh and

[1:12:07] think that the design mitigates the height impacts while advancing the

[1:12:11] objectives of the CD 20 28 area 2 zone the OCP and the south ltoria sub area

[1:12:21] In terms of public notification, a development notice sign has been posted

[1:12:26] on the subject property in accordance with council policy. The local

[1:12:30] government act requires written notice to be provided to all property owners

[1:12:34] and occupants who may be affected by the proposed variance in advance of the

[1:12:38] council meeting where decision on the development variance permit will be

[1:12:42] considered. Um, so these were sent out and uh prior to this council meeting,

[1:12:48] roughly two weeks.

[1:12:52] Uh, so there's a few uh suggested options for council to consider. Um,

[1:12:56] I'll leave the uh staff recommendation up on the screen um for a few moments

[1:13:02] for your consideration. Um, I'd also just like to note that um, Matthew

[1:13:07] Davis, uh, VP of development with past developments, also has a presentation

[1:13:11] prepared for council should they wish to, uh, see it. Um, I'm available now

[1:13:17] or, uh, following Matt's presentation uh, for any questions if you have them.

[1:13:22] » Thank you. Thank you.

[1:13:26] » Go ahead. Jeez. Council may wish to invite public participation. Uh, we

[1:13:30] missed that component at the start of this. Yeah, sure. The people that

[1:13:35] haven't spoken yet, does anyone want to speak to this item?

[1:13:42] » Seeing none, thank you. Um before I move on to um to the developer, uh I was

[1:13:49] wondering if I can get a perspective from the the chair of the planning and

[1:13:53] land use committee. Don't want to put you on the spot.

[1:13:58] Councelor,

[1:14:01] councelor Ward, go ahead. Oops. Councelor Ward follow.

[1:14:07] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, planning and land use committee did see the same

[1:14:11] presentation uh that's been presented by staff here. Um, and I think um there

[1:14:15] would be value in in hearing from the applicant as well. Um, they have their

[1:14:21] perspective. I think um the the the general sentiment at the time um

[1:14:29] was that the the the project you know the project

[1:14:34] itself is is it's always been known that there will be uh buildings of density on

[1:14:38] that location. Uh the question just became uh whether or not the addition of

[1:14:43] uh the additional building um you know represented some kind of

[1:14:47] misrepresentation. I think and the commentary varied. Certainly my

[1:14:53] perspective was that you you have to also be careful what you

[1:14:57] wish for um in that you know the applicants can perhaps do a better job

[1:15:01] of explaining this but there was within their right to to build a six-story

[1:15:05] building up to that sort of corner lot where where you see four stories. So

[1:15:10] part of this proposal um with this setback building allows for a public

[1:15:15] plaza area on the corner and some other amenities that fit with the community.

[1:15:20] Um whereas if they were put into a position to to not, you know, to be

[1:15:26] unable to build this conceivably you would then be left with that corner lot

[1:15:31] um vacant. And and I guess my comments to the committee were that, you know, um

[1:15:37] you could go from the frying pan into the fire, so to speak, in that if I'm

[1:15:41] the developer, it may not be feasible for me to build on that corner lot. I

[1:15:45] may then look to sell it. Um and I use the example of what's now 3554 Ryder

[1:15:50] Hedge Doll as an example where it was zoned for a specific thing. It was

[1:15:54] formerly known as 360 Ltoria. um sold to a different developer who then used that

[1:15:59] zoning to build something that that the community certainly saw as less valuable

[1:16:02] and less um appropriate a fit. So there was that piece and I think the other

[1:16:08] piece that was an unknown at the committee time that I think there's

[1:16:11] additional light been shed on was the notion that um

[1:16:16] that there was misrepresentation that people bought this and were told okay

[1:16:19] you'd have ocean views and things and I can only speak for myself but going away

[1:16:24] from that you know I have lived experience in that area I I am the one

[1:16:27] counselor here that lives in Royal Bay I purchased a three-story town home on

[1:16:32] Ltoria fronting Latoria road and when I moved And um there was nothing in Ltoria

[1:16:37] South. So I had an unencumbered view of of the ocean. It was beautiful. And I

[1:16:42] had real estate agents telling me, "Yes, ocean view town home." Um and I

[1:16:46] corrected one who went on the third floor, looked out the bedroom window,

[1:16:49] and said, you know, "Look at this. You got this great ocean view." And I said,

[1:16:52] "Well, it won't last." And she said, "Oh, well, no, there's a chance it

[1:16:54] could." There's a slim chance it it can, you know, if there's a gap between some

[1:16:59] buildings. But I said, "I've read the agreement. they're they're going to

[1:17:03] build things across the road here and the height variance in in these zonings

[1:17:08] is is sufficient that something will be blocked. So, ironically, my view was

[1:17:12] spoiled by the Eliza buildings. They came along at four stories um and

[1:17:16] blocked that ocean view for me and then that was further sealed when Beachlands

[1:17:20] put up uh buildings along uh along the chosen road. So since the planning and

[1:17:25] land use committee meeting that that gave me pause for thought and I thought

[1:17:28] well I did my homework and and you know I looked again at my sales agreement and

[1:17:33] I had acknowledged um when I signed off on buying a property from what was then

[1:17:39] Gablecraft which is now PATH um the document specifically stated to the

[1:17:44] effect that that these views were subject to change and so I knew that my

[1:17:48] my neighbor didn't my neighbor was angry and said you know these these Eliza

[1:17:52] buildings are going to block our view this is outrageous just my real estate

[1:17:55] agent told me I'd have an ocean view and I pointed out that document that he had

[1:18:00] also signed that said that this wouldn't happen and so I reached out to the as

[1:18:05] part of my role as chair I reached out to um to path and said look can you

[1:18:10] provide me with with the documentation that would have been granted to these

[1:18:15] sellers because one of the concerns of the planning and land use committee was

[1:18:18] that there was misrepresentation here potentially that they were committed to

[1:18:21] ocean views and in reading through the document pretty lengthy but on page 42

[1:18:26] section G there's a a paragraph called views light and privacy and then bear

[1:18:31] with me I'm just going to read it to you it says prospective purchasers should be

[1:18:35] aware that views from the strata lots light exposure of the stratal lots and

[1:18:39] privacy with respect to the stratal lots may be subject to change there are no

[1:18:43] protected views within the development and the existence or unobstructed

[1:18:47] continuation of any particular view from light exposure of or privacy with

[1:18:52] respect to any Strata law is not assured given the ongoing development of Royal

[1:18:57] Bay. And I have it here and I'm willing to share it. It continues on for for a

[1:19:01] number of of more sentences, but it explicitly states that views are not

[1:19:06] guaranteed that that you do not have an ocean view. Um, you very may well look

[1:19:11] into another building much like I do today. So,

[1:19:15] this isn't just this isn't a moment where I say, "Okay, I'm I'm particularly

[1:19:19] proud of of saying, well, look, we found this." But I think it does identify to

[1:19:23] me that if there is any, you know, as the the planning and land

[1:19:28] use committee talked about, if there's any misrepresentation or anything, I

[1:19:31] think, you know, I don't want to point the finger at the real estate industry,

[1:19:35] but people promising ocean views were uh were maybe a little misleading. And at

[1:19:39] the end of the day, we have a personal responsibility to to be aware of of what

[1:19:43] we're getting ourselves into. Um, you know, I I work in the mergers and

[1:19:48] acquisitions business, so I read through legal documents every day and and a

[1:19:51] single sentence can fundamentally change the ROI or value on a deal. And, you

[1:19:57] know, and that's the case here. I think the the developers have made it clear

[1:20:00] that this can happen. Um, so I I wanted to bring that forward because I think it

[1:20:04] clears up a misconception that we had that perhaps um, you know, false

[1:20:09] promises were made or anything like that. It's it's in the document. um

[1:20:12] every purchaser would have signed it. Um you know, and that that gives me pause

[1:20:17] for thought on the recommendation that came forward from the committee. Uh that

[1:20:21] doesn't mean I don't have sympathy. Believe me, every time I look out my

[1:20:24] window and I see town homes and I see the back of Eliza, I I kind of long for

[1:20:28] the ocean view I once had, but as I say, I know that um that it wasn't guaranteed

[1:20:33] and I acknowledge that in writing. So, I'll just leave you with that. Thank

[1:20:36] you. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Day. On

[1:20:39] the questions on the presentation, please. Yeah, just wanted to um

[1:20:44] [clears throat] uh check in with regards to the

[1:20:48] percentage that would be dedicated to any commercial uh on the first floor

[1:20:56] because the commons uh in the master development agreement was to provide

[1:21:03] more pedestrianoriented business shops

[1:21:09] um a more active street front and uh it it has been disappointing to see the

[1:21:18] existing businesses that have come in. I know it's a difficult proposition. Uh

[1:21:23] the world seems organized against us who wanted to create um uh a town setting

[1:21:32] where you know there would be shops that people would enjoy strolling by. uh but

[1:21:37] that is what we were trying to uh achieve through the the master

[1:21:44] development agreement since 1999 uh in Rock Bay and it's been refined and

[1:21:51] changed and refined and and I understand we're responding to a different market

[1:21:56] um in many ways uh bricks and mortar are being replaced by online shopping and

[1:22:02] that's a reality but I'd like to try to adhere to the fact that experiences are

[1:22:10] still really important and there still are businesses who rely on real live

[1:22:16] clients attending their facilities and I'm hoping that we're at least still

[1:22:22] trying to achieve that. So, I'd like to know what percentage

[1:22:27] um are actually commercial entities here and what percentage are residential and

[1:22:34] refine our plan based on what the vision for this area was.

[1:22:42] » Thank you through the mayor. Um, I'm doing my best to look up the square

[1:22:47] footage, but along the Royal Commons Road, the entire frontage on the ground

[1:22:52] floor is commercial units. I don't know the exact square footage. I'm trying to

[1:22:56] look it up, but that whole frontage is required in the zoning bylaw to be

[1:23:01] commercial units. Um, I just quickly looked up, we do have a clause in area

[1:23:06] 2. Um, bear with me, I'm going to read this. is a little lengthy, but um within

[1:23:11] area 2, assembly and entertainment uses, bakery, eating and drinking

[1:23:16] establishments, personal services, pet daycarees, and retail stores are the

[1:23:20] only permitted uses on the first floor of any building fronting the north

[1:23:24] parcel line in area 2, except that offices may be permitted on the first

[1:23:29] story of a mixeduse building fronting the northern parcel line in area 2 in

[1:23:34] accordance with a section below that, which basically speaks to professional

[1:23:39] office and medical uses provided they do not take up more than 50% of the total

[1:23:44] ground floor. Um so what that is intending to do is to activate the

[1:23:50] street and have specific uses permitted in that building that create that active

[1:23:56] street frontage and not necessarily businesses that close at 4:00 in the

[1:24:00] afternoon and things like that. So it is written into the zone. So when those are

[1:24:05] built and it becomes time for business licenses to be issued, um the planning

[1:24:10] team would be reviewing those applications against this bylaw to

[1:24:14] ensure that they are active um businesses on that street.

[1:24:19] » So I guess it would be fairly fair to say that if it's a six-story building

[1:24:23] and the first floor is commercial, it's 20%.

[1:24:28] Um, in this case I would say it's less than 20% because it's just on that

[1:24:34] frontage on Royal Commons Road where the first floor along Ryder would be all

[1:24:39] residential units. So it'd be probably of the total area maybe 5%

[1:24:45] perhaps the applicant would have numbers that could speak to that but it would be

[1:24:49] less than 20% because it is just required along the Royal Commons

[1:24:53] frontage um where the rest would be residential.

[1:24:56] » Okay. So, I guess the the point I'm making is that um

[1:25:02] uh an area that was originally designed to be our major commercial center is has

[1:25:10] already been downgraded significantly. And so it it is my hope that where uh

[1:25:19] real feedback is coming from the community saying um this isn't uh what

[1:25:27] we had envisioned based on the pictures the plans despite the the details that I

[1:25:34] know they put in there and that everyone has to sign off on. Uh, I think from a

[1:25:39] planning perspective, what the city of Cowwood promised to provide to our

[1:25:45] community was different than what we're seeing because that looks like a big box

[1:25:53] from the architectural drawing. and it isn't particularly articulated or

[1:25:59] improved upon or there doesn't seem to be a great deal being given back to the

[1:26:06] as at least an homage to the plan that that brought this forward. So, I'm I'm

[1:26:13] hopeful uh I was hopeful that the recommendation from the planning and

[1:26:18] land use committee to try to improve this and I recognize that there is

[1:26:25] fourtory element with a bit of a setback for this sixtory behind that. Uh but uh

[1:26:32] I I feel that I I would like to uh to be able to stand uh in front of a building

[1:26:41] that's been built after 25 years of active planning and effort to build a

[1:26:48] new and vibrant community in Cwood and say that I'm proud and the developer is

[1:26:55] proud of of what has been built there today 25 years later. Thanks.

[1:27:02] » Thank you very much. Uh, councelor Jordison.

[1:27:05] » Thank you, mayor. Um, I had a couple questions. I to staff, I guess. I just

[1:27:10] wanted to ask I'm just really curious. Why can you only have a fourstory

[1:27:16] building when there's commercial on the bottom

[1:27:22] in this case?

[1:27:26] » Through the mayor. Um, that is a a great question. Um, that is

[1:27:33] um I mean the bylaw was written before I'm here, so I before I was part of the

[1:27:37] city, so I'm not 100% the rationale behind that. Um, but it was written that

[1:27:42] way um at the time likely to uh encourage a mix of building types would

[1:27:50] be my my guess. Um, >> yeah. Sorry, I I unfortunately don't

[1:27:55] have a better answer. Sorry, you might be able to speak to that.

[1:27:58] » All right, please. >> Yeah, thank you. So, the CD28 zone has a

[1:28:03] maximum building height for mixeduse buildings of 15 meters. So, a mixeduse

[1:28:09] building is one that would have residential and commercial. So, that's

[1:28:13] limited to four stories. And then apartments um has a maximum building

[1:28:18] height of 24 m. So, up to six stories. um that is more in line with the the sub

[1:28:25] area plan within the OCP that speaks to having um shorter heights along Royal

[1:28:32] Commons and mixeduse buildings there. So um subsequent to that the building I

[1:28:40] guess everybody is suggesting the building fronts onto Royal Commons but

[1:28:46] it technically really doesn't like I mean it does but the frontage of that

[1:28:50] building isn't on Royal Commons. So, I just think that this is a real um not

[1:28:56] very neat one and that like I guess I'm just wondering is is it better maybe to

[1:29:02] have park amenity space on the outer edge and move the building over and do

[1:29:08] the six stories would that limit would that help with a view point?

[1:29:15] » Yeah, thank you. So, um, in terms of your comment related to the front lot

[1:29:20] line that the building doesn't technically front onto Royal Commons,

[1:29:24] our land use bylaw defines corner lots. Um, we identify the front lot line as

[1:29:31] the shorter of the two. And so that is why we consider this building fronting

[1:29:37] onto Royal Commons, which is why it is required to provide commercial on the

[1:29:42] ground floor, which limits it to four stories, which is why they're proposing

[1:29:46] a variance to six stories. Um, in terms of park, there is a a portion of park to

[1:29:54] the south of that property. Um we do see this development within the overall

[1:30:01] development of Ltoria South. Um we have received significant park dedication and

[1:30:06] amenities as part of their original development agreement.

[1:30:12] » Okay. Um, I guess I just I just wanted to say that um I I think it's important

[1:30:17] to note that this application isn't being um considered in isolation and

[1:30:23] there's a future long-term care facility planned immediately to the north of this

[1:30:28] site. Um that will look as if it's almost um eight floors by the time it's

[1:30:33] built. So, I feel like they were um I feel like this argument is really not

[1:30:40] that beneficial um because there's not going to be a view for either buildings

[1:30:46] in the end. Um that building is going to be so large that you won't be able to

[1:30:51] see over there. So, um I just think it's um I think PATH deserves some

[1:30:56] recognition for the vision and long-term planning that has gone into creating

[1:31:00] this sense of um place. And um you know I'm not um I'm not disag

[1:31:11] on on their views. I I just think that uh you know it doesn't mean that council

[1:31:16] approves every application or every variance that comes before us um from

[1:31:21] path that but we still you know we have an obligation to scrutinize each one but

[1:31:25] I just think it's fair to acknowledge that they're they're a developer that

[1:31:29] have worked really hard for many years toward creating a co cohesive community

[1:31:33] rather than simply a collection of individual projects and I just I just

[1:31:38] really appreciate that. So thank you. Thank you very much, Council War.

[1:31:43] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I was sort of thrust into speaking a little earlier

[1:31:47] than I um planned on or envisioned on, and I think I would have preferred to

[1:31:51] have heard from the applicant as well. So, I'm going to request through the

[1:31:54] chair that we do that momentarily. Um, I I did though um want to say a couple

[1:31:59] things. I think this notion that there's a loss of commercial area is is not

[1:32:03] accurate. I think the only real loss to commercial area that occurred in the

[1:32:08] Royal Bay or to core was at that former 360 Ltoria or 3 3554 Rider where the

[1:32:15] sale to a new buyer meant that the intentions for the site

[1:32:20] changed drastically. And so then they completed or met the absolute minimum

[1:32:25] standard in a five-story building to put in um about 750 square ft of of

[1:32:30] commercial space. And I don't want to be this harbinger of of doom here, but my

[1:32:36] thought process in this is that, you know, path or gablecraft for as they're

[1:32:41] formerly known have been the architects of this site from the outset. And the

[1:32:46] proposal they've come up with when we look at, if you want to call it a

[1:32:50] benefit for the entirety of of Royal Bay and Ltoria South is the sort of um the

[1:32:56] the frontage area on the commons building, that sort of town square

[1:33:00] element which you see probably on greater scale on the corner of Ryder and

[1:33:03] Ltoria. Um that matters I think because if they were to go ahead and simply say

[1:33:10] okay we we put them in a position of we cannot build the stepped building with

[1:33:15] the fourstory piece um then as I said they can build a third sixstory building

[1:33:20] still it's still going to have the same impact by my count there's roughly about

[1:33:25] a half dozen units that may or may not see a slight improvement on view that

[1:33:29] ultimately as councelor Jordison stated will be negated by an over eight story

[1:33:33] plus mechanic mechanical rooms and things. Um, uh, senior's home when that

[1:33:37] is constructed, not to mention high-rise development and things on the beachland

[1:33:41] side. So, my concern really is, and I'll be I'll

[1:33:46] be very candid, in a perfect world, I would like to see nothing more than four

[1:33:49] stories in Victoria South. Um, I I like what PATH does, but at the end of the

[1:33:54] day, I don't like six stories. I don't like the massing. Um, you know, I

[1:33:58] understand the economic condition for it. I I would much prefer to see nothing

[1:34:02] higher than that, but I'm a realist and I I'm looking at the facts and the data

[1:34:06] and trying to keep emotion out of it. I lost my view and it sucked, you know, to

[1:34:10] a fourtory, so it's relevant. Three story, four story took it away. In this

[1:34:14] case, a six story takes away a fourtory, but they have the right to build there.

[1:34:19] And I guess my concern for the community and for the residents in Eliza is is if

[1:34:24] this isn't the option, beware of what the option becomes. And that's not to

[1:34:28] say that there's anything malicious there. It's just that if I'm path and I

[1:34:32] know the economic case and I say I have the ability to build the five, sixtory

[1:34:37] buildings economically in today's market, that makes sense and I wouldn't

[1:34:41] begrudge them on that. Now we have that parcel on the corner where we still have

[1:34:45] that ground floor commercial space. Somebody else will come along and look

[1:34:50] to build there. Now, you might have a little laneway behind it between the two

[1:34:54] CD zones um as you originally saw with the real estate um office on that site,

[1:35:00] but there's no guarantee you get that corner kind of amenity, that that

[1:35:05] additional space. There's no guarantee that the form kind of blends in with

[1:35:08] what's there. Um who knows what the future holds, I guess. And and in this

[1:35:13] case, as much as I overall personally don't like it, I recognize that PATH has

[1:35:19] come to the table to say we're going to do the best we can by the commons area.

[1:35:25] Um, and what's economically viable for us. So, you don't have to love

[1:35:29] something, I think, to know that it's probably best for everyone. Um, and

[1:35:33] that's where I I wanted to kind of leave my thought process, but I think some of

[1:35:36] these questions that have been raised in fairness, we should hear from the

[1:35:40] applicant to better understand uh the mindset behind it.

[1:35:44] » Thank you. Um, I'm I'm going to before I'll let the applicant set up right now.

[1:35:48] I'm going to take a 4m minute health break here, but go ahead and set up and

[1:35:52] we'll be ready for him. Thank you.

[1:40:10] kick us out of a recess and um I'll turn it over to the applicant for his

[1:40:14] presentation. >> Over to you, Matt.

[1:40:18] » Thank you. Uh good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for the opportunity.

[1:40:22] Um I mean, between planning and some of the discussion that's already happened,

[1:40:25] I think a lot of this has been covered. So I will skip through my presentation

[1:40:30] rather quickly and but it is still I think a good opportunity for yourselves

[1:40:34] to uh ask questions of myself uh and path and our intentions for the site um

[1:40:40] once I'm done. So yeah, my name is Matthew Davis, VP development with PATH.

[1:40:44] I've been with the group about 12 years. And since we started um building here at

[1:40:48] Royal Bay, um we've delivered now about a thousand homes, over 100,000 square

[1:40:53] feet of commercial space, parks, trails, public gathering spaces, uh and the

[1:40:59] infrastructure required to support World Bay's growth.

[1:41:05] So to summarize uh again what we're asking for today, we're seeking a

[1:41:10] development variance permit uh to increase the allowable height of

[1:41:13] building E um a new mixeduse building within area 2 of the CD28 zone from 15

[1:41:20] meters to 24 meters. Uh as it's been communicated through staff, we really

[1:41:25] see this as a technical classification issue rather than a building form issue

[1:41:30] because the building includes commercial on the ground floor. um it's permitted

[1:41:35] to be 15 meters in height rather than 24. And uh to a question that was

[1:41:39] answered earlier, I've actually typically seen the opposite where the

[1:41:43] mixed use heights are generally higher in other municipalities. So that is

[1:41:46] something that's um I do think unique in this case uh just to answer that earlier

[1:41:52] question. So to step uh by stepping the building like we have in our proposal

[1:41:56] from four to six stories uh we're able to blend these two height limits in a

[1:42:01] way that keeps the commercial frontage within the lower mixeduse scale while

[1:42:05] allowing the residential portion uh behind it to align uh with the apartment

[1:42:10] height already contemplated for this area.

[1:42:14] uh building E, the new building submitted uh as a separate application

[1:42:18] from the previous five uh on parcel B that have already been approved and are

[1:42:22] all sorry four of those five are six stories in height.

[1:42:28] Uh we've worked closely with uh city of Cwood's planning department to arrive at

[1:42:33] this building form which we feel meets the intent of the official community

[1:42:37] plan. Um the commercial frontage uh along with Royal Commons has

[1:42:42] deliberately stepped back to create a public plaza that isn't required. I

[1:42:46] think the uh minimum step backs 4 and a half meters. We've stepped the building

[1:42:50] back. So the first floor of the building back to about 7 mters to create this

[1:42:54] plaza.

[1:42:58] The site uh just as a reminder located at the northwest corner um Ryder and

[1:43:04] Royal Commons opposite the Royal Bay commercial hub. um just north of the

[1:43:09] Bella Park uh new condominium development that's under construction.

[1:43:14] The official community plan identifies this area as a pedestrianoriented mixed

[1:43:18] use and building E has been designed to complete that vision.

[1:43:28] Think I'll skip through some of these. So this just gives you a sense of what's

[1:43:30] under construction so far. So, uh, north end of the site, left hand side of the

[1:43:36] page, uh, mixeduse rental building that's now open, occupied. Uh, and then

[1:43:41] you can see the amenity building in the middle of the site. And then to the top

[1:43:44] of the page, our next uh, 93 unit rental building, which will deliver uh, in the

[1:43:51] first quarter of next year.

[1:43:57] So the uh original site plan for the uh DP application submitted in 2023

[1:44:04] um shows the existing four buildings as part of that DP as well as the mixeduse

[1:44:09] building as well as the uh display display where the previous Eliza display

[1:44:15] center was um and this building will be and I I'll have an overlay coming up

[1:44:20] here that will uh display a little more clearly.

[1:44:25] So the so essentially what's happened here the net add additional units is uh

[1:44:31] I think it's 65 units and that is because we have shortened apartment D

[1:44:35] and added apartment E. So the additional density added to the site is not just

[1:44:40] apartment E. We've taken units out of D uh and transferred them to E. Uh and

[1:44:45] it's important to note for the site we're well below the permitted density.

[1:44:49] uh we're permitted 2.5 FSR and I think we're building all of parcel B to 1.65

[1:44:55] um so significantly below the maximum.

[1:45:01] So just uh to give you a sense of the new vers site plan uh like I said

[1:45:06] shortened up building D and we've added um this stepped four to six story

[1:45:11] building for building E with the retail fronting uh fronting Royal Comments and

[1:45:17] the retail to answer the earlier questions about 2600 square feet in that

[1:45:22] building. To give you some context on how much retail that is, the mixeduse

[1:45:26] building to the east of it that just finished has about 15,000 uh square feet

[1:45:31] of retail.

[1:45:36] So just the um original proposal proposal versus the current, we brought

[1:45:41] that forward in 2025 uh with staff and it located um the

[1:45:46] building at the minimum setback at Royal Commons um with a full height commercial

[1:45:51] fronting rider. Uh but through consultation with city staff, we agreed

[1:45:56] to reduce the height of the commercial portion and building back to that 7 m I

[1:46:01] mentioned earlier. uh well below well beyond the 4.5 meter setback only would

[1:46:06] allow to create the public plaza. Um we also stepped that sixtory story portion

[1:46:12] back uh to achie to achieve that clean four to six story transition.

[1:46:20] So just a massing model uh to show the new building as well as uh we did update

[1:46:25] this the massing is not up to date but the labeling is. So, you can see that

[1:46:31] long-term care facility that is being built. Uh, it's actually 85 ft of

[1:46:36] residential construction, but our understanding with rooftop units and um

[1:46:41] all the mechanical as mentioned earlier going to the building, it will be over

[1:46:44] 100 ft tall.

[1:46:50] It's also important to note, I just want to point out that the six-story

[1:46:53] buildings we're building on site are actually permitted to go to 24 meters

[1:46:56] and all of them as of now are below 22 mters, the 21 and change. Um, so not

[1:47:03] even building to that max height that we're permitted within those sixtory

[1:47:06] buildings.

[1:47:12] And just uh another look at that plaza uh at the corner of Ryder and Royal

[1:47:17] Commons. Really what we're trying to do there is continue. We think that um

[1:47:21] Royal Commons now, if you've been down there, has really kind of been activated

[1:47:25] as sort of a high street based on the treatment of um the plazas, the

[1:47:29] sidewalks, the um common area. Uh and really the intent behind this proposal

[1:47:34] is to add to that uh just a section uh down Ryder Hedge

[1:47:40] Stallway with the uh new building in the forefront there in the middle.

[1:47:47] Uh so the completed mixeduse building on the lefth hand side along Royal Commons.

[1:47:51] The shops you'll notice are opening now uh constantly. I'm happy to uh let you

[1:47:56] know we're working on a restaurant pub as we speak. Hopefully going to get that

[1:47:59] open shortly. Um and uh building E there on the right hand side with the active

[1:48:05] frontage along row common decorative um hardscaping, planting beds, benches, uh

[1:48:11] public seating to try to create that um and encourage that public interaction

[1:48:16] with the space. So just another uh I mentioned this

[1:48:21] earlier just on the permitted height. So the idea that the fourstory portion of

[1:48:24] the building uh is under that 15 meter height uh limit with the six uh story

[1:48:30] portion being significantly below the 24 meter um height limit.

[1:48:39] Another look at the uh measurements on the height. I think Matt shared this

[1:48:42] earlier. Do that. Yeah. So just uh to conclude um

[1:48:50] you know the proposed variance aligns directly we feel align directly with the

[1:48:53] goals of the OCP and the CD28 zone. As this OCP states the northern boundary of

[1:48:59] area 2 contemplates the framing for commons roadal commons providing the

[1:49:04] pedestrianoriented street enclosure with an appropriate mix of land uses

[1:49:10] ground floor retail with commercial andor residential above.

[1:49:15] Um so again just to reiterate you know the variance we see is a technical

[1:49:20] classification issue and uh because that building includes commercial frontage um

[1:49:25] being classified as mixeduse and therefore subject to that 50 meter

[1:49:28] height uh variance. Um at this point happy to answer any questions you may

[1:49:33] have. >> Thanks very much uh Matt. Uh what's the

[1:49:37] square footage in the bottom of that uh of the for the commercial side right now

[1:49:42] in square feet I >> of the of this new building about 2600

[1:49:47] » 2600 so the entire building that port that fourstory portion of it is how how

[1:49:52] many square foot would you say? >> Well so no the retail will be under that

[1:49:58] in in terms of all the floors. >> Yeah.

[1:50:01] » So it's it must uh call it 10,000 square feet the fourtory portion.

[1:50:05] » Interesting. And and I I know it's, you know, this has probably never been asked

[1:50:11] enough, but could it be entirely commercial? Is is is that something you

[1:50:15] guys would do? >> Again, like, you know, and I hear to

[1:50:19] counselor D's questions earlier, the commercial market, it's we've had lots

[1:50:24] of, you know, our our goals for the commons, our goals for these other sites

[1:50:28] within Ro has been to get the right mix of tenants and uses.

[1:50:31] » Yeah. We haven't seen the demand. [snorts] That's the truth. I'm I'm

[1:50:36] asking. >> Yeah, I have an idea.

[1:50:38] » Yeah. Um, we'd be open to that. I I guess what I would say to that Miracle

[1:50:43] Bay is we are hesitant to build product like that on spec.

[1:50:47] » If we had a use, we would consider it. >> Okay.

[1:50:49] » Yeah. >> I I do. Um, so can I ask you another

[1:50:53] question? It's all related right now in in the uh in in Ro comments, you know,

[1:50:58] the the shopping. Do you own all is that all your buildings and and you lease

[1:51:02] them out, right? is correct. That so you have a different business unit that

[1:51:06] looks after all that stuff. >> Yeah, we don't do we own the assets. We

[1:51:10] don't property manage them in house. We use a third party property management

[1:51:13] company, but there are >> Okay, thanks very much. And I'll open it

[1:51:16] up for people. Uh, council growth, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. But I

[1:51:20] think you asked answered most of my questions. You said something about

[1:51:23] 15,000 square feet. What was that in reference to? Did I mishar you?

[1:51:27] » I was just to give context to how much rental uh retail was in this building. I

[1:51:32] said there's 2,600 and the building adjacent to it, the mixed use building

[1:51:36] has about 15,000. >> Okay. So, that's the 15 from uh for the

[1:51:40] entire strip of that road. Okay. >> Um

[1:51:43] I think they that's all covered then from uh Mayor Kobayashi's questions.

[1:51:48] Thank you.

[1:51:52] » Thanks so much, Council Ward. >> Thank you. And just just feeding into

[1:51:56] what the mayor was asking you, Matt. Um I know Path Gablecraft has a bit of

[1:52:02] history in Calgary as well. I wonder if are you familiar with the university

[1:52:05] district there? The new development there?

[1:52:08] » I am. I've actually toured I haven't toured it. I toured it maybe two years

[1:52:11] ago. >> Okay.

[1:52:13] » It's probably changed a lot since, but yes.

[1:52:14] » Yeah, I was I was just there. And I think what what interested me is that

[1:52:18] the residential component looks very similar to what we're we have here,

[1:52:23] right? It's it's four to six story. Um but what they've created in a in a

[1:52:28] relatively new area um a community much like Royal Bay is is a vibrant kind of

[1:52:34] community where you've got mixed use where you've got residential and on the

[1:52:39] upper you know five floors um and commercial. I guess when I think of the

[1:52:44] the long-term vision and I completely understand what you're saying right now

[1:52:46] about demand and you know on the commercial side and and that it's a bit

[1:52:50] of a sluggish go um but I'm trying to think further out than maybe past

[1:52:55] councils in in call would have and I I envision a vibrant Royal Bay decades

[1:53:00] from now and I look at this street yes the what we've done in the commons is is

[1:53:05] great I I think that vision there as you said it's starting to emerge as a bit of

[1:53:08] a high street I think once um the last few tenants are in the existing building

[1:53:12] and others it it will really round it out. But longer term, I see a vision for

[1:53:17] that to wrap around. Like I look at this building that you proposed here,

[1:53:20] building E, and I see the commercial element on the ground floor. And I I can

[1:53:24] envision a scenario whereby the future state, if there were more commercial

[1:53:29] elements along that entirety, they're building E, building D, it then starts

[1:53:34] to dovetail into the retail commercial element um that other developers are

[1:53:39] building down further. I'm trying to place the name, but I think you know

[1:53:42] what I the more ground oriented ones there. Um, and so there's some

[1:53:46] connectivity because right now I sort of see this patchwork approach where we

[1:53:50] we've got this sort of outdoor shopping plaza down opposite the museum, very

[1:53:54] pedestrianoriented kind of area and then we would have strictly residential for

[1:53:59] like a very quiet just just walkable street that comes up when in fact you

[1:54:04] know when I I look at that university district I would encourage anyone to

[1:54:08] kind of Google it, take a look at it. Um you've got various cafes and and uh

[1:54:12] restaurants and and other services and things that fill in that space. Um the

[1:54:18] type of thing that you know some of them on on like this corner for example would

[1:54:22] be open later and a bit more vibrant. Some of them being professional services

[1:54:26] and things that would close at a you know a regular business hour so that the

[1:54:30] residents aren't disturbed. But I just wonder in terms of timeline I'm really

[1:54:34] going on here. I apologize to everybody but in terms of timeline and where this

[1:54:38] development is is is it feasible to leave that option open um you know over

[1:54:44] the next little while just to see you know can we work together and and see um

[1:54:50] talk about economic development can we do something here like that and and be

[1:54:53] flexible on you know on trying to find partners and other things to explore

[1:54:57] something like that. Yeah, I think so. I think as you know, the mayor probably

[1:55:02] would acknowledge, we like we've have a great working relationship with the city

[1:55:05] of Collwood and yourselves and we're open always open to talk about those

[1:55:08] opportunities. Um, specifically with this site, I think one of the challenges

[1:55:13] is we have residents now living in the building adjacent. So, one of the things

[1:55:18] we're trying to accomplish is get this building going soon so that we can sort

[1:55:22] of complete that portion of the community. One of the things we're a bit

[1:55:26] concerned about is just general safety in that area because you got a building

[1:55:29] that's going to be complete in uh March on the other side. You've got this

[1:55:33] building and you've got the amenity building right behind. So, we're trying

[1:55:36] to create that hub. To answer your question though, you know, specifically,

[1:55:40] we're open to looking at those opportunities as time goes. Um, but we

[1:55:44] have been pretty amazed at how challenging the commercial piece has

[1:55:48] been. If you look at like the our our our premier corner of the project

[1:55:52] arguably is the corner of Ryder and Ltoria and we couldn't find someone for

[1:55:57] that space. We were picky. We didn't want um the same of as what we already

[1:56:01] had. We wanted a restaurant and ultimately you see we ended up putting

[1:56:05] our Bella Park presentation center in it because we couldn't fill it. Um so we're

[1:56:09] certainly open opportunities. We just, you know, we've got uh we've engaged

[1:56:13] with callers, haven't engaged with them for the last few years, and they've been

[1:56:15] out looking for tenants, and it's just been quiet.

[1:56:19] » Sure. And that's a fair answer. I mean, the market is what it is. I I'll leave

[1:56:22] it there. Thank you. Uh, councelor Jensen,

[1:56:29] » thank you, your worship. Um, I mean, it's tough to process some of

[1:56:34] these ideas uh without seeing it before us. Uh but I appreciate the discussion.

[1:56:40] Uh you know, I look at this and it's often

[1:56:44] times we hear, you know, it doesn't fit with the neighborhood, but what I see

[1:56:47] there certainly looks similar to the building immediately across the street

[1:56:51] or side by each and I I do accept that uh this is a technical issue more so

[1:56:59] than really someone coming in to try and jam in a few more suites uh you know

[1:57:03] with an additional floor. Um, and you know, I I I hear the residents. I really

[1:57:08] do. And I can't count the number of times that this council sat here at this

[1:57:12] table trying to explain uh you know, that people have been let down by the

[1:57:18] real estate industry. Uh, and I think there's a lesson in there uh for uh

[1:57:24] certainly for developers who are uh partnering with different firms and

[1:57:29] putting together their sales packages and their portfolio. So I do accept that

[1:57:33] uh and I I can envision uh realators saying what they need to say to uh get a

[1:57:40] signature on on a document. But the other part is is I mean nothing I see

[1:57:45] here is out of line. Uh there are there was discussion along the way and I' I've

[1:57:50] been here since I guess really since the early days of when this was start

[1:57:56] starting to be built and uh there's lots of discussion about multi multi-stories

[1:58:01] like uh you know 20 stories and stuff which has come and gone over the few

[1:58:06] years. So I mean again what I see here is not out of line. I'm certainly not

[1:58:10] opposed to what what I see. And in fact, I quite like the plaza area and the uh

[1:58:16] availability of some some store footage. Thank you, worship. Thank you very much.

[1:58:20] Um I'm just looking at this right now. The recommendation is send it back to

[1:58:25] staff, but I don't think you can add anything more. Can you staff?

[1:58:32] Um at this stage I I feel like one of the things that was missed in the

[1:58:36] planning and land use uh committee meeting was just discussing that uh we

[1:58:41] have worked with the applicant pretty significantly. The initial application

[1:58:44] that we received was six stories as Matt showed in his presentation. It was kind

[1:58:48] of six stories almost right up to the edge of the property line and we've

[1:58:52] worked with them to step it back significantly as as he showed. So I feel

[1:58:57] like we've we could always maybe have further

[1:59:01] discussions, but I think we've we've made significant progress from what we

[1:59:04] initially uh received as an initial application.

[1:59:08] » Yeah, I'm I'm just looking for a staff recommendation because

[1:59:11] » uh I the my presentation has my the staff recommendation from the planning

[1:59:17] and land use committee that I hopefully the staff recommendation was to approve.

[1:59:22] Um I think that is the Yeah, that is the one.

[1:59:25] » Okay, that's the one. Okay. Um, councelor Jensen, you still hot

[1:59:32] there? Oh, okay. Yeah, you're just moving.

[1:59:36] Thank you. Uh, can I get a second here, please? Okay, councelor Gro. Uh,

[1:59:40] discussion. Further discussion.

[1:59:45] Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Uh, any opposed? Seeing

[1:59:51] none, motion carries unanimous. Thanks very much.

[1:59:57] Okay, we'll move on to 8.2. Mr. Johnson, introduce the speakers,

[2:00:04] please. Thank you. Uh through the mayor, to members of council, this is

[2:00:08] development variance permit application DBP 0023 446 Pelican Drive. The

[2:00:14] recommendation is that development variance permit number DVP 0023 for the

[2:00:19] lands at 446 Pelican Drive be approved which would have the effect of

[2:00:23] superseding the condition imposed by DVP0907

[2:00:28] requiring that the highest floor be no higher than the highest street level

[2:00:31] fronting the property thereby permitting the use of the existing upper floor area

[2:00:35] above the garage as part of the principal residence and that all

[2:00:38] remaining provisions and conditions under DBP 0907 remain full and

[2:00:43] effective. and in force. There is a staff presentation should you wish to

[2:00:48] receive it and Caitlyn Suzuki our planner one uh can provide that should

[2:00:51] council wish to receive that. >> Okay. Thank you. Your report was very

[2:00:55] good. It's very straightforward. I'm just going to open it up to questions

[2:00:58] here from from council and I will open with councelor Jordis.

[2:01:05] » Thank you mayor. Um I just had a question. Um was concerned about the

[2:01:09] sequence here. Um the report says a building permit was issued in July to

[2:01:14] finish the upper floor area and then following a review of the property's

[2:01:19] approval history, staff determined that a variance was required. So I'm just can

[2:01:24] staff explain how we issued the building permit before identifying the

[2:01:29] restriction in the existing DVP.

[2:01:38] Uh thank you for the question uh through the chair. So when the um building

[2:01:42] permit was initially reviewed um it was reviewed um largely against our land use

[2:01:48] bylaw. Um since the works proposed were all interior uh there were no um it

[2:01:54] aligned fully with our bylaw regulations. Um so it wasn't until um

[2:01:59] afterwards um that we realized that there was this uh old development

[2:02:04] variance permit. Um at the time staff didn't go looking for development

[2:02:07] variance permits since no variances were required.

[2:02:11] » Okay. Um and just um just from that I just wanted to ask um because the

[2:02:16] condition originally formed part of the rationale for allowing increased

[2:02:19] building height on the Pelican Drive properties. Do you know how many other

[2:02:24] properties remain subject to it? And should council expect similar

[2:02:28] applications in the future?

[2:02:34] Uh thank you for the question. Um I would have to um just pull it up. Um

[2:02:41] but if you think there were uh multiple properties within the sub uh subdivision

[2:02:46] that were um subject to this variance. Um, I believe the um

[2:02:55] I believe it's seven lots that uh were permitted to increase building height

[2:02:59] from the 8.5 to the 10.5 m. Um, and I believe um one of which already uh

[2:03:05] previously applied for a variance um to uh increase the height without this

[2:03:10] condition. >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:03:13] » Thank you, Counc. >> Thank you, worship. Um, you know, quite

[2:03:19] frankly, we don't see these, uh, come forward that often that are homeowner

[2:03:22] driven and and not developer, uh, driven. And quite frankly, uh, you know,

[2:03:27] uh, I had the pleasure of having a recck room for my kids. So, God bless. And I

[2:03:33] would love to move this recommendation and move on to worship. Thank you. I'll

[2:03:36] flip around. I'll let uh, people ask questions. Councelor Olson.

[2:03:41] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, thank you, Caitlyn. My question really was just um

[2:03:45] staff indicate that there was uh a notification that was provided within

[2:03:49] 100 meters. Um and I was just wondering if there have been any concerns or

[2:03:53] objections uh received since the report was repaired or um sorry was prepared. I

[2:03:59] understand there was some windows removed that were potentially facing

[2:04:01] neighborhood property. So I was just wondering if that was complaint driven

[2:04:04] or if there have been any concerns raised from neighbors.

[2:04:10] Uh thank you and uh through the chair um there was um concerns from the

[2:04:15] neighboring property um at one point um we have uh I believe today after um we

[2:04:21] did receive uh a letter from the neighbor that was um included materials

[2:04:26] for the agenda today um speaking to how they were um no longer concerned. Um,

[2:04:33] other than that, we've had um I know of and someone asking questions about it at

[2:04:38] the front counter, but no other um concerns have come in.

[2:04:42] » So, one complaint and it was resolved. >> Yeah. Thank you.

[2:04:45] » Thank you. Uh, council gay. >> Thank you. um just always being the uh

[2:04:50] council historian. Uh there were a number of issues in the area resulting

[2:04:55] from uh new builds that took place after there there were um trying to think of

[2:05:02] the name of that when they when they have building conditions on a

[2:05:06] subdivision uh which are registered on title but they weren't didn't flow from

[2:05:12] the city, they flowed from the original development. Uh and then subsequently

[2:05:19] there was a number of concerns around height and loss of views because it is a

[2:05:25] lovely view area. Uh so I believe that's where they come from. So, I just think

[2:05:30] it's really important that we find a way to uh document our history in those

[2:05:37] regards so that the uh if if we're not remembering it, we're also not

[2:05:43] protecting the people who are expecting to be protected. So, just trying to keep

[2:05:48] our keep our history straight. Thanks. >> Thank you very much. Uh Council Jensen,

[2:05:53] you want to make the motion second, please? Okay. Council Grove. Uh

[2:05:57] discussion seeing none I'll call the question. Any

[2:06:02] opposed? Seeing none, motion carries unanimous

[2:06:06] and we'll move on to 8.3 de uh DVP uh 000018 221 Kofinch Road. U Mr. Johnson,

[2:06:15] please. >> Thank you. Your worship through the

[2:06:17] members of council. This is development variance permit number DVP 0018. The

[2:06:21] recommendation is for these lands that this variance be approved which would

[2:06:25] have the effect of varying varying section 6.14.3

[2:06:30] of subdivision and development servicing bylaw number 202024

[2:06:35] to permit an increase to the maximal allowable driveway with a corner lot

[2:06:39] from 7 m to 22.8 8 meters to provide access to the two proposed duplexes on

[2:06:45] the subject property and that staff work with the applicant to incorporate

[2:06:49] permeable paving materials with the driveway areas through the development

[2:06:53] variance process. There is a staff presentation should you receive it and

[2:06:58] Matt Blakeley our senior planner has that information or ultimately we can

[2:07:02] answer questions that council may have. Okay.

[2:07:04] » Thank you. Matt, could you proceed with the presentation? Thank you.

[2:07:24] All right. Thank you again mayor and council. Uh so the purpose of this

[2:07:27] presentation is to provide a highle summary of development variance permit

[2:07:31] application number uh DVP 000018 for the property located at 221

[2:07:39] Goldfinch Road. Uh a more detailed analysis and supporting information are

[2:07:44] provided in the staff report. As always, uh

[2:07:49] the subject property located in the Lagoon Beach neighborhood is near Lagoon

[2:07:55] Road, is currently zoned R1 residential, and is within the OCP land use

[2:08:00] designation, neighborhood, hillside, and shoreline. The property features a

[2:08:04] continuous corner frontage along Goldfinch Road and has an area of

[2:08:09] roughly 31 acres or 1,278 square meters. The property currently

[2:08:16] contains an existing single family residential dwelling. In terms of

[2:08:19] surrounding context, the broader neighborhood is also primary R1

[2:08:24] residential development is mainly single family homes, both freehold and strata

[2:08:29] with some two family dwellings nearby. Uh so this proposal, you'll uh recognize

[2:08:36] it uh it's related to uh two applications. um a reszoning application

[2:08:42] uh to establish the proposed CD45 zone, which uh is also on tonight's council

[2:08:48] agenda, as well as a form and character development permit for the proposed

[2:08:52] development of two duplex buildings with each unit, including a secondary suite.

[2:08:58] The variance before council this evening is required because the combined

[2:09:02] driveway widths proposed along the corner lot fronted exceed the bylaw

[2:09:07] maximum. staff are bringing the driveway variance forward this evening alongside

[2:09:12] the zoning amendment because the variance relates to the city's

[2:09:15] subdivision and development servicing bylaw uh not the proposed land use uh or

[2:09:22] zoning regulations. Considering these items together helps resolve key bylaw

[2:09:26] matters at the same time and provides greater clarity and certainty for the

[2:09:31] project.

[2:09:37] Uh so the the specific request um as I said is to vary section 6.14.3

[2:09:44] of the subdivision and development services and bylaw. The bylaw permits a

[2:09:48] maximum driveway width of 7 m on a corner lot. The applicant is requesting

[2:09:53] 22.8 m in total with 11.96 m for duplex block one and 10.84 meters for block

[2:10:02] two. The key question is whether the

[2:10:07] additional width is justified by the site constraints and the resulting

[2:10:11] access design. So I'll just pause here. Um so uh as you can see uh it we measure

[2:10:19] the width uh for the driveways in this instance at property line. Uh so the

[2:10:24] driveways do taper as they get towards the rightway but as I said we me measure

[2:10:30] at the property line which is why the distances are so large.

[2:10:39] So the original proposal um in 2025 included four separate driveways.

[2:10:45] Through staff review, the design was revised to provide the two shared

[2:10:50] driveways, as I was just showing you, with each driveway serving one duplex

[2:10:54] building and its secondary suites. This approach reduces the number of driveway

[2:10:58] crossings and better aligns with the city development permit design

[2:11:02] guidelines, which encourage shared service areas and consolidated driveways

[2:11:07] across sidewalks. However, the city's subdivision uh and

[2:11:11] development servicing bylaw limits the combined driveway width on corner lots

[2:11:15] to 7 meters as I mentioned. Um and the applicant is proposing 22.8

[2:11:22] necessitating this variance request. So the increased width is largely driven by

[2:11:26] the the site's physical constraints. Uh the the lot is shallow, irregular in

[2:11:32] shape and subject to setback requirements that limit building

[2:11:35] placement. As a result, there is limited room for driveways to taper while still

[2:11:40] providing required parking and safe functional access.

[2:11:49] Uh staff also note that the previous four driveway concept would likely have

[2:11:53] resulted in similar overall driveway width when combined and would have

[2:11:57] required an additional variance for the number of driveways. Uh the revised two

[2:12:02] driveway design therefore better aligns with the bylaw even through uh even

[2:12:06] though uh width variance is still required. Uh the revised design does

[2:12:12] increase hard surfacing in the front yard and therefore is not fully aligned

[2:12:16] with the OCP guidelines that seek to reduce the visual and environmental

[2:12:21] impacts of large driveway areas. To help address this, council may wish to

[2:12:25] consider a condition requiring the applicant to work with staff to

[2:12:28] incorporate permeable pavers, grass, or a similar treatment for the driveways.

[2:12:35] So, in summary, staff support the requested variance because the proposed

[2:12:39] driveway width is driven by the site's physical constraints, including the

[2:12:43] shallow lot depth, corner lot configuration, and setback requirements

[2:12:47] that limit building placement. The revised design consolidates access into

[2:12:52] two shared driveways rather than four, which reduce the driveway crossings and

[2:12:56] better aligns with the city's development permit guidelines. And while

[2:13:00] staff recognize the variance request is significant, staff are of the opinion

[2:13:05] that the oversized driveways are necessary to provide safe functional

[2:13:09] access to the proposed duplexes and their secondary suites.

[2:13:16] Uh just to note uh this was brought up as part of the zoning amendment

[2:13:20] application, but there is a 2meter municipal road dedication that's

[2:13:24] required along the frontage of this development. Um this is to achieve an

[2:13:28] overall 18 m rightway width along the subject property's frontage. Uh this

[2:13:33] dedication would be required um or this dedication has been approved and uh is

[2:13:40] now done um in advance of council considering the amending bylaw for

[2:13:44] adoption tonight.

[2:13:50] Um so just quickly the uh development has also been reviewed against the

[2:13:55] proposed CD45 zone and complies with all the listed zoning regulations.

[2:14:01] uh development sign has been placed on the property and postcards outlining the

[2:14:05] variance requests were mailed to neighbors within 100 meters of the

[2:14:08] property prior to this evening's meeting.

[2:14:18] Um and then finally, um these are some options to consider uh for council. Um,

[2:14:24] and I will just leave the staff recommendation on the screen for your

[2:14:28] consideration. Um, if necessary, the applicant is here to uh answer any

[2:14:33] questions you may have and uh both Mr. Rosenberg and myself are available

[2:14:38] should you have any questions for staff. Thank you.

[2:14:40] » Thank you very much. Great presentation. Councelor Day, questions.

[2:14:44] » Thank you. Uh, I'd like to confirm that there is sufficient parking within the

[2:14:50] driveways for uh both the suite and the home to park their vehicles without

[2:14:58] parking across a pedestrian pathway

[2:15:03] uh through the chair. Thank you for the question. Uh yes, uh there's uh

[2:15:08] significant uh space. There's um drive or sorry there's a garage which would

[2:15:15] accommodate a vehicle and then um two spaces um one in tandem and then one

[2:15:21] beside for the the secondary suite. Um, so

[2:15:27] me probably the most conflict would be on the uh the right side of the screen

[2:15:31] if there was guests over or things like that. But it would generally I don't see

[2:15:36] any conflict um in terms of uh what is required as per our parking bylaw.

[2:15:44] But uh for there to them to park uh outside of their garage, they would be

[2:15:52] able to fit without interfering with the pedestrians

[2:15:56] uh realm there. >> Yes. Um the gray blocks on the the image

[2:16:00] there represent the space that a vehicle would take up. Um so it there's still

[2:16:06] several meters before where the sidewalk would be.

[2:16:09] » Perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you, uh councelor George. Thank

[2:16:13] you, mayor. I just had a quick question. Uh it says here like the second part of

[2:16:18] the motion even um about the I just want clarification about the proposed

[2:16:24] mitigation of the permeable paving. Um it's important enough to address the

[2:16:30] amount of hard surface being approved. So I just want to understand why um

[2:16:34] staff is simply direct well why is being directed to simply um for staff to work

[2:16:40] with the applicant rather than making that an explicit condition. Sarah

[2:16:48] » uh thank you for the question through uh through the mayor. Um that is uh was put

[2:16:53] in as a condition um just uh because the uh development permit is approved by

[2:17:00] staff. So through if this variance was granted then we would have the the set

[2:17:06] driveway area and that staff can work with the the applicant to determine an

[2:17:11] appropriate level of uh permeability for the driveway. Um and

[2:17:17] we would work with them through that uh before approving the development permit.

[2:17:22] » Okay. >> So that's why it's worded that way.

[2:17:23] council can suggest a a stronger condition, but that is that is why it's

[2:17:28] worded that way is because we need before we would issue the development

[2:17:31] permit, we would work with you. >> Okay. Thank you,

[2:17:35] » Counc. Thank you, Mayor. I'm just asking about is that red strip the sidewalk?

[2:17:42] » That red strip represents the 2 m dedication um the actual road

[2:17:48] crosssection. And um I don't know if John can speak to that if it's already

[2:17:51] um figured out yet, but the road cross section would have the sidewalk

[2:17:56] basically in that red area because it is at the property line.

[2:17:59] » Yeah. So I noticed that out to the uh the party on Saturday night in the park.

[2:18:05] Uh there were a lot of cars parked along the strip of road. So it's very narrow

[2:18:08] and there's a wet ditch on either side. It's a little bit tricky. So, I'm just

[2:18:12] wondering about the potential for improving that road as the park

[2:18:18] increases in its use and the issue of the because there's a

[2:18:23] corner right there too. So, I'm not really doubting the improvement or this

[2:18:28] particular application. It's more of how it applies to its relationship to the

[2:18:33] road and the road itself. They'd be required to do the frontage works to the

[2:18:37] center line of the rideway. So you'll see formalized curb on the house side of

[2:18:42] it, but you won't see a formalized curb on the opposite side,

[2:18:45] » which should improve the walking experience, which I suffered there.

[2:18:48] » Significant cars are leading. Everybody is very respectful. It was not a

[2:18:51] problem, but it's a bit tight. >> Yeah, they'd be off the roadway under

[2:18:55] the new bill. >> Pet, thanks.

[2:18:57] » Okay, council Ward. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I recall this from

[2:19:02] the planning and land use committee and I was just looking at the original

[2:19:04] diagrams with the four driveways and it's not very often you can consolidate

[2:19:09] point of entry to roads that actually would improve the efficiency of the

[2:19:13] road. Um it's kind of a unique opportunity and when you compare the two

[2:19:16] to me it's just a no-brainer uh particularly how it tapers once you hit

[2:19:19] the um 2 meter dedication. So I'd like to move the staff recommendation.

[2:19:23] » Okay, great. Timing's perfect. Second, please councelor Jordan. Uh discussion

[2:19:30] seeing any uh call the question. Any opposed? Seeing none motion carries

[2:19:35] unanimous. Thank you very much. We move on.

[2:19:40] We are now at 8.4 website action plan.

[2:19:46] Mr. Johnson,

[2:19:53] you want to speak to this? come on up for us.

[2:20:04] There we go. Mr. Mayor, council, um I didn't think I'd be back here quite this

[2:20:10] early in my I should apologize probably. Um I'm speaking to the um the website

[2:20:18] again. Uh we've got the current stat the action plan status report. Um, we've got

[2:20:24] four specific concerns. The directory, um, council directed the restoration of

[2:20:31] the staff directory. The report describes the existing contact model,

[2:20:36] which predates the motion and marks the item as complete. With respect, it is

[2:20:42] not complete. The BC government's decision to remove its own directory

[2:20:47] four days ago has been immediately criticized by BC's own information and

[2:20:53] privacy commissioner who called it a regrettable and very serious

[2:20:58] transparency issue and encouraged public bodies not to follow suit.

[2:21:05] Sanage Oak Bayol Sydney and the CRD itself all still publish uh staff

[2:21:11] directors. We ask council to confirm its direction and require a specific

[2:21:16] implementation plan. The bylaws repository the bylaws improvement are

[2:21:22] welcome. However, the regository lacks a search function. Council's direction

[2:21:28] specifically required a searchable repository.

[2:21:32] The council motion tracker. We cannot find the March 9th. This is an example.

[2:21:38] We cannot find the March 9th motion directing staff to collaborate with Lang

[2:21:43] Langford on solid waste collection. A unanimous decision with potential

[2:21:48] savings of over $280 per household. If that motion is absent, the tractor is

[2:21:55] not yet comprehensive. We ask staff to confirm its completeness.

[2:22:01] The policies underpinning the website date from 2009 20 and 2014.

[2:22:10] Let's wrap up. >> They are foundational documents and they

[2:22:13] are seriously outdated. We ask council to direct that they be reviewed and

[2:22:18] updated as a priority. Uh we genu genu genuinely acknowledge

[2:22:24] the progress made the bylaw improvements the motion tracker the development

[2:22:29] tracker work but the staff directory has been outstanding since December 8th 2025

[2:22:36] and really it's staff directory that started this whole thing off in the

[2:22:40] first place. Now more than eight months with the

[2:22:44] election seven weeks away, we respectfully ask council to act on its

[2:22:49] commitment today. Thank you. >> Thank you very much.

[2:22:55] » Okay, Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of

[2:22:59] council. This is the website action report. This the motion is to receive

[2:23:03] the report and uh staff are here to answer any questions. There aren't a

[2:23:07] presentation to go with this. We're um with still within the timeline of the 90

[2:23:12] days that council gave us the direction to have these improvements. This is

[2:23:16] considered the interimm report at this point providing the direction that

[2:23:19] you've given and where we're at to date and staff are here to answer questions

[2:23:24] you may have regarding this report. Mr. Thank you. Open it up for questions from

[2:23:30] council. Councelor Day, please. >> Thank you. Um, yeah, I it's funny that

[2:23:37] uh I I didn't speak to uh the Royal Bay Homeowners Association, but we came to

[2:23:42] the same conclusions. Uh, and I'm concerned that uh when I I won't look

[2:23:49] too hard for it, but when I was reading the report, and I'm very impressed that

[2:23:53] it's here already. that's great. Uh but it says that uh they're substantially

[2:24:00] complete and I don't feel that that is the case because um what I heard from

[2:24:07] not just the Royal Bay Homeowners Association but others who contacted

[2:24:12] council was that they wanted to have the ability to contact specific staff

[2:24:18] members where they've been dealing with an issue already. uh that the uh they

[2:24:24] don't have to tell the story all over again and we haven't provided that yet.

[2:24:31] Uh so I wanted to say that um the staff directory part for me um it it doesn't

[2:24:38] accomplish I mean I can think of lots of out of the box ways that we could do

[2:24:43] something around the malberry bush that that could prevent us from having spam

[2:24:50] zilla problems. Uh but at the same time I think the basic principle is there

[2:24:56] that we still need a staff directory so that if you're dealing with somebody

[2:25:00] here at the city on an issue that you can recont them if that issue comes up

[2:25:06] again. Uh so I think that that is an issue. Uh I think the governance

[2:25:11] ownership that's great that we have a place where it belongs but the part that

[2:25:18] is missing is the departments verifying the data and that has not been happening

[2:25:23] and has not been happening since about 2022

[2:25:27] uh because I I just constantly run things where it hasn't gotten updated.

[2:25:33] So we need I'm not saying this to be hard on anyone. We just we need a better

[2:25:39] process. And our report tonight also included captures or kind of screenshots

[2:25:46] of what has been done on the website. And those reflect the kind of poor

[2:25:51] digital quality that I often find on the website that I find frustrating because

[2:25:56] I'm getting old and wearing these and they get smudgy and the if it's blurry,

[2:26:02] I can't hardly read it. So, uh I'm sure I'm not alone in finding that

[2:26:07] frustrating. Uh and then we have quite a few data points that I've identified as

[2:26:15] being needing to be updated that have been only partially updated. Development

[2:26:21] stats for one. Uh we only have three quarters of 2025 on there still. Um, so

[2:26:27] I'm not satisfied that we're taking the feedback that the public is giving us uh

[2:26:33] as seriously as we need to and I think that we need to find a better way to get

[2:26:39] that website updated. So because that's free that's free to get our residents

[2:26:45] reviewing it for us and telling us, hey, you missed a spot over here and and we

[2:26:50] could really make use of their help. Thanks.

[2:26:54] » Thank you very much. Yeah, one of my frustrations right now, I'll give you

[2:26:57] direct feedback, is you know that developer tracking. You know, if if you

[2:27:02] don't want to keep it up to date, then why the hell would we have it in there?

[2:27:05] Pardon my language, but that's frustrating. It really is frustrating.

[2:27:10] You know, h have up-to-date information. My my goodness, it it just doesn't make

[2:27:14] sense. Please, Mari, you're >> Thank you. Um so the development tracker

[2:27:22] which is a new tool that we have on our website is linked to Tempest

[2:27:27] and so when we have new applications they are automatically updated onto our

[2:27:32] website. Um we have limitations in the statuses that we can provide. So for

[2:27:40] development permits we typically just provide the submission date and the

[2:27:45] issuance date. Okay. Um for reasonzoning applications we are able to include when

[2:27:50] it would go to planning and land use and when it would go forward for readings at

[2:27:54] council. Um we >> so is there a better way to indicate

[2:27:59] that in and not without creating a lot more work for yourself right now but

[2:28:04] it's frustrating because you know and then you know I get more more current

[2:28:08] information and then the public is looking at information that's old like I

[2:28:12] can get I can go to you for example and get more current information but I know

[2:28:18] using that development tracker it wasn't current like I can show you examples of

[2:28:23] this has happened you was just querying some things right now.

[2:28:28] So that is a bit frustrating. So they should have the public should have the

[2:28:32] same access as we have and and I'm lucky because I can go walk down to your

[2:28:37] office and and ask. So that's what the issue is more and and if it isn't quite

[2:28:43] up to date just to have maybe just some way we can signal that it isn't up to

[2:28:49] date so that people know that that's not the most current thing they should be

[2:28:53] using. I don't know how to do this and I'm just suggesting this to you. It it

[2:28:58] is a frustration though that so I didn't mean to interrupt you

[2:29:02] but uh that you know I I understand this now you've contextualized it for me so

[2:29:08] so thank you very much but there's got to be a way if it isn't quite up to date

[2:29:13] then then we it's got to have an ability to say that there

[2:29:20] » so I would say for reasonzoning applications

[2:29:24] I would say those types of applications are generally more up to-date. It's

[2:29:28] development permits that we do not put the plans up on the website when they

[2:29:33] submit them because we have an internal review process where we may receive

[2:29:39] three different iterations of plans. And so we were not going to put up those

[2:29:44] different iterations on the website because that could cause confusion. So

[2:29:48] we have only been putting up development permits once they are issued. Um I would

[2:29:54] say um the development permit delegation bylaw of course is going this evening to

[2:29:58] council for first second and third reading. So development permits um will

[2:30:04] be more up to date on the development tracker once they do go to council

[2:30:08] because they'll be on the agenda and we will be able to put that up on the

[2:30:12] development tracker. Okay. >> Uh great explanation. uh it just

[2:30:16] requires that explanation when people are at it that if it's not there the

[2:30:21] reason why hasn't been um hasn't been approved something like that just an

[2:30:27] indication >> yeah perhaps we can consider putting up

[2:30:32] some wording about what to expect for each type of application

[2:30:37] » thank you uh councel please >> thank you I I find it difficult when

[2:30:45] we ask for action and we get excuses and I'm I'm sorry but telling us that it's

[2:30:51] in tempest and you know so that's that's that is needs to be addressed. I mean

[2:30:58] you can't just tell me we can't do it like that that is not acceptable.

[2:31:04] We are trying to be transparent with our public and whether you make a PDF and

[2:31:11] upload it through corporate services or do something. If we're going to tell

[2:31:16] people what we're doing, we need to tell people what we're doing and not make

[2:31:20] excuses. Well, we'll tell you about resonings, but we won't tell you about

[2:31:24] development permits. So, I think we need to know and and there needs to be some

[2:31:30] some clarity uh for the public to see what's coming.

[2:31:38] » Okay. Um this was just uh for receipt. Um

[2:31:42] sorry, Council Jordis, please. >> Sorry, Mayor. Just a um a last minute

[2:31:48] question. I I guess um with seeing the concern around uh 0.1

[2:31:54] seeing that it is uh completed but it I I I'm hearing that council doesn't feel

[2:32:01] that it is. Um I'm just wondering could staff explain whether they're asking

[2:32:05] council to reconsider that portion of its direction rather than considering it

[2:32:09] completed.

[2:32:14] » I don't think we're looking for reconsideration. I think um staff

[2:32:18] continue to explore and monitor how other communities and the province are

[2:32:22] approaching this and we'll um work to implement a solution that serves.

[2:32:28] » Okay. Thank you. >> And and just for council's

[2:32:33] clarification, we'll bring a this is the interimm report saying these

[2:32:38] are the steps we've made to date. We've heard council's feedback. We've heard

[2:32:42] feedback uh from the community. We will take that on board and adjust course as

[2:32:47] necessary. One of the things we're trying to balance is cyber security risk

[2:32:51] insurance that we have through cyber security which requires we have certain

[2:32:55] components that are in and certain components that are out. We understand

[2:32:59] council's feedback. Uh we will make sure that we rectify that in the next update

[2:33:03] to council. Thank you. Okay, that was just for information. So, we'll move on

[2:33:09] to 8.5 uh 2027 budget approach. Unfortunately,

[2:33:14] Kathy Mlullan uh wasn't able to join us this evening.

[2:33:19] Um and uh I can't expect you to answer all the questions, Mr. Johnson, but I we

[2:33:26] do have a few comments. So, if you want to proceed, please. And uh

[2:33:32] on this side, >> nothing further. Yeah, you've got a

[2:33:37] report. Oh, go ahead, please.

[2:33:42] You weren't here in the beginning of public participation, so I didn't know

[2:33:45] if you wanted to speak, so I

[2:33:53] » There we go. Um,

[2:33:57] we like the direction of this uh proposed approach. Um, we're a little

[2:34:04] concerned that it's not uh detailed enough for you to actually give the

[2:34:10] endorsement um that staff are asking for. We think the

[2:34:17] endorsement should be the direction is great. Now you've got to now you've got

[2:34:22] to put some meat on the bones of this thing and let us know what does a light

[2:34:27] touch mean? what what kind of information do we need before we can

[2:34:33] just take that light touch so that people understand what you're trying to

[2:34:38] uh what you're trying to accomplish. We support the direction. We encourage

[2:34:43] council to endorse it, but we also encourage council to recognize that the

[2:34:48] framework still needs some work before the detailed 2027 budget process begins.

[2:34:55] Uh the other issue of course is how much direction are you going to provide in

[2:35:00] terms of the 2027 budget process as a council when you've got new a new

[2:35:06] council coming into play in November and how much are you going to constrain that

[2:35:13] road of pokes and hopefully you'll all be back. Um, but in the in the um in the

[2:35:19] event that you're not, I think you've got an obligation to the new council to

[2:35:25] make sure that they have the kind of flexibility they need in order to

[2:35:29] provide a good 2027 budget process. Thank you. Thanks very much.

[2:35:38] Okay. Uh, I'll just open the floor for questions. Uh, Council Jison, please.

[2:35:46] Thank you, Mayor. Um, CAO, I have a question about um uh and

[2:35:53] I'm not sure you'll be able to answer it, but like what could trigger an out

[2:35:56] of uh cycle service review and um can you confirm that council would still

[2:36:02] receive annual service plans and the organizationwide staffing picture for

[2:36:08] every department? >> I can confirm both of those. Um the

[2:36:13] intention is to show the overall FTE count and any proposed changes to that.

[2:36:17] Any changes to the FTEES will require a business case that will come in front of

[2:36:21] council. Um that is what Miss McClennon had suggested was the exceptions. So

[2:36:26] those exceptions are anything over and above with the existing FTE count that

[2:36:31] will be in each department so that council can see that and determine if

[2:36:35] the appropriate service level is met. We've taken council's feedback about the

[2:36:40] service review process being perhaps uh somewhat arduous from what I've heard

[2:36:44] from council in the past and what we want to do is provide this in a

[2:36:48] meaningful way. What Miss McClennon did was provide an overall view which is

[2:36:53] what council had asked for in the motion. What will the budget process

[2:36:56] look like? That of course will be shaped entirely by council. It is council's

[2:37:00] budget. So we want to make sure that we're meeting what your expectations

[2:37:03] are. One of the things that we didn't benefit from this year was the

[2:37:07] implementation of our new software, Questica, and that's going to have a

[2:37:10] web-based component and it will be live so people can track expenses as they're

[2:37:15] put into the various budgets. And you will see that um I've been part of an

[2:37:19] organization that switched over to the Questica and it is quite a tool in terms

[2:37:24] of on the fly showing where changes are, what they've looked like. The rollout

[2:37:29] was intended to be for this year, but from a staffing component, we just

[2:37:32] couldn't get that across the line. that will be in conjunction with the budget

[2:37:35] process and we'll have that outline for council's feedback, new council to make

[2:37:40] sure that they're meeting we're meeting the expectation of what council would

[2:37:43] like to see in the budget process. So, think of this as here's the global

[2:37:47] overview of what it looks like and we'll get into much more of the details when

[2:37:51] the framework uh comes forward to council with those budget um proposals.

[2:37:57] » Okay. Um, sorry, I just had one other um once every four years kind of concerns

[2:38:03] me a bit. Um, you know, a budget problem doesn't necessarily arrive as a new

[2:38:08] initiative. Sometimes it's an existing program um with staffing contracts or

[2:38:14] operating costs that have gradually increased. So, is there a way to to

[2:38:19] manage that at the same time? >> Absolutely. You know, one of the

[2:38:23] intentions behind this is getting public engagement and sending a survey out.

[2:38:27] What do you think of these services? And that will give council a framework to

[2:38:31] see how the public is receiving the service and whether or not the service

[2:38:34] level is meeting expectations, whether it's below or whether it's above. Those

[2:38:39] will be considerations for council because that's council's feedback is the

[2:38:43] service levels. Are they appropriate for the services we're we're providing. For

[2:38:47] instance, this year we've had an issue with Boulevard maintenance and it's one

[2:38:50] of our our number one complaints that we've received. We're actioning that

[2:38:54] outside of the budget process with what we've got with our existing compliment.

[2:38:58] Having said that, our intention is to bring forward those issues that have

[2:39:01] arisen in the year uh to bring some of those service considerations for council

[2:39:05] for some of those areas that uh we need to look at as well as uh the existing

[2:39:10] services and value for money. Uh, I know that that's what council is looking for

[2:39:14] in the metrics and that new software system is really going to help us

[2:39:18] transform that budget process to be much more inclusive and provide much more

[2:39:22] detailed information to council and the public for the ongoing operations for

[2:39:26] the tax dollars that people put into our community.

[2:39:30] » Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I'm aware just because of

[2:39:36] how long I've been around the table that eventually there's some big axes on the

[2:39:41] wall that tend to be looming larger in certain years than others, but they're

[2:39:47] always going to be there, whether it's police services, sewer services,

[2:39:52] sometimes they're outside of our control, and sometimes um they uh need

[2:39:59] uh greater perspective to keep bringing the things that we tend to forget about

[2:40:05] all the time back to the forefront. Remember that we need to uh set aside uh

[2:40:10] funding for the day when the big changes have to be made. Uh whether it's, you

[2:40:17] know, new buildings, new equipment, uh new infrastructure, it all gets very

[2:40:24] hard to balance if they all show up at the same time. So, uh, one thing that I

[2:40:30] would like to see come back with our budget process is to try to capture a

[2:40:37] few of the accesses that are on the wall, uh, each year uh, just to review

[2:40:42] them and put them in perspective and work towards our long-term plan for how

[2:40:49] we'll get there. Um, and that that's just sort of the the one part of the the

[2:40:56] review. uh plan that we have before us that uh I feel needs to be fleshed out a

[2:41:03] little bit. There's and I know we've talked about them, but um most of the

[2:41:08] time we've said, you know, we're running as fast as we can. We can't get to that

[2:41:13] this year and uh until it absolutely can't be avoided and then we're in it.

[2:41:19] We got to deal with it. So, I'm I'm hoping that we will at least try to um

[2:41:25] identify those. so that we don't forget about them as we get gleeful.

[2:41:31] » One of one of the intentions behind the budget process is we have a number of

[2:41:34] master plans, those that have been approved, those that are in process. And

[2:41:39] what we don't want to have is council have to lift up all of these different

[2:41:43] plans and cross reference and come back. Our intention is to show what those uh

[2:41:48] proposed amendments were to the master plans that are adopted so that they get

[2:41:52] wrapped into the budget process. But also really important is our operational

[2:41:56] plan which will say this is what we intended to achieve this year. This is

[2:42:00] what we achieved and these are the pieces that we weren't able to get to.

[2:42:04] You look at council's motion tracker as well. There's a number of motions that

[2:42:07] are outstanding that we need to bring to the forefront and those motions don't go

[2:42:11] off into the ether per se but council turns their attention to the ones that

[2:42:15] are still outstanding that should form part of that budget process. So the

[2:42:19] intention is to wrap the strategic plan, the operational plan and the financial

[2:42:23] plan along with the survey of the residents so council has a complete

[2:42:27] picture when you're looking at the budget so you're not losing those pieces

[2:42:31] uh councelor day um that you've spoken about here. Yeah, I think the the

[2:42:36] difficulty has been that uh um the a lot of our planning is has been done uh what

[2:42:45] should our plan be for X Y or Zed and it hasn't really put all those pieces

[2:42:51] together. So hopefully we get there, but I think it's important if we plan for

[2:42:55] it, we we'll we'll carve a little piece off each year.

[2:43:01] » Um have you spoken already? Uh, councelor Jordison.

[2:43:06] » Well, okay, I'll speak for the first time. So, I I quickly talked to you

[2:43:10] about this uh Mr. Johnson uh before the meeting and that's the the uh this what

[2:43:16] came from a citizen great idea and that is how we select which service to that

[2:43:22] we we review and that riskbased um uh approach is a really good approach and

[2:43:28] I'll I'll just send you all the criteria. uh uh I came up with my own

[2:43:32] and some were suggested to me. So that's one thing that I I think that we need to

[2:43:37] have. The second thing is given the affordability pressures right now um you

[2:43:42] know I think we need to have um specific a specific process for identifying

[2:43:48] savings or and prioritizing services before we start asking t taxpayers for

[2:43:54] additional revenue. So I think that's important. That's the second thing. And

[2:43:59] the last thing is my biggest B in my bonnet. And yes, I'm sorry I came from

[2:44:03] the private world, but the the way that we do budgeting is just ass backwards to

[2:44:09] me. We we look at all our costs and then we then we start matching revenues to it

[2:44:14] and start tax increases. But I think uh that the starting place that we have to

[2:44:18] start at is we have a good idea what our NCT is, our new construction taxes are.

[2:44:24] We know what the previous taxes are. You put inflation in there. you know, we can

[2:44:28] come up with a fairly plus or minus 5 10% of what that revenue

[2:44:34] is going to be. And and the reason why I think we have to look at it from that

[2:44:39] side of the fence instead of going with cost, it happens to us every year here.

[2:44:45] And it's not just here, it's every council. It's the CRD. We all look at

[2:44:50] everybody wants this, they want that, everyone's got a pet project. And then

[2:44:54] the bill comes in at the end of the year and then the staff look at us and go,

[2:44:58] "Well, you guys approved it all. So, what do you want us to do?" So, that's

[2:45:03] not fair to you. Like, it's not fair because then we're going back. Well,

[2:45:06] we'll cut it, you know, like uh don't ask us and and but yet we approved it

[2:45:12] because it's so easy to approve things peacemeal because you don't understand

[2:45:18] what the impact is to to your revenues. So I think you have we have to start

[2:45:23] thinking differently. I'd like to get that other different thinking cap on.

[2:45:27] This is what our revenues are and if we want to stay in there within within that

[2:45:32] and keep taxes low, you know, we try to match costs as we go along and we can

[2:45:36] still do single single approvals but we'll understand the impacts as we're

[2:45:41] going along. So I'd like that approach. I totally I'd like to flip the pyramid

[2:45:47] the way that we think and because It happens every time, every year. And we

[2:45:53] we look at each other and we say the same darn thing. Geez, I wish did it

[2:45:58] differently. But it's the way that's embedded in

[2:46:01] municipal government right now. That's how they do things. So, and if there is

[2:46:06] if there is going to we're going to be asking for tax increases, at least we'll

[2:46:10] consciously know what we're going to be doing. We don't have to worry about

[2:46:13] after the fact and say, "H how are we going to message this?" You know, we'll

[2:46:17] know right up front. So go ahead Jason. >> Thank you. and and part of uh the

[2:46:23] mandate that council has given to me was look at how do how do we rationalize

[2:46:26] some of the services we've done and we've done that uh throughout this year

[2:46:30] and that will be reflected in the upcoming budget to show where that

[2:46:34] rationalization of services has happened but

[2:46:39] we live by the ethos of better is possible in everything that we do and

[2:46:43] there's better work that can be done here and what Miss McClennon has

[2:46:46] outlined I think is a is a good process good improvements

[2:46:50] That's not to say that this is the panacea to solving them all at this

[2:46:54] point, but council will provide direction to staff to ensure that we're

[2:46:59] meeting what your expectations are. And the intention of this report was to say

[2:47:03] this is the framework and what are some of the other value ads that council

[2:47:07] would like to see and we'll take under those under advisement and bring those

[2:47:10] forward to council through the budget process. Okay.

[2:47:14] Um, councelor Jordison.

[2:47:20] » Thank you, Mayor. Um, just further to um what the mayor said, I I think uh we

[2:47:25] need to I think council needs to establish what affordability means and

[2:47:30] um like where in these guiding principles does affordability for the

[2:47:33] taxpayer sit? And I guess what I'm trying to say is I I think council needs

[2:47:38] to decide um or provide direction about the tax increase council considers

[2:47:43] acceptable before the draft budget is even constructed. And then um in and

[2:47:49] then the same thing before considering new initiatives. council um should be

[2:47:54] shown the projected tax increase requires um to maintain existing service

[2:47:59] levels and then from there we can establish existing services and new

[2:48:04] staffing, new initiatives and the capital and debt and and that sort of

[2:48:09] thing. So I think I think that just makes it more transparent. So that was

[2:48:13] just my comment. Thank you. >> Thank you very much.

[2:48:17] uh my concert day.

[2:48:23] » I'll be very quick because I know it is my second time speaking to this item,

[2:48:27] but I've been asked in previous years to decide before I've seen anything

[2:48:34] what percentage tax increase I would find

[2:48:38] tolerable. And I can't do that. I need to know what

[2:48:43] it's going to cost to keep the lights on and the car running and the rain from

[2:48:49] coming through the roof. I don't want to know, you know, what pet projects we can

[2:48:54] afford to do. Um so I I think we need to start with that baseline first of all.

[2:49:02] uh just what is the what is the smallest um for the for the core services to

[2:49:10] continue to exist and then work our magic from there. Thank you.

[2:49:15] » Thank you very much. We're all singing from the same song sheet here. So, um I

[2:49:21] I know with the motion that's been recommended, but we want to make some

[2:49:25] alterations. Can Can we do this? How how do you suggest we do this, Mr. Mr.

[2:49:30] Johnson? This is just the overview report. Council will have the

[2:49:34] opportunity to shape the process in another uh upcoming meeting where we'll

[2:49:38] say here's here's the process. What's your expectation with more details than

[2:49:42] what you see here today? >> Okay. Because the motion is to endorse.

[2:49:46] So I'm just

[2:49:50] wait. It's to endorse the approach and we've we've heard council's feedback

[2:49:56] and we'll come back with amendments to that.

[2:50:01] So, we don't need a motion then right at this point in time. Okay, that's great.

[2:50:05] Um, well, that's great. Thank you. I appreciate that. So, the uh I'll move on

[2:50:11] to uh uh we added 8.6 which is the age friendly community plan review

[2:50:16] engagement strategy. Um over to you councelor day.

[2:50:26] » Thank you. Uh, I just wanted to speak to the age friendly plan because I I feel

[2:50:33] that we're at risk of having the same uh rinse and repeat happen here, which is

[2:50:39] that we go to a great deal of trouble. We engage a bunch of people to get

[2:50:44] information and feedback and then we put the plan back on the shelf and nothing

[2:50:49] happens with it. So, my big bright idea uh was not huge. It's a small ask and

[2:50:58] I'm asking that it come back at the budget time to uh use that building of

[2:51:04] the age friendly plan to jump off and engage with people and then have in our

[2:51:11] budget one or $2,000 for a capital project to support the age friendly

[2:51:19] plan. I don't know if it's going to be a bench, a picnic table, an event where

[2:51:26] there's intergenerational participation,

[2:51:29] but and I'm not asking for you to decide what that number is now, but I'm saying

[2:51:35] it makes a lot of sense if you're going to go to all this trouble to engage your

[2:51:40] public and talk about what they need and try to make things better in our

[2:51:45] community for our age in place. um intergenerational

[2:51:50] uh awareness. Uh let's put some money with that so that uh at least for the

[2:51:56] effort uh people feel they got something out of it. Thank you.

[2:52:00] » Thank you very much Jordan. Sorry.

[2:52:06] » Thank you, mayor. I just wanted to um I guess I was just concerned that again um

[2:52:12] following what councelor Day said that it might just be the kind of same

[2:52:16] document and I just want to make sure that we don't inadvertently define age

[2:52:20] friendly primarily through um an active transportation lens. Um you know for an

[2:52:26] 80 or 90 year old resident being age friendly may mean just a a bench halfway

[2:52:31] up the hill or accessible parking or a washroom close by. Um, so I think the

[2:52:37] success of this review isn't going to be whether we produce a good age friendly

[2:52:41] community plan, but whether an older resident can eventually point to

[2:52:45] something and call that and and say that that made it easier for me to continue

[2:52:49] living in my community. Um, but I really do appreciate what's been brought

[2:52:53] forward and um and uh I just uh I I hope we're gonna figure out a way to maybe

[2:53:00] reach the senior who isn't so connected to um like Charleum or Wandafuca uh

[2:53:07] senior society or community organization. Um so like I'm thinking

[2:53:12] like a person that is aging alone in their own home and someone who doesn't

[2:53:16] use social media or a person that doesn't drive. um that that those make

[2:53:22] um actually those are probably some of the the people whose experiences we need

[2:53:27] to understand the most, right? But I I really appreciate that um you're

[2:53:31] involving the the younger generation. Um I think that's a really cool idea. So

[2:53:37] thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. Okay. Uh that was

[2:53:41] just receipt anyway. So I'm going to move on uh to number nine, which thank

[2:53:47] you very much for the input. U councelor Jordison and councelor D on

[2:53:52] that. Very uh important points that you've made. Um let's go to uh section 9

[2:53:58] bylaws uh proposed development permit delegation bylaw. Um Mr. Johnson, I

[2:54:04] guess that that report is pretty self-explanatory.

[2:54:07] There is an exception though that uh I I'd like to make to this. That's uh 1764

[2:54:14] Island Highway. We want to change that to to u council approval authority.

[2:54:21] Um any other comments uh council on the on the report?

[2:54:26] Uh councelor Jordison, please. >> Uh thank you, Mayor. I've actually found

[2:54:32] some inconsistencies in this and um uh yeah, I just wanted to bring them

[2:54:39] forward here. Just um let me see where they are.

[2:54:44] Uh so there's a an AB section um what is it in the bylaw? It's actually in the

[2:54:51] bylaw. Um and it says that um

[2:54:58] um master plan community means um lands that are subject to an area plan and it

[2:55:04] like it has an A and B section and then it says uh for the purpose of this bylaw

[2:55:08] the following are designated as master plan communities. the one, two, three.

[2:55:13] But then it says, "Council may bylaw amendment designate additional areas as

[2:55:19] master planned communities where the agreement where the requirements of

[2:55:23] paragraphs A and B have been satisfied." And I I guess I can understand that for

[2:55:29] A, but B is have been designated by council by bylaw as a master plan

[2:55:35] community for the purpose of this bylaw. So feel I feel like we're just doing

[2:55:39] like that circle thing. So it may be just a a miss. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for

[2:55:45] very much for the question. So it would be an amending bylaw. So a bylaw

[2:55:49] amendment to add a new master plan community to this bylaw.

[2:55:58] Okay. Um Okay. So bylaw amendment. Okay. That makes sense. Um what's the other

[2:56:04] one here? Sorry, there was one other one.

[2:56:09] Uh the four uh unit threshold um has an odd

[2:56:15] integration with the moratorum. Um the report notes that council has already

[2:56:21] directed a moratorium on form of character permits for developments for

[2:56:25] four units or fewer although the four unit threshold remains in the delegation

[2:56:30] bylaw. That's the other question I had. Yeah, thank you for the question. And so

[2:56:35] the four units really is a delegated authority threshold. Um so we had to

[2:56:41] develop that threshold of four units to be clear that developments of more than

[2:56:47] four units would require approval from council. So it's simply just a threshold

[2:56:52] only. Um as you mentioned developments of four units or less um currently have

[2:56:58] a moratorum placed on the requirement for a form and character development

[2:57:02] permit. Um I would add for those developments if they fall within an

[2:57:08] environmental or hazard development permit area they would still require

[2:57:12] that development. That moratorum is only for form and character development

[2:57:17] permits. >> Okay. Thank you for the explanation.

[2:57:23] » Any other uh questions? Um, can I get a motion to for the

[2:57:30] recommendation with the with the exception of the change of 1764 island

[2:57:35] being changed to council approval authority.

[2:57:40] Okay. Thank you councelor Olsen and councelor uh board

[2:57:47] discussion. Not seeing any further discussion. I'll

[2:57:51] call the question. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. Thank you very

[2:57:55] much. Uh 9.2 is don't have to deal with now.

[2:58:01] And

[2:58:12] we are at um

[2:58:17] 9.3. Okay. Um over to the corporate officer,

[2:58:22] please. >> Thank you, Rorup. It is Callwood land

[2:58:24] use bylaw number 151 1989 amendment 227 Schmoo uh bylaw 2091 2025 for adoption.

[2:58:34] » Motion please. Thank you. Uh councelor uh Jensen and councelor Olen. Uh

[2:58:40] discussion. Um call the question. Any opposed?

[2:58:44] Seeing none, motion carries. Next one please. 94

[2:58:48] » CO land use bylaw number 151989 amendment 233 CD45 uh for 221 Goldfinch

[2:58:57] Road and this is for adoption. >> Okay. Um thank you council Ward. Second

[2:59:03] council Jensen discussion call the question. Any opposed?

[2:59:08] Seeing none motion carries. Next please. Sewer local area service enlargement

[2:59:13] amendment bylaws going for first, second, and third reading. Callwood

[2:59:17] central sewer local area service establishment and loan authorization

[2:59:21] bylaw 480 uh for L enlargement for 605 Hulser

[2:59:26] Drive and CO main seal area establishment and loan authorization

[2:59:31] bylaw. Uh that is for L enlargement for 605 Hulser Drive.

[2:59:39] » Okay. Uh Uh, Council Grove. Second, please. Uh, councelor Jordison.

[2:59:49] Discussion, please. Seeing no discussion, call the question. Any

[2:59:53] opposed? Seeing none, motion carries.

[3:00:03] And the last one, please. >> Sewer local area service enlargement

[3:00:08] amendment bylaws. All going for adoption. Uh, Callwood Main Sewer local

[3:00:13] area service establishment and loan authorization bylaw for 3110 Wishart

[3:00:19] Road. Cowwood main sewer local area service establishment and loan

[3:00:22] authorization bylaw for 3155 Wood Park Drive and Cowwood Main Sewer local area

[3:00:29] service establishment and loan authorization bylaw for 3112

[3:00:34] Wood Park Drive. >> Okay. Uh same same mover and then uh

[3:00:40] seconder Grove and Jordison discussion. Seeing none question any opposed seeing

[3:00:47] none. Motion carries. And before I move into camera, I want to take this

[3:00:53] opportunity right now to say a very very fond farewell to our fire chief, Brian

[3:01:00] Irwin. Brian, thank you for your many years service here in the city of

[3:01:06] Collwood. Uh Brian, uh for those that don't know, he's decided to go to the

[3:01:11] dark side. Am I allowed to say that? Uh no, I mean,

[3:01:17] I just want to thank you, uh Brian, just on behalf of the entire city and uh all

[3:01:23] all the all the citizens. You've served this community so so so well. I'm going

[3:01:29] to personally miss you. Uh you're you're one of those uh guys that I can I can

[3:01:34] have a coffee with in the noble from you. You get the honest uh absolutely

[3:01:40] honest uh stuff from you. So I just want to take this opportunity, Brian, because

[3:01:45] I understand um you're not you're not going till the end. What

[3:01:51] you won't be fit here for the next meeting. So I thought I'd take this

[3:01:54] opportunity at this point in time. Um, I should have probably done it under

[3:01:58] mayor's message to to thank you so much and uh we do wish you all the best and

[3:02:04] I'm confident you're going to just do so well. You'll probably be the fire chief

[3:02:08] over there next. He goes, "No thanks. No fire chief."

[3:02:13] Anyways, again, uh Brian, uh thank you to you and and your entire family. Got

[3:02:18] the opportunity to meet your family and uh it's uh it's been a real pleasure to

[3:02:22] have you.

[3:02:31] And I'm sure we're going to be doing something here formally uh you know

[3:02:35] within the city. So uh this won't be the last of it. Thank you.

[3:02:43] Okay. Can we get the motion for to go in camera please?

[3:02:49] Thank you very much. Second. Thank you Jordison. Seconder discussion

[3:02:55] seeing none uh motion carries.

Council - 24 Aug 2026

Transcript