[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.