The regular council meeting for Monday, July 9, 2018. I'd like to call the meeting to order. The clerk tonight is Ms. Sheila Gurry. And before we get going, I want to first off recognize that we are on the traditional territory of this name of First Nations. The second is that anyone that's wishing to ask questions during question period, the sign-up sheet will be overbind the clerks by the computers over there. And you simply need to put your name and your item you wish to speak about.
Introduction of late items, please, Ms. Curry.
Thank you, Your Worship.
On the agenda this evening, for agenda item 10-D, we're adding delegations from Martin,
Jaloo, and Raymond DeVield, regarding 20 bars be avenue.
Agenda item 10-F, development permit, DP1088, for 3, 4, 2, 5, uplands drive, we're adding
a delegation from Randy Dorma.
Agenda Item 10G, Development Permit, 4775, Uplands Drive, we're adding a delegation from Judith Guy.
Agenda Item 10J, Provincial Support for Daytime Drop-In Resource Center, we're adding a delegation from Matthew O'Donnell.
Agenda Item 10K Cannabis Task Force update, we're replacing the introduction by Mr. Dale Lindsay and replacing it with Councillor Kip.
And we're also adding a delegation from Matthew O'Donnell, as well as some correspondence
data July 5th, 2018 from the NIMO Lady Smith Public Schools regarding cannabis task force
recommendations.
For agenda item 12b, we're replacing zoning amendment by law 4500.117 with the attached
version to correct the covenant registration date.
For agenda item 12c, zoning amendment by law 2018 number 4500.121.
We're replacing with the attached version to show the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Approval
Data June 25th, 2018 and then we're there for replacing the by-law status sheet for 12 item 12D not set your worship.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Neill and the other late items.
Councillor Rohn.
Thank you.
Can I please add Kevin Shaw to 6B with regards to Victoria Cresson Association.
He has a short presentation.
Six
B. Yes, please.
Do you have a seconder?
Seconded by Councilor Kim.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, call the questionals in favor.
Opposed, motion carries.
Any others come?
Seeing none, motion to adopt the agenda as amended.
Moved by Councilor Hall and seconded by Councilor Armstrong.
Thank you.
Call the questionals in favor.
Opposed, motion carries.
Next one is adoption of minutes.
There are five, probably six sets of minutes to be adopted.
You can take them as a block, moved by Councilor Besswick,
seconded by Councilor Hong, any errors or emissions.
Seeing none, call the question, all his favour.
Opposed, motion carries.
Next one is presentation, reproposed, council, procedure by law.
I miss sugary.
Thank you, worship. So my presentation this evening is just to give all of council and
the public a heads up that a new council procedure by law is on its way. This presentation
will just outline the reasons for new by law and some of the highlight proposed changes
to the new by law. Then I'll also go through an engagement process that we'll be doing and
and giving you, basically, an update on the next steps.
So why a new council procedure by-law?
Our current by-law, number 7060, was adopted in 2007.
There's been three amendments since then, and they've just been minor amendments.
Good governance is one of council's priorities.
And consultants prepared the Watson report in 2013, so it's been five years now since that
Watson report was conducted, many of the recommendations that that report made have been implemented,
but there are a number that were involving a new procedure by law that haven't been done.
There was staff previously that had prepared draft by laws, but the work had not been completed.
We need to address council to quorum and proper parliamentary procedures that are absent in their current by law and would be a very useful tool going forward.
So this is a good opportunity for change.
The new by-law combines recommendations from most consultants input and research, and it will be written
in a clear concise plain language way, and it's a useful tool for this counsel and future counsels.
So a summary of the by-law updates will be the next several slides.
This is a combination of the consultants reports.
We had two previous parliamentarians come in and draft some bylaws and
recommends and changes and this is a combination of that as well as since I've been the city clerk the last couple of years.
Things that would have been very useful for me had they been in our procedure by law, as well as recommendations that members of the public have made at the podium and
Councillors that have made here at the table have provided a lot of input that has influenced
the changes that you'll see coming forward. So some of the changes are it addresses the absence
of parliamentary procedures. So proper steps for reconsideration of a matter points of order,
tabling or referring a matter back to staff and proper time to debate a by-law at the appropriate
reading of the by-law. All of these will be laid out in the new procedure by-law so that if there is
Any question on parliamentary procedures or Robert's rules of order?
The important ones are written right into the by-law, which then helps provide more weight and a reference that we can turn to.
And it's not just somebody's knowledge of Robert's rules of order, it's actually written into the procedure by-law.
Requirements for raising hand to vote.
Right now it's written in our current procedure by-law that the way voting is handled is by a raise of hand in the affirmative.
The absence of a hand raised is still a vote in the affirmative unless you raise your hand when the chair calls for those opposed.
Escribe allows for voting to occur on tablets and appear on the screen, so keeping technology how it's advancing in the future.
In mind, the new procedure by law will allow for this as we get to that point with our technology.
Council Decoram, it's not mentioned in our current by-law and the new by-law will outline
clear guidelines for acceptable conduct and debate and this goes not only for members
of council and staff but also members of the public when they're at the podium and it
will assist in better meeting management.
In camera meeting times so right now our by-law is silent in camera meeting times which is
why if members of the public or council have noticed there's a meeting change for every
Council meeting, we have a meeting time change part of me. We changed the time of all of our
regularly scheduled council meetings to account for the in-camera meeting times. Other than
that, if we didn't have that, we would have to have a special council meeting. So if some
of you remember several months ago, I've changed it to changing the meeting time. But before
that, we'd have to have two agendas because each in-camera meeting would have to be a special
Council meeting, so this would just account for, it would really assist in less staff time
and resources in producing double agendas and constantly changing the notices to accommodate
the start and early time.
So the regular open sessions would still commence at 7 p.m.
Late items and addendums, if we move to the printing and publishing of the agendas to Thursdays
which previously years ago it had been done that way, it would eliminate the need to have
an addendum which would cut down on staff resources and laid items.
Again, these are just potential changes and council I'll explain with the next steps
your ability to provide further input.
Public can sign up to speak on an agenda item and tell Monday if we were to move the printing of the agenda to Thursdays
and they'd be able to sign up till Monday and there would be no addentums and no extra laid items
added besides the delegations and the item's council would want to bring to at the meeting.
Committee of the halls, these would be brought back to their originally intended format,
which is a less formal meeting where issues are brought to the table, can be debated and
discussed fully before coming to a council meeting to be voted on, much like you do at the regional district of Nanaimal.
And this will aid in shortening council meetings as a full-sum discussion would already have taken place at the committee of the whole meeting.
Speaking limits, nothing in the current by-law addresses speaking times for members,
so putting limits in place will help move meetings along and stay on to the deck.
Members can make a motion and vote if they wish to speak longer, and it will aid in helping
meetings run more efficiently.
Summary of by-law updates continued.
Consent agenda, this is one of my favorites.
It's a list of various items and recommendations to address those items.
Matters excluded from the list include items pertaining to the financial plan, the annual
no simple report and changes to any strategic plans, but this will give a list of all items,
besides those three that have outlined their Council may vote on and adopt in one motion.
All of those recommendations listed in that consent agenda, unless one of the members of Council
would like an item removed. You don't need a motion for that. You can just request for it to be
removed from the list and you can debate and consider it separately.
Public hearings right now,
They are not addressed in our current procedure by-law, so it will outline the process.
The new by-law will outline the process, and it's designed to assist the Chair and
Council members by stating proper procedures to follow.
Supporting policies, there is a new section which clearly defines when a supporting
policy would be helpful to provide additional rules to support the new by-law.
Council would adopt these policies, and policies are easier to amend than the by-law
because they just require a resolution of council, not an amendment to the by-law.
And with the procedure by law, it requires publication, notice of changes to the procedure by law.
We have to provide notice in the paper in accordance with Section 94 of the Community Charter.
So in conclusion, these updates that I have just or proposed updates that I have just listed are issues that have been brought to the attention of council.
Problems that are apparent to me as the corporate officer and it clearly outlines the rule of order and
Parliamentary procedures, which I believe would be really beneficial on a helpful tool in a new procedure by law.
So the next steps which I don't have a slide for is we have already, like I stated earlier, had two parliamentarians complete drafts of work done by staff,
which also included a survey to mayor and council a couple of years ago.
Lisa Swarn, the parliamentarian surveyed you for your proposed ideas.
Members of the public have come to meetings and provided suggestions.
Mayor and council have provided feedback and suggestions to myself.
In doing this job, I've come across issues that had been spelled out clearly in the procedure by law.
It would have been of great assistance to me and my job.
So going forward, the draft by law will be on the committee of the whole agenda for August 27th.
So the draft will be there with the current by law and the changes proposed.
closed for a council to provide feedback and suggestions and get a detailed explanation
of the changes at that time.
There will then be a public engagement session on August 28th with Lisa Sorn, parliamentarian
who will go through this procedure by-law process and allow for public feedback.
The community charter outlines the public notice that must be provided under Section 124
and Section 94 of the charter must then be followed.
So Section 124 says, when you plan on updating or amending your procedure by law, you must follow
the notice requirements in Section 94, which is just basically publication in the newspaper.
I plan to take it a step further and also have that engagement session as well as a full
some discussion with Council at a committee of the whole.
My plan then is to have three readings in front of you, hopefully, by October 1st and then
Then adoption for October 15th and this will allow the incoming council to not have to
learn to proceed your bylaws.
They'll just have the one new one that you have helped to create and implement that will
hopefully be a really good tool for that council and future councils.
That's it.
Thank you very much.
I see no questions for you.
On to the next item, which of course is the mayor's report.
You had a question?
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Good evening, Kevin Shaw, the Victoria President Association.
The association would like to thank the City of the Normal and invite everyone to our
bathtub weekend street festival.
On Saturday, July 21st, the road's next to the China steps will once again be blocked
off for all sorts of free fun activities.
For the kids, there will be a couple of giant slides, inflatable bouncy castle, a 60 foot obstacle
course challenging your skills to see if you're a ninja warrior gladiator. We'll have kids games,
face painting, and animal balloons. For the adults, a car show featuring the Gabriel of Cruisers,
the Old English car club, and those dirt devil rods, they're called. You'll be able to stop your
feet to the Nanaimo fiddle society, but relax to the slow moves of Tai Chi Nanaimo. The RCMP
an animal search and rescue, and the an animal fire rescue will be on hand to show their vehicles.
Well, I have a dunk tank and no bathtub weekend would be
Complete without the famous service rates. So join us Saturday, July 21st, it all begins at 9.30 in the morning for the all-free. It's the Victoria
Crescent Street Festival, and it's on Bath tub weekend. Thanks very much. Thank you very much, sir.
No questions. Thank you. So in the mayor's report, I have, I just wanted to bring
everybody's attention to the fact that it's, it's, it's, it's a reinvestable month. And it started off this last weekend with Dragon
vote. There were thousands and thousands of people down at the fail setting over the
course of the weekend. The weather was great. There were 59 teams that competed. The
numbers actually down a little bit from past years, only because there were a number
of teams, including, I believe, 7 or 8 local teams that were off in Venice that are competing
for the worlds, if you can imagine that. So next weekend on Sunday, July 15th, don't forget
There's the Child Development Center's biggest fundraiser of the year, the CiliBot Races.
Again, it may fail a certain park.
Following that, on Friday, it starts the activities with respect to Beth Thub and Beth Thub
Weekend.
There's all kinds of different activities you can go on to the Royal Order and I'm a Beth
Thub Society website, and whether all we described.
Don't forget following Weekend after that is the BC Day Long Weekend, and two days after
the BC day, BC day Monday, is another big event in Anamo, which is of course the snowbirds
come back to fly over to Anamo. So it's a Wednesday, it's two days after the holiday
Monday, and it proves to be again a good, a great time. Make your dinner reservations early
because I know you can't buy, you can't get a dinner reservation on that night when the
Stonebridge come. Thank you. Next item of course is administration and there are a number
of advisory committee minutes. There are six of them in total. They can all come together.
Someone prepared to move all of them. Moved by Councilor Thorpe. Thank you. Seconder.
Seconded by Councilor Armstrong. Thank you. Any errors or missions? Seeing none, call the
question. All of the favour? Opposed? Motion carried.
Next one is under corporate services, and it will be the internal borrowing resolution to be introduced by a windie fuller manager, business asset and financial planning.
Ms. Fuller.
Thank you.
As council will recall, when we reviewed the budget this spring, the 2018-2022 financial plan included internal borrowing for three sanitary sewer projects in 2018-2019-2020 and 2022.
Internal boring doesn't require a resolution from Council, however, it is best practice to obtain such a resolution.
We are asking you to approve a resolution for the internal borrowing for
2018 for DCC SS 45, which is the Chase River Pump Station Enforcement.
We will return in subsequent years to get a resolution for the internal borrowing that is planned in that year.
Thank you very much, someone prepared to move the recommendation.
Moved by Councilor Brennan, seconded by Councilor Thorpe, any discussion?
Seeing none, call the questionals in favour, opposed motion carries.
Next one is under public services and that is first item, morning side drive sewer cost share to be introduced by Mr. Bill Simms.
Go ahead, Mr. Simmson.
Thank you, Your Worship.
In front of you have a report regarding the possibility of providing sewer to Morningside Drive.
So a number of residents along Morningside Drive are currently on septic fields, currently
failing, and they've banded together and approached the city to see if we could cost share so
that they could expedite the installation of sanitary sewer along Morningside.
For the city, it's an opportunity to provide a service to Washington, like instead of a port-a-party at Neck Point Park, so that helps our interest as well.
And so we've engaged to consult and looked at a number of different options and the most appropriate is a low-pressure sewer system.
Similar to other areas we find it quite effective, and it's just because of the geography of the street.
So,
of course, that comes with a cost.
We estimate in the range of 150 to 240,000, as you can see on the report.
And after quite a bit of discussion with the Resonance Association or Regist Resonance Group,
I should say, they've indicated a willingness to contribute to 12,200 for
each property for a total of 61,000 towards the entire cost of the project, which I think is quite
quite reasonable. They're going to have significant expenses on their own property as well.
So, in lieu of replacing a septic field, it does work out to be economic and best practice for both parties.
Of course, one of the best features about this is that it really cleans up one of the, one of the pristine waterfront areas in the city.
So the, there's two bylaws required if Council agrees to go forward.
We would approach the residents to sign a petition for a local area service under the community charter.
That would be one bylaw and then the other bylaw would be to appropriate funds from the appropriate
sewer fund for the work.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Councillor Hone.
Thank you.
three to staff. Mr. Sims, what did the residents of, I think, green lake? Was that the last
one that did the buy-in? What did they pay each to buy into the sewer if I'm not mistaken?
My recollection is that Council waved any fees they had some costs on site, but as far as
the contribution to the overall project. And I believe that was tied into an understanding
that they would be serviced as part of a malgommation in the 70s.
Thank you.
Councillor Vester.
Thank you. Just do that green lake situation somewhat different than this, but at the time the green lake residents were given a certain period of time in which to take advantage of the opportunity which I think might have been on a percentage of what
the estimated cost was, and if they went outside because some folks there had just recently replaced their
septic systems, so weren't necessarily in a position at that time financially to do the sewer
system hook up. But if they went outside a window, a period of time, then they lost that
But that benefited an advantage of the initial offering.
I can't remember what the number was, but there was a number if you bought in originally or if you bought in after.
I just can't remember, I don't know, I don't want to throw a number out there because I can't remember what it was.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Someone prepared to move the recommendation.
Move by Councilor Hong, seconded by Councilor Bessert.
Thank you.
I'll call the question on the favour, opposed motion carries.
Next one is property distribution, property disposition, part in plan 174 RW of lot 7 and
the memo river road to be introduced by Mr. D. L. Lindsay.
Mr. Lindsay.
Thank you, Your Worship.
As you mentioned, we're here this evening to see Council's approval for the disposition of
the subject property.
This is a piece of remnant land that was previously owned by the greater name.
I'm a water district, it's now, we're recommending that it be disposed of and sold to LaFarge, who is the neighboring property owner.
The property itself is about 0.28 hectares, and there's a value of $16,500.
We have now completed the required notification, and it's required under legislation, and it's here for final consideration by Council.
Thank you.
Is someone prepared to move the recommendation?
I'm going to vote.
Moving both, Councillor Hone.
Thank you.
Seconded by Councillor Fork.
Thank you.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, call the question.
All in favour?
Opposed?
Motion carries.
Next item is rezoning application number R-A-390 at 215 Saviston Street and to be introduced
by Mr. Lindsay.
Thank you, Worship.
This is an application as you mentioned for rezoning.
We're seeking Council's recommendation on 1st and 2nd reading of the associated bylaws
this evening.
The rezoning, if approved, would rezone the subject property from R1 to R6 in order to
allow for a 5-unit multifamily project.
The air photo, which is from page 81 of your agenda, is displayed on the screen.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Hone.
Thank you.
I see that they're putting $5,000 towards the park improvements.
Do we have any say, is this what they're picking up?
Because I keep picking up this question that we have a housing crisis, and
that pot that we need is going to grow.
So $5,000 for a park improvement, or can we put $5,000 into an
an affordable housing pot for this area?
Do we have that option?
Your Worship Through to Councilor Hong, I think it's important to note that community contributions are ultimately voluntary contributions.
And there's lists of potential projects that the money can be provided towards.
And those lists are generated either through the Official Community Plan or in this case through the Neighborhood Plan.
So staff would provide them with a list of identified opportunities that are in the Neighborhood Plan.
and it's really up to the applicants to identify where they would wish their community contributions
to be resourced to.
Now in this case, they've identified the park.
I would say certainly the trend with recent applications has been towards your affordable
housing strategy, and that's always identified by staff as an option.
Just to follow up on that then, thank you.
If you don't mind, is this the $1,000 per door that we keep talking about, or is that something
different. No, it is exactly that ownership. It's the community contribution which for
multi-family is $1,000 dollars adorious. So I would really eventually like to have
a look at that where that $1,000 per door goes to affordable housing. And if they wanted
to community contribution to the park for variances, I'd be more inclined to have a look at that
way. Because I like to, like I said, grow that pot that we need for housing. Land isn't
getting any cheaper, the city doesn't have much more inventory.
We're going to have to start buying some sooner or later.
And we're going to have to get that land, that money from somewhere.
Thank you.
Councillor Browne.
I don't have anything.
I'll make the motion.
Actually, I was going to, it just needs, as a by-law, it needs to go to Councilor.
Okay, thank you, Councilor Fuller.
A quick question to Mr. Lindsay.
Did we read this at $1,000 per door at this point?
Or are we going to revisit that because I recall mentioning it at some point?
Yes, your worship.
The last time it was reviewed was through the Development Process Review Committee, which is probably going back three or four years now.
There is an existing council motion on the books to review that policy, yes.
Thank you.
Councillor Thorpe.
Thank you, Chair.
So I will move that zoning amendment bylaw 2018, number 4500.125, to rezone 2 on 5
Sabbath and street from single dwelling residential R1 to townhouse residential
R6 pass first reading.
Seconded by Councilor Bacerck.
Thank you, discussion.
Seeing none, call the questions in favor, posed, motion carries.
And I would move that zoning amendment bylaw 2018, number 4500.125, pass second reading.
Thank you, seconded by Councilor Besswick, any discussion?
Seeing none, call the questionals in favor, opposed, motion carries.
And I would further move the Council direct staff to secure the community contribution,
prior to the adoption of the bylaw, should Council support the bylaw at third reading.
Thank you, seconded by Councilor Besswick.
all those in favor.
Opposed? Motion carries.
Thank you.
Next one, development permit number D.P.1073 at 20 bars.
We have it, Mr. Lindsay.
Thank you, Your Worship.
We could ask that page 92 in the agenda.
Sorry, the airfoad, that's fine.
Thank you very much.
I wanted to start off here because this is certainly a challenging site for many perspectives.
because it's a previously disturbed site, first of all.
There's been activity on this property for many years,
but it's also challenging that it's bound on almost all sides
by watercourse setbacks.
So you have before you this evening a development permit,
this property may look familiar to Council
because there has been a previous development permit
on this property for 58 units.
This application is a revision to that.
Previous application is now seeking a development permit
which will allow for 90 units
on the subject property.
There are variances to building height, yard setbacks, water course setbacks, and parking.
Thank you very much.
We have a delegation, Mr. Martin, Juro, and Raymond DeBield.
Thank
you, gentlemen.
You have 10 minutes.
Raymond DeBield, architect to the project and
Martin Juro project manager for platinum properties.
We're really just here if you guys have any questions in regards to us.
Okay, thank you, Councillor Vestor, it has questions.
Thank you, Councillor.
Sorry, thank you.
You're asking for six amendments and
The reparations set back, the reduced watercourse set back at the top of the bank from 30 meters to 0. Help me understand what the tradeoff is.
Help me understand what the tradeoff in terms of the community benefit in the trailway that exists and how you will enhance,
It's, assumingly, that Parkway connected trail from, I'll say Bowen Park, to Swaya-Lana.
And I asked that question because in recognition of the zero setback at the top of the water
course, if you will, making an assumption that there will be a boardwalk or some enhanced
walkway behind there, or in front.
First slide is that we're enhancing along the bar speed area there in terms of the length
weight, the connection between the long and the best tone, and I don't know if I can
get this one.
How do I point it in?
Oh, left and right.
I don't know.
Top and down.
Can you pull the microphone?
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
From this to the other slide here.
This one here shows the return and setback, and also in red is the fisheries BS setback.
The footprint of the building is actually the same as the identical, like 98% the same as the original building.
The original building, Parkade was falling just on the outside of that light blue line of where we've kind of straightened it out.
So it makes change for that with the extra story to pay for the parkade.
We're also updating all the riparian area between around the Milestone right-of-way and
our property as well as providing natural vegetation to the podium areas.
So there's an increased habitat area.
The, like I say, the building existence was essentially the same as before, so yeah, I don't
know.
So pre this we don't really get involved in what your design looks like and all that
stuff.
So my question is, will folks be walking in the front of the building and
connect back on, or will they be walking behind the building on the mill stone side?
It's still, we haven't changed where the pathway is that goes around part to the north.
Okay, so but you will be enhancing the pedestrian walkway for
for its connectivity.
Yes, part of that was done by the property being given back where the pathway was on this property originally by the previous owner.
So that would have been dedicated on the previous D.P.
Okay, I'm not sure, maybe Mr. Lindsey can help me if he understands it a little bit where I'm going.
So
you wish if the question is normally we look for compensation anytime we go into a repair and setback so if your question is where is that compensation it's a it's a combination of improvements on the site and in the park in terms of the removal of invasive species the replanting of those areas so from our perspective the improvements that are being done both on the land and in the adjacent park allow for basically net zero in terms of the overall impact is in this what way
We look for anytime we're looking for water, of course, setbacks.
And we're also improving the streetscape along the lane on bars, because it's not.
It's actually a big thing.
Well, you'd have to do that with your development, would you not?
No, but it's, I think it's a big benefit, because it's a major bikeway through it and a walkway through there.
And that's why I'm asking the question, because of the major cycling and pedestrian traffic that goes through there.
But that's primarily bars.
Thanks.
Between the bridge.
Thank you.
Councillor Hong.
Thank you.
It's due to the delegation or maybe staff.
When you had 58 units, how many parking stalls were you providing?
There was a previous DP which we were not at my show.
I can't tell you because that was in the years enough.
Okay.
It had a lot of the variances that we have with this project in terms of the only difference
is we have more parking, I think our variance is actually better than theirs.
We have the same front yard setback to bars because they did the same front yard setback
for the parquet as they did building footprint is essentially the same as the original project.
The only thing that we're doing that's different is the extra story in terms of height.
They had a variance for height as well.
I don't know about half as much as we do.
And the parquet essentially allows us and the parking underneath to essentially pay for
a lot of the upgrades to the park and also we're providing a lot more native vegetation
on top of the podium, which is the park A, which the image scheme wasn't doing.
Okay.
Thank you, because I just wanted to follow up on that with this variance from, I guess.
So I just also say sorry to interrupt, but we also have one in two tiers with this project
so we're providing electro-vehicle charging cars share a lot more bike storage and that kind
of stuff.
We're also providing the part of the tiers and the vehicle as well.
That's all part of the parking variance.
Thank you, yes, so just to follow up on that, we approved a senior's facility.
This is exactly from staff report right here, it's 57 rental apartment building on 20 per dose street with a huge variance.
The area is going to be busy.
I didn't know that this was going to be a 90 unit condo development.
I thought it was actually a lot smaller in scale.
So my question I think is going to be what the residents in that area are going to be concerned
about is parking.
On street parking is going to be very limited and since that these are going to be condos,
you're going to have guests coming, 90 units, and assume you're going to have guests.
You're going to have no parking for them, very limited street parking, if anything.
So I have concerns about the parking.
I would be okay with at least one stall per condo.
You know, you haven't even, I don't know what the condo units are if they're going to be,
you know, micros because I would love to see some microsweets and all the other stuff
but it doesn't tell me that from your variants of 58 to 90 and
For that reason I have concerns about it because it's not helping with our affordability
With the designs that we need and especially with parking for for a condo unit rental
I could look at but when it comes to a condo
So, it's going to be a tough decision, so I'm going to have to listen to what some other colleagues have to say.
Thank you.
Councillor Armstrong.
Just for clarification, I think they're only asking for five.
They went from 90 to 85.
Yeah, that was the previous scheme, sorry.
You're asking for 85 parkans, a variance to 85 from 90, correct?
Thank you.
We have no more questions for you.
Thank you very much.
If someone prepared to move the recommendation, moved by Councillor Armstrong, seconded by
Councillor Besswick, any further discussion?
Seeing none, call the questions in favour, opposed, motion carries.
Next one, development permit number D.P.1075 at 3598, Norwell Drive, to be introduced by Mr.
Lindsay.
Thank you, Worship.
Again, this property may be familiar to Council as it was rezoned just last fall to allow for this project to allow for a row housing development.
So this evening, you're considering a development permit as noted at the time of rezoning,
given the nature of the property, it does require a lot depth variance from 27 meters to 19.46 meters.
In addition to the variance that was previously identified, the applicant's also requesting relatively minor height variances for these buildings.
Thank you very much.
Is someone prepared to move the recommendation?
Moved by Councillor Besswick, seconded by Councillor Thorpe, any discussion?
Seeing none, call the questions all in favour?
Opposed? Motion carries.
Next one.
So, development permit number DP-10888 at 3-4, 2-5, up on the strife, to be introduced by Mr. Nancy.
Thank you, Worship.
Again, this is an application that went through the rezoning process.
In this case, it was actually approved in the fall of 2016.
Council, I think you're aware that this application is from the NIMO Association of Community Living.
And I note that partly because of the size of the parking stall variances, and
and council may have questions about that.
This was identified at the time of rezoning.
The overall development is for 28 units
with 12 of those units being identified for NACL clients.
And given the nature of their clients,
parking is, we believe, not required for those units.
The remaining 16 units are identified for affordable rentals.
So the applicants are providing one stall
for each of the rental plus one additional stall.
but that's ultimately the variance from 46 to 17.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
We have two delegations.
The first one is Mr. Graham-Mauri, Executive Director
and Animal Association for Community Living
and Mr. John Jessica Project Manager
and Animal Association for Community Living.
Gentlemen,
you have up to 10 minutes.
We are going to waive our rate for a presentation
but we wanted to be here in case there were any questions
Park concerns that we might be able to respond to the work in the council report.
Okay. Thank you very much. Councillor Armstrong?
Yeah. Just have a question on the parking. I know that you said that there'd be one extra
or whatever it was. Is there disabled parking more than just one spot for that particular
project? I believe there's one disabled park out of the total 17.
Thank you.
Thank you very much you know for the questions no for the questions thank you.
Thank you. No we have actually we have a delegation another delegation. Mr. Randy dormant.
I'm the neighbor next door at 3405 and I have a lot of issues with the idea of the parking.
I have some pictures that I brought with me that I want to make sure that I hand out of this part of my 10 minutes.
The
first agenda would be about the parking.
They have one manager parking.
When they're running their programs during the day, I live right next door.
There's always two more cars there every morning to help people get going in the morning.
If you read through, I don't know if any of you have read through this, but it does talk about their programs that they run through the one building.
There will be also with such a large development there will be definitely be an maintenance person and also a groundskeeper to keep this property up, which would, you know, at least three more stalls than just the one for the manager.
The 15 renters, we all know single people do have more than one friend for 15 people.
Because that's what they've asked is for one visitor parking stall, right?
And so I think there should be at least another five for those people to have friends over
and maybe have people stay the night.
and for most of the NCL clients, it's their first time
from ever moving away from home.
So parents and other family members will all be visiting.
There should be at least another five
for those people that are coming to visit as well,
for a total of 10.
Extra on top.
The one wheelchair, sure, that's bare minimum.
I
think really they need 12 with their people.
And their people, the guest parking, they need at least 12 more minimum parking stalls.
Pictures I have taken here of the area where the parking is going to be now. So you see on the picture there, the lower parking below the sewage on the picture up there. That is where I've taken the first picture of and it is 90 feet below the sewer line.
And at this time, they're only using about 40 to 45 feet of that picture I've taken there of open area.
So it's not really going to be cutting down any more trees.
So there's lots more room there for a building or parking.
The second picture is there if they're parking on the street, looking left and
right.
Those two cars on both the pictures are over 25 feet away from my,
by exiting my driveway, looking both directions.
So parking on the street would totally cause danger to me,
and my people around me that live on my little road
that I have in there.
The city made me, if you see the one picture,
they made me block off my other exit there.
So there's a fence looking down there too,
that you can see in the picture just barely.
They made me block off my other driveway.
The
east facing, I'm going to move on now to the east facing decks and building.
They wanted to move closer and onto my property closer to my property line.
They failed to mention the fact that this would ruin my privacy to my two homes on the east property.
The first picture is looking up at my driveway towards Uplands.
Neighbors sit on that deck and tan and barbecue enjoy quiet times.
My kids play hockey and basketball on the concrete pad that you see before the dog.
The second picture is
how close they will be standing watching my kids play and watching
my neighbors tan.
And the
front windows that you see upstairs are my children's bedrooms that they are going
to be looking at from
those balconies 10 feet off my property line.
And the fifth picture is what I'll be looking at when I go to work every morning at 4.30.
The city should have a by-law in place for apartments that when and if they neighboring
property are single-family dwellings and if the builder would like to put apartments sideways
on the property, there must be a backyard variance of seven meters for us single-family dwellings.
So this does not happen now or in the future, or up the road at Collins Place,
whereas now for sale, how are we going to tell those people they can't? You guys are making
decision here today for that piece of property as well because this is going to
make the difference to call in as well. He has a brand new $1 million home up the
road. The one next door is for sale. They want to see about getting our six zoning
there too. Are we going to be allowed to put the apartment sideways in 10 feet from
his property line looking in at his family and his kids?
Sorry. As you all saw on
the first picture. There is enough room for the building without cutting down more trees.
That third building B should be down below, which would give them more suitable parking
up top where most of the apartments are. There's 25 apartments up top. They have six parking
stalls for those 25 apartments up top. When it's snowing and raining, who's really going
to want to go use those 10 down below. They don't even have a path for them to walk up.
They've got to walk up the hill. It's horrible parking,
especially you can say in the nature
of the people, right? There's no reason. When I bought this property, it was to give my children
and my family a safe place to play and have fun outside without fear. If these decks even place
three meters from our property line will be too close. Needles, razors, cigarettes and
other things can be all thrown into our yard with ease.
I did discuss this with Graham
before about the third home that backed on to my property. I would give them sewage right
away through the bottom end of my property so they could put the third home down and it
It was also access the other properties beyond their property for sewage below the line that is there now, because the line where the sewage is now is less than half, those are 540 feet deep, and I think where he's at there is maybe 200 where the sewage is, so there's a lot of wasted land there.
He was talking about also on there about how not him himself, but this thing here at the wetlands.
It's not wet back there.
It's gravel all the way to the last maybe 30 feet of the before the creek.
And that's how much the zoning by-law asks for is 15 meters, so it's plenty.
Anyways, I have no more to say unless you have, okay, one last thing.
Sorry. Where is it?
This decision you make to hopefully disallow it will make a much better place to protect single family dwellings in the right to our privacy and the way we have it now. Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir. I see no questions.
Is someone prepared to move the recommendation to go on the floor?
move by Councillor Brennan. Seconded by Councillor Armstrong. Thank you.
Discussion? Councillor Armstrong. Thank you. I cannot support the parking
variants. I'm very concerned about the lack of parking. Many of the individuals there
will have home care support. Where are they going to park? I agree with what the
presenter said that there's visitors. There's whatever and I don't believe one spot
is enough. So for those reasons I cannot support the parking variants. Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Besson.
That's right.
Thank you.
I will be supporting the variance for the additional height and the parking is an issue,
of course.
And I do think that this will set a precedent for the neighboring properties that will
just simply magnify and proliferate the problem of parking and density, which density is
It's a double-edged sword, it's kind of good, but not always, and not in every location, and not in every place.
And over the years, I've often times challenged how dense is dense, and I have a real serious concern,
not with the proponents and what their intentions are, but rather the location and the impact that it will
will have on neighboring properties in the future, so I won't be supporting them.
Thank you.
Councilor Hong.
Thank you, actually unlike the last one, I will support this variance.
For that reason is because this is a good project.
This is going to add to affordable housing.
It's not a lot, but it is 15 affordable rental housing units as we know that rental
units, not everybody has a car, so I'm not as concerned, and ACL has a great reputation
for care for their clients. And having an on-site manager, it is really good for development
this size. If the residents have concerns and issues, they can easily address this.
You're
And I will support those variances, and I think this is a good project, and this is going to afford, you know, give a nice home for the people at the AACL.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Thorpe.
Thank you, Chair.
Similar to Councillor Hong, I have supported this project when it's come before us.
I think NACL is a very worthwhile organization.
I certainly had a close look at the parking variance, and it was a concern to me, but I was satisfied when
I read the report of the rationale for the reduction, and I'm not totally comfortable
with it, but I think I can support it based on what I have read.
The other variances, although I sympathize with the delegation, the other variances are
relatively minor, and I don't think would greatly affect the overall result of the building.
And I recognize that he has concerns about the project and its design overall,
but I think we're basically past that point now.
So the bottom line for me is I can live with the parking variants, and I will support
the recommendation.
Thank you, Councillor Brennan.
I don't have anything to add to what the Councillor Hall and Councillor Thorpe
of said, I support this application, I support the NACL, I am very happy that their clients
will have this kind of housing, it's housing that we've needed for some time and I look
forward to seeing it happen, I think, you know, we live in a city, sometimes we can see our
on the street, playing hockey and whatever, and from my point of view, that's a good
thing that we can watch each other's children play. So, I'm really satisfied with this.
Thank you. So, Councilor Firelli, if you ask the question, I will call the question all
those in favor? Opposed? So, Councilor Armstrong, Councilor Besswick, opposed? Motion carries.
Next item, development permit number 1093 at 4775 up on Strive.
To be introduced by Mr. Lindsay.
Thank you, Worship.
This is development permit as you mentioned on the subject property.
This is for two four story buildings and it's the next phase of the successful Longwood
project.
There is a height variance is being requested and I would note that's to allow for Gable
with the overall design that you see in that community.
Thank you very much.
We have one delegation and that is Judith Guy,
and
I hope I pronounce it properly.
Actually, it's Guy, but thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor and thank you to the council members who are here.
We are here, Mr. Jackson and myself,
not representing any of the people other than ourselves.
We are here as residents of the strata, the IS-499, with concerns about this new development
of two apartment buildings with 86 units slated to eventually become part of our strata.
And if you're looking at the map and the map on the page there, it will be in the lower
the right area of 4775 that this building is going in.
The part vote line by red, there is only one street
that goes into this development, and it's a laneway.
It doesn't have shoulders, it basically allows two cars to pass.
With this new development, there will be seven driveways opening onto a lane that is about
about 175 meters long, about a city block.
Currently, there are three entrances with 117 units using
underground parking ramps that have limited visibility.
So as we come out of some of those buildings,
it isn't a clear visibility to see who's moving along
at Waterland.
Three other buildings further on down, use this driveway
way and they are 164 units and they use this driveway to access uplands because the visibility
is somewhat better than it is in front of another building.
This new development will add 86 units but an increase of four driveways, two for off-road
parking and two for underground parking and one of them has a very sharp U-shaped turn
to get into the underground parking, making visibility different, are very difficult.
That's building B. In 175 meters, which is about one city block, there will be seven parking
driveways with the potential use overall by 367 units.
Some residents having more than two cars.
So in this area right now, we have residents who walk.
some of them have mobility limitations and often others use the roadway to walk.
Go grocery shopping into walk their dogs. So if you factor into that picture, a big garbage truck parked at the top of one of those ramps going to the underground parking to pick up the garbage and then this increase in the number of cars that would be using that now our roadway, it really does affect how people walk and move around in our complex. The general development permit area design guide states
that off-speak parking should be provided in a number of small parking areas separated by areas of landscaping and safety includes, for example,
designs that successfully integrate pedestrian and vehicle circulation or project designs that promote social interaction and a sense of mutual responsibility for one another safety.
We see this as quite a serious safety issue.
many of the residents, it's not limited to people who are elderly, but many of the residents
are older. And we hope that this plan could be revised with some of the parking access
be reduced so that driveways will not come into such a condensed area. I see it is quite
a serious issue.
And then we're also concerned about the unnecessary removal of mature trees.
There are at estimate 50 trees on this property that are between 60 and 70 feet tall. And all
of our buildings in this area have surrounding clumps of trees that really give a sense of privacy
for each building in a sense of, I guess it's a sense of structure of a very nice garden landscape.
and the indication from what we can see on the plans is that five single-spaced
five-meter Douglas fir trees will be added after all this timber has taken
down there will be a lot of small landscape strawberry but basically in
terms of the very large trees they are stated to be removed.
Also under the
general development permit area design guidelines, the development must relate to the natural
real environment, and it's a fundamental aspect of quality of life and an IMO. Building
in site design should therefore complement and relate to the character of this site.
And certainly for the other buildings on the Longwood development, those trees have been
preserved and protected in plumps, certainly not intense through the whole area, but there
There are enough trees to be significant and that will change with this development.
So we're asking that these two things be considered.
The safety issue is really key.
We don't want people injured and we want people to be able to move around with a sense of safety
and comfort.
And the other one is that once those trees come down they won't be back.
360 and 70 feet tall. Take a long time to grow.
So we're asking that consideration be given
in the planning of the sighting of those two buildings.
Thank you. Thank you. Before you go away, we have a question from Councillor Armstrong.
Well, thank you. I appreciate your concerns, however. What we're being asked to is to look
at the maximum building height increase from 14 meters to 16 meters. Do you have any,
I never
not why we're here. And we didn't say that was why. That's what we asked to vote on though.
Okay, so then who do we speak to about this? Because we have phone City Hall on three or four occasions asking who to speak to?
No, you're at the right place. Sorry? Yes. We're approving a development for Ed Vellan-Berman tonight with one variance.
Okay. Thank you very much. No other questions for you. Oh, Councillor Brennan, do you have a question for the delegation?
I don't know. It isn't that one number one. I apologize for not giving back to you. Okay. Thank you. But thank you. I do want to ask some questions.
Go ahead. So, when we have a question like this, the request in front of us is for this variance. But we have concern. I don't necessarily have concerns about the height, but
But they do have concerns about the buffering between the two projects.
So while we have that question before us in terms of height, if I want to address this
or if the neighbors want to address this, where do they go or can they go anywhere, do
our bylaws provide for opportunities to ask for more buffering.
because when I drove through Longwood, it was carefully constructed for that reason,
right?
And now it comes to the neighbor and it doesn't appear to be as important and I wonder
how or if we can address that.
Generally your worship with development permits, they brought before council because we feel
they comply with the forming character guidelines that the city has.
So, unless there is a specific variance that council has concern with, it's somewhat difficult
to turn down development permit unless you believe staff are wrong and there's something
fundamentally about this design that does not comply with the city's design guidelines.
Not the guidelines of the development or the strata, but the city's design guidelines.
And in this case, staff are the perspective that they do comply.
There's an image, maybe I could just ask page 150 to be brought up.
This is the overall landscape plan, but what I wanted to comment on is there is as
the delegation mentioned, a number of access points into that internal roadway.
Again, that's a private roadway, Edgewater, it's not a city road that was part of the original
comprehensive plan from 1995, I think it was.
So the number of accesses along that road, although we review it, it's ultimately not controlled by city by law.
So there's no real concern from an access point where we're concerned is where edgewater hits uplands, and that's where our staff would be looking at.
But staff have no concerns again. It's in our minds with the original intent of the property.
In terms of the overall design, the variance height variance is partially a response to that design, those design cues that are on the surrounding buildings.
And all is also is the significant amounts of underground parking.
So there is some surface parking here, but the vast majority of the parking will be under building as it is with the original phases of the Longwood development.
Do we have any input into, like I would think that the design advisory panel has input into saying we'd like it if you could keep more trees here or there or whatever.
Who's responsible?
Who did it?
Yeah, absolutely.
That's something that staff look at, first of all, in all cases, but also the design panel.
And in the report, there's a number of recommendations that came forward with from the design panel that then the applicants go back in their architect, try to incorporate into the project.
So any opportunity to preserve existing tree canopy is always something that we will look for.
To be honest, it becomes difficult, especially with you're talking large-scale fir trees.
So it becomes difficult to develop a site and retain sufficient enough buffers around those trees to allow for their protection.
So, as I think was mentioned by the delegation, although there may be opportunities for limited tree protection,
there is a substantial tree replanting with some of those being large scale, or ultimately will be large scale trees.
Thank you.
Councillor Hong.
Thank you. Through you to staff, was this phase and this size, it said that it conformed
to what staff recommendations were, so they're not asking for more units than what they originally had asked for, is that correct?
I'm not sure what you mean by, so I'm not sure you mean by originally it asked for, if you mean what had been
originally identified in the master plan?
Yes.
I'm sorry, I don't recall if there was an exact number of units.
What I would say is the building form in massing is as per the original master plan.
Okay, because I'm just reading on here, the subject property has two covenants registered on title that restricts the scale of the development unit size and total number of units and provide additional design and as a proposed development meets all of the covenant requirements.
That's sorry, I better understand the question.
Yes, in that case, the covenants that were registered at the time of the original master plan.
Again, this project complies with the intent of that master plan and those specific covenants, yes.
Great, so the residents at that time knew that this was going to be developed.
This isn't something that we're throwing on.
Those people that are living in these complexes, saying that you're taking away our park space.
They knew that this was coming or it was proposed to come.
And I didn't hear that, to be fair, from speakers, I didn't hear them say that.
I think everybody that lives there understands that this was the next phase in that overall.
Thank you.
Councillor Fuller,
just a quick question.
If this development did not have the recommendation for the variance, would it even be coming before us?
Given the size of the project, they still would have likely need to come to council.
under your delegation bylaw? I know you're getting under your delegation bylaw.
If there's no variances or only minor variances, those can be deferred to staff to approve those
forming character development permits. But I think this project just on the number of units,
if it's not on, it's very close to that bar when it would need to ultimately come to council with or without variances.
That's just curious. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Thorough.
Thank you, Chair. To me, this seems somewhat similar to the previous
I said, development permit that we were talking about a few minutes ago.
Again, I have sympathy for the delegation, but I repeat as Councillor Armstrong said,
what we're here to do is approve the increase in building height, the variation of two meters,
which to me does not greatly change the overall development and the look of it.
And it seems to me that although I don't know that all of the residents that are existing in the buildings
and nearby knew of this pending development, but the fact remains that this fits zoning.
The project is within the guidelines that the city had set out.
And I'm sure they would prefer that there was a bigger buffer or that there was fewer,
There were fewer intrusions on to their privacy, but this does fit with the current zoning and it is allowable.
And so, if I am only looking at the variants for height, I'll be supporting that, and
therefore supporting this project.
Thank you.
Councillor Verdon.
Yeah, I don't feel that there is any alternative to supporting this, and so I will.
Well, but I would urge the developer to meet with the neighbors in a meaningful way and see if the issue of the buffering can be better addressed, at least close to their satisfaction.
Thank you very much.
Someone prepared to move the recommendation.
Moved by Councillor Hone.
Seconded by Councillor Armstrong.
Thank you. Any further discussion?
Councillor Hone.
Thank you. Yes, this did come before the Design Advisory Panel.
As you can see on the recommendations, they did make a lot, and the developer actually has acknowledged all those changes and improved on the recommendations.
So, they're for a support. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
If you're ready to call the question, I'll call the questionals in favor, opposed motion carries.
Next one, BC Energy Step Code Implementation Strategy.
to be introduced by Mr. Lindsay.
Thank you, Worship.
I mean, immediately turn it over to Rob Lawrence, who is our environmental planner, as a brief presentation to walk you through the report this evening.
Thank you.
Your Worship.
The intention is really to seek your endorsement to implement a strategy to implement the BC Energy Step Code.
And I'm going to go through a few slides just to give you a bit of background.
So, the code itself is a provincial legislation that was adopted in April 2017 and came into a force in December.
It builds on the BC building code by providing a voluntary compliance path to focusing on energy efficiency.
It's looking at performance based targets as opposed to prescriptive, which allows flexibility by the builder in how they meet the steps.
steps and works toward an ultimate compliance that the province is looking at for 2032.
When you look at the step code diagram here, step for part nine buildings, steps run
from one to five, step one being code compliance, so basically existing code with doing an energy
assessment or energy modeling depending on the scale of the building energy.
And then progressively going up to scales, similar to for step two,
being entered guide 80 and all the way up to net zero ready,
which is going to be a requirement by the province by that time in 2032.
So it provides an opportunity through a step process and with a long time frame for
local governments to work with the local building community.
and
And an other stakeholders to come up with a series of either incentives or regulatory measures to eventually work toward meeting the target in 2032. As for part nine buildings, there's a similar code for part three high performance,
and more complex buildings that go up at step four.
And the NIMO is within the area where part three buildings can also participate in the program.
So a key component I think at this stage for us is education and awareness and
encouraging the use of home energy assessors and energy modeling.
So one thing we do want to see as an important step in this is developing an energy
rebate program basically following a similar structure to what the regional district has been
following for a few years where home energy assessments can receive a rebate for doing an
assessment for their home.
The only difference in the NIMO is that we would look at doing new constructions as well as
existing homes for the first year to allow for education and awareness about the energy
step code and the requirements to meet those steps as a way of encouraging education and training by the building community.
So for an initial rebate for $150, home energy assessment could be done, we would encourage that to be at the mid construction stage.
So there's an opportunity to look for opportunities to improve efficiency for a new home, but for an existing home it would be likely,
Again, at one point in time, and a follow-up rebate would be allowed with additional funds up to $200, depending on how much more efficient the home is for an existing home, and whether or not for a new construction, any kind of issues that needed to be improved upon were completed by the end of construction.
The other components of the strategy really look at the training opportunities and the good connections we have with the building community, but also with the regional district and other communities up and down the islands.
So there have been efforts and initiatives already underway at the city's been participating in and we would continue to do that and build those baisons and develop training opportunities that fit what the needs are for the building community here.
We would also look at some incentive opportunities beginning with looking at some amendments to our schedule D in the zoning by-law where we are going to we would allow additional amenity points for builders that meet or exceed step three.
and also as a kind of a fundamental step looking at the building by law and requiring
that step one become a requirement for all construction in a one year effective date
from when the by-laws is introduced to council.
So again, step one is simply going through and doing an energy assessment to confirm what's already required in the building in the building code so it's not going any further than what's already done currently, but it provides that opportunity for education awareness and for the builder in the homeowner to understand what the actual energy efficiency of the home they're getting is at the end of the day.
The other point would be looking at further down the road in 2019, looking at a re-zoning policy to require multi-family mixed use buildings to enter into a cover.
Covenant where they would require step two compliance.
Throughout all these steps, we would continue to monitor and work with the building community to see how the responses as we've kind of moved through these steps going forward between now in 2020 and we would make adjustments as we go forward.
Those are my slides, but I'm happy to take any questions.
Thank you.
It comes wrong.
Thank you, thank you, staff for that presentation.
I think it's great that if we can build more energy efficient housing, obviously we know
BC Hydro and everything isn't going down, so that's good, but I just have a question with
regards to a cost.
For example, a standard house built up building code will say is half a million dollars to
build it? What from step two, I guess the three to four to five, what are the costs?
So how do we justify that two residents that are interested in buying a step four house?
I guess to underscore things at this point, we're not going to be requiring higher steps.
This is going to be a voluntary measure so that there are incentives for
or developers who are willing, for example, for additional density to go to those higher steps and I would argue by getting that additional density that's covering the cost that they would have to meet to try and get to those higher steps.
So at the end of the day you get a better product and the resident gets a better more energy efficient home and we still meet those, those needs and in ways like that as opposed to just making it a regulatory requirement at this point.
Great. Thank you. Then just to follow up on that with regards to the $150 and to the $200
rebate. Is that enough initiative for a builder, a new house to apply for that?
It's per house. It's an incentive. There are other rebates out there that a developer or
or an existing homeowner could take advantage of depending on what their needs are.
An energy home assessment can run anywhere from $300 to $500 depending on the scale of the home.
So it does provide a significant incentive and there'll as they say through
Terrison, through BC Hydro, there are the rebates out there that they can double up on if they wish.
And we would provide that information on our website as part of the rebate web page.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much. I just wanted to just make a comment and that is the tool of
incentivizing with the identity balancing. We know that that tools are already being
used by many communities to help with non-market housing in current developments. So I can see
some challenges. And I said that at the event that we are the training session that we attended
at the RDN that I'm concerned that when you're offering density-bonusing for non-markerable
housing, you know, embedded in a project, then you're offering more density-bonusing
or the tools already been used for this type of thing for the step code.
There could be some conflicts.
If I recall, the unit at Bonerode, the NMO Aboriginal Center, they were around 10% premium,
but they were working, at least to explain, I understand they were working, it was the first
time, it was a passive house, and they discovered that they actually had, they actually had, they
While I did head on with the new seismic code however in the building of that they actually learned a lot of things that they could actually reduce some of the exterior walls, walls because of the pillars that they were creating and in fact they said they could probably they had to do that project again, the premium would be significantly less, I guess that's what they advised me. Thank you.
So, I have no further questions for you, Mr. Lawrence.
Thank you.
Next item is back to the supervised consumption service.
Well, I'm sorry, pardon me, that Council endorsed the implementation strategy of the Energy Step Code as outlined with the report titled BC Energy Step Code Implementation Strategy.
Council are home.
And the second right, Council are kept.
Thank you.
All is in favor.
Opposed motion carries.
Now, supervised consumption service, proposed zoning by law amendments to be introduced by Mr.
Lindsay.
Thank you, Worship.
As you mentioned, this report's regarding supervised consumption services, but maybe just a back up a little bit in some history.
It's been over 10 years since the city looked at zoning for what I would call its social service uses.
At that time, when the last sort of comprehensive review was done,
There's three main categories identified for social service uses, basically office,
people providing advocacy and counseling, and then the third tier being for drug and alcohol treatment.
The drug treatment portion was left at that time as a site-specific rezoning.
So today if you want to have a supervised consumption service in the community, it requires site-specific rezoning.
And if you recall a number of months ago, Dr. Hasselbeck from Ireland Health was in front of you and one of his recommendations was that we may be time to step back and look at how the community deals was zoning specifically in response to the overdose crisis that we're currently experiencing.
So this report before this evening is just the first step in the staff are recommending that it is time to review our regulations around social service zoning.
and by a way of kicking off this process, recommending that you refer it to the Planning and Development Committee and the Public Safety Committee for their review and input.
Thank you.
Is anyone prepared to move the recommendation?
Thank you, Councillor Hone, and seconded by Councillor Armstrong.
Thank you.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, a couple of questions, a favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
Next one is for the provincial support of Daytime Drop-in Resource Center to be introduced by Mr. Lindsay.
Again, thank you, Worship.
Councillor, you'll recall that in your 2018 budget, you specifically added $100,000 for Daytime Drop-in.
At that time, staff did note that the only way to bring forward a project would be to use that money in conjunction with other partners.
that we neither need to find other partners to bring forward a daytime drop-in facility.
So this is what we believe is the best approach after talking to those partners is the recommendation
for a letter to be sent from the mayor's office through our MLA Leonard Kroge requesting
that it be brought forward to an inter-ministerial forum for consideration.
So the draft letter is attached to the report and we're seeking councils endorsement this
evening.
Thank you very much.
We do have one delegation, Mr. Matthew O'Donnell.
Thank you, sir.
You have ten minutes.
Thank you.
I'll be brief.
Hi.
My name is Matthew O'Donnell.
I live on Old Victoria Road in Nanaimo.
I'm here just to talk about the drop-in center and kind of how it's gone.
How it was originally discussed back in March and how it's kind of evolved now to a $650,000
project where the city is now going to be asking the provincial government for $550,000 of that $650,000 per year.
To make this drop in center happen, and of the $650,000, $400,000 of that is earmarked every year just for four staff members, apparently three outreach workers and one maintenance personnel, whatever that means.
So, as a private citizen, I would like to say that if you're going to direct Mayor McCay
to ask the provincial government for over a half million dollars, then why not ask for
something that will directly help ease the pressure of the homeless crisis, something that
a $650,000 a year center will not provide.
Most homeless people I have spoken to about the drop-in center, and this was when the number
are floated around with only $100,000.
Most are in opposition of the drop-and-center due
to the high cost and the fact that these drop-and-centres
have existed before, and preferred to see that money
to go into actual housing or initiatives
that would provide immediate housing.
Now that it's at over $650,000 per year,
that's a huge number.
And if we were going to ask for that large amount from the province,
could we not earmark those funds somewhere
where it would have a more immediate effect on the clear homeless crisis that we're experiencing
right here in Denimo, right in this downtown.
I would suggest with all due respect that our municipal government is slightly out of touch
with the true reality on the ground here in Denimo pertaining to the homeless crisis.
And please understand that I use the word crisis and the truest of words.
It's not just a tagline for me, it's a real crisis.
If we're going to ask the province for over half a million dollars, then let's ask for something that will actually fight back against this crisis.
Instead of asking for an extremely expensive $650,000 bandaid that will do absolutely nothing to mitigate this crisis and will maintain the status quo.
And if we would like to look at the status quo, we all we have to really look at is one port drive or
the tents that are here at the conference center right now outside.
Just people staying out of the rain and whatnot, we're in crisis mode.
So I really don't think that a $650,000 drop in center is the answer.
I think that we need more immediate solutions, so that's realistically all I have to say about that.
Thank you very much.
Those are wrong.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Donald.
Just a question.
When staff brought this to us, to debate, why didn't you come and tell us that you didn't
need the $100,000?
Why did we waste so much time doing this?
If now you're telling us that it's not going to make a difference?
With all due respect, I really hope you're not putting this back on me as a private citizen.
The fact of the matter is, in March, you know, that was part of the city offered
that they're going to put $100,000 toward the drop-in center.
I've been in support of a place for homeless people to go during the day,
where they can get out of the rain, where they don't have to-
In the doorways of your businesses, I'm in favor of that. What I'm not in favor of is a $650,000 project where $400,000 of it is earmarked toward staffing. So I'm in favor of a project that puts homeless people somewhere. I'm not in favor of an overfunded $650,000 a year of monstrosity. How much did you really think it was going to cost? I don't know how much does it cost to rent a building in downtown and Imo for commercial reasons $1,000 a month?
Good luck, but the problem is staff, we as a city, pay people well, unless it's nonprofits are going to step up to do this, and from what I can see, we didn't have anybody step up to do this.
So if we have to do this, and we want to do it properly with the proper help, properly train people, nobody is going to go to school to become a nurse aid and all these other things.
things, and do this for free.
That wasn't our expectation, our expectation was to put $100,000 as a placeholder to get
other people to buy in to it so we can actually make a center that was actually making a
difference, not renting a space and saying, hey, you can come in here because we have a space
with somebody that's just volunteering.
That wasn't the goal.
The goal was to actually make a space have services, have experienced staff, help these people, and that was the goal.
So, I don't understand what you thought we were going to do, because, you know, the goal when I read this from our council was, this was a placeholder, we were going to try to get other funding and other organizations to step up.
This just isn't a city of the NIMO council issue.
This is a provincial issue, this is a federal issue.
If we can get money from these other levels of government, why not?
Let's try it.
So I will fully support this and our staff's effort to get to this point.
Thank you.
Absolutely.
I would just like to rebut really quickly about once again with the cost.
I personally firsthand know several like many actually outreach workers,
professionals who are more than qualified to provide outreach to the homeless who they're
more than happy to just volunteer their time to do it because it's important to them and
because they care about their city. So don't tell me for one second nobody can tell me that for
four salary positions it's going to be $400,000. That's BS. You know it, I know it.
You haven't seen this stuff, wages and what nurses and doctors and everybody else makes.
That's the standard one you go ask an outreach worker and then I'm older. They make $100,000 a year
I don't think so not even with benefits and I'm not saying that they don't deserve it either
I'm just saying that you're you're $400,000 for four staff positions is outrageous. That's all I'm saying
Okay, this is supposed to be for questions
Kelsa run
Questions of him not questions. Okay, I thought I was back there on question period
Mr. O'Donnell, we've been sort of watching the homeless in this camp that we have.
And at the beginning we were told that there was a council.
I'm assuming that it would have been an elected council of the individual residents there.
and that decision-making was placed in the hands of the council. And I assumed that meant that there
was confidence that that council was going to make good decisions and be looking out for the
welfare and the interests of the residents at the camp. I think we've seen that that's a fallen apart
a little bit. People volunteering their time to create a government structure, and with
that comes I am assuming some enforcement. How else do you say to people, well you know
what, your behavior is such that we just can't let you stay here, you've got to go, so I'm
not sure how that gets enforced. So yeah, so in my view, maybe it's naive, but I'm kind
of taking that experience and putting it on the drop in center and saying, well, if you
got a drop in center, you need to be able to do better than have volunteers be entirely
in charge of how things are going to run, what the expected behaviors are, what are the
the consequences of not behaving in those ways.
For me, that means you need to have some staffing in place
to help the residents manage the relationships
with each other, manage the relationships
with the staff, manage the relationships
with the people who walk by on the street.
To me, the other piece of that staffing
in a drop-in center would be like Councillor Holmes said, nursing staff maybe, but it would
also be people who are trained in assisting people with the obstacles that they have
in being qualifying for income assistance or EI or Canada pension or whatever. Those people
will need to be paid well enough that they stay, they need to be paid well enough.
And I know this isn't a question necessarily until we get to the end.
And then I'll say, isn't that so and it will have been made a question.
So I just want to be able to put this out there that when you want to have something, we've
seen the experience of using just straight wronged ears and sometimes that doesn't work out
that well.
Now, this is a city run initiative.
We need to have ways of governing it in relationships.
We want to be able to offer more than just a pool table, and we want to be able to offer
access to services that are going to people may want to use, I'm not saying they have to,
but may want to use to step themselves into a different situation where they're on income
assistance, where they have an income, where they have access to health benefits, those
kinds of things. So that's why I think this is a good idea.
So here we go. Isn't that
so? Thank you for your question, Councillor Brennan.
I guess my concern, I've discussed with people today as well. Our concern is the fact that
This is, and you're about to vote to get Mayor McCay to send a letter to Leonard Krog
asking for something that the province is just not going to do.
And if a layman can figure that out, then I'm sure everyone here has at least thought about that.
And, you know, I'm just going to say it, you know, with an election this year.
I mean, we're concerned about people playing politics against other people to set up situations where other people look bad.
And if you all want to do that, in a political campaign season, fine, fair enough, welcome to politics, but it's not really cool to do that on the backs of a bunch of homeless people,
especially when we're in the middle of a homeless crisis.
And I'm not saying, I'm not pointing any fingers, nothing like that.
I'm just saying, this is how it's appearing to a lot of people and perception is reality.
I hear what you're saying.
No, you get to say it's not so.
Is that so?
I think there's an element of truth to what you're saying.
Thank you. Councilor Fuller.
Could you give me a list of those outreach workers that are willing to volunteer?
the average salary of outreach workers is over $20 per hour, so if you know some outreach workers that are willing to commit to 35, 40 hours a week at $0.00 an hour, provided their professionals, not just straight volunteers, we've seen how well that's worked at the ghetto you supported.
So, if you have the name of some qualified outreach workers who would be willing to offer up free time,
I'm sure if we do get the funding because you are right, we may not, but we may as well,
because the province also recognizes a homeless crisis and they're contributing mass amounts of monies
to it. In my opinion, not enough. It could be masses more. But I'm sure if this happens,
having extra volunteers to supplement the paid workers might actually cut down on cost.
So if you could send me a list of those volunteers, I'd appreciate it.
Not a problem, Councillor Fuller.
Not absolutely.
I also know a bunch of outreach workers who would probably love to work at the landing pad
for a $100,000 salary year as well.
So I mean we can exchange notes.
Thank you, Councillor Kip.
Thank you.
I guess the biggest thing for me is the homeless people blame in me for their work.
problem as a city counsellor. That really does bother me because when the circus came to town,
it wasn't my circus, but now they're my monkeys, right? And so I have to try and take care of them.
And so the concept of a living room came out in 1995, 1996. We first put one out there and
former social people worked on it, but it failed. It fell apart because people didn't want to go
there. It wasn't the whole concept of it is to make a comfortable place for people to go
when they spend the whole night wandering
around the community, scared at night,
they can go to a place during the day
and feel comfortable and get through support service.
I too look at the wages and the benefits for this
and think that's crazy because we don't pay people
that much money, we probably should.
But for me, what is our options
as a municipal government?
What can we do, we get lobby on all sides of this issue
to build homes, to not build homes,
to push these people out to not push them out,
to give them water, to not give them water.
That's a real tough position.
And as a municipal council, all we can really do
is lobby those responsible.
That's the province.
That's the representatives that have represented us
for a few years.
So that's, I think, the concept here
is to help pay for some of this stuff.
Right now, the tent city is costing money
that does not and will not go to helping homeless.
It's costing money like crazy.
and they've shown up. I mean, you must know how many people aren't there. Are they're all Canadians?
Yeah, they're all BC people, maybe yeah. They're all from the NIMO, maybe. But who's responsible to pay for that?
My tax dollars to pay for that? I'm already sending tax dollars to the province and the feds. They're supposed to pay.
And so we have to put pressure on them to pay up. And that's, I guess, the toughest thing for me is to get
being blamed that we are the problem for this homeless situation.
When we tried for years, how many housing have we built wet houses in the last year?
How many times we stood in front of people screaming at us that we're going to kill
their children?
We heard tonight the fear.
So how do we deal with that?
It's easy sometimes to throw up your hands and go, that's not my circus, but we're trying
to help.
And this is an idea to try and open it up and I do believe the price has gone way beyond
on what it can actually value, what it will serve.
So my question is, it's not, it's a statement.
Thank you.
Absolutely, that's where I'm trying to say too,
it's the cost that, getting to that $650,000,
it's all tax money too.
I mean, as a tax, or as a, I'm not a municipal taxpayer,
I don't own property, but as a, you know,
as a citizen, we all pay taxes,
so there's provincial, federal, municipal,
and I do understand the fact that municipal government,
you're limited in what you can do.
And, you know, quite frankly, with the City Council over the last couple of years, you guys
kind of get blamed for everything.
But at the same time, I look at it as a community issue, and to me personally, I know people
who are homeless who have drug addictions.
I know people who are homeless who are just scripts and other life in order yet.
I also know homeless people who just can't pay the rent.
They got renovated and they're really good people.
They have jobs, not just at tent city, but all over the city.
And I really believe that I said a certain point, there's a human or moral obligation that
that rises above whose job is what, where, whatever.
We just need to come together as a community
because we're gonna let people in Ottawa
don't really care about what happens in Vancouver Island
and quite frankly, the people in Victoria
don't really care about what happens in the NIMO.
So we do start looking at community solutions
and while I understand the landing pad,
that sounds like a community solution to me
until we hear $650,000, $40,000 going to staffing.
Thank you.
I just wanted to say before we let you go,
I'm sure at all that we asked our staff to do something.
They came back with a report.
They gave us the numbers.
They're asking us to now take it to the next step to get into request participation by the provincial government,
which we said from the onset.
That's what we were going to do.
Here's the difference, it's a different price tag than what it was before and they may totally reject us as you'd suggest,
but they might come up with something different and we'll talk about it with the provincial government.
So, we're responding here to a report that was given to us by our staff after we asked them for it.
That's all we're dealing with here.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, thanks.
No further questions.
So, is someone prepared to move the recommendation?
Moved by Councillor Hong, seconded by Councillor Brown.
Are there any further discussion? Seeing none, call the questions.
A favor, a posed, shall councilor Besswick and Kippa posed, motion carries.
Next one is Canada's task force update to be introduced by Councillor Kapp.
Thank you very much. I'm going to read a book together. Staff put something together for me to read.
I appreciate it very much. Council on the public is aware that the ad hoc
Canada's task force was established in order to consider the impacts of the pending
legalization of cannabis and to make recommendation to counsel.
As a chair of the task force, I'm pleased to announce that we have the task force has
As per the approved terms of reference and the seeding council has received the series of recommendations from the task force for consideration. The legalization of cannabis is a challenging topic for local governments and one that is guaranteed to evolve as federal and provincial governments continue to adjust into this brand new growing and thriving industry. The recommendations we're presenting to council from the task force this evening are based on the known regulatory schemes that are
established to date, both provincial and federal, and as these evolve, so will the local government's response.
As such, you'll see that the run of the recommendations is the task force is to review the associated bylaws and amendments on a one year anniversary of the implementation.
I want to think a moment to thank the task force members for their time and thoughtful considerations of this very interesting topic.
We had representatives from a number of city communities from the city,
Bowdoin Loeb, representing planning and development committee.
Dennis Montmon, representing the community, vitality committee.
Rob Witten, representing the public safety committee.
Robert Laurie, representing the cannabis industry.
Philip Lucas, representing the cannabis industry.
Dr. Paul Hasselback from Ireland Health, and
Corporal Mann Nguyen from the RCMP.
There's also individuals attended, and I think we had over 18 delegations in
presentation received by the task force and I just like to say that I think when we started
off the background or we covered all federal and provincial regulations zoning and business
bookman licensing and looked at liquor and control substances. Another meeting we reviewed
all of the options for retail, for siding, for licensing production, and corporate production
and sort of residential production, both the smoking bylaws and of course the personal consumption.
And then after that staff reported on the stakeholder input, the recommendations came forward.
Currently in Iowa has what I would consider a viable retail business, about 30 or more
stores are in process.
But what we had to figure out is where and when and who was involved in this for operations
and production and where and how the big retail productions would happen.
And I guess this has a new connotation for Airbnb because there's people are looking for local and small productions.
And of course, we looked at the safety aspects for children and the criminal aspects involved in it.
And I would like to say that we may be missed having the school district involved because they have sent for
the letter that we received today, and they're looking at having some distances.
One of the things that I will say that came out of the committee was sometimes the distance has seemed very arbitrary.
that we make up a distance.
And what is the proven value of that distance?
And how does it make, like if it's 300 meters from a school,
does that stop the kids?
Is that enough?
I don't think so, so that's kind of arbitrary things.
But I'd like to pass it on to Mr. Lindsey right now,
at this point, and he can introduce more
of the associated recommendations.
But as a task force, we completed it,
April, May and June, we did our job, we did it fast.
And I appreciate the work that people did.
And there were some very interesting debates at the table.
and very interesting delegations too. So thank you very much.
We do have a delegation.
Are you going to get into the recommendations, Mr. Nansi?
Your words should be certainly up to counsel, but I can and prepare to run through the recommendations.
I can use that before or after your delegation. How about we hear that delegation?
Okay, it's normal practice. Mr. delegation, Mr. Matthew O'Donnell.
The
going distances.
Hi there, Matthew O'Donnell. I won't waste too much of your time. I feel like I'm
spoken enough today. I'm just here actually to speak in support of the
majority of the recommendations with the exception of one. I've been on nipping
at this council's heels for basically three years now to have some sort of
regulations and regulate cannabis mainly because I look at it as a billion
dollar industry that's existed in British Columbia for decades now whether we
want to admit it or not, and it's just about to be plugged into the legal economy.
So why shouldn't we take advantage of it as a municipality and as a city?
I mean, it's here anyway, and why not?
So that's the reason why I've always been basically yapping about cannabis.
My only gripe, I guess, with the current regulations.
There's 300 meters between the actual retail shops and the sales.
I feel like it's over-regulation.
I know that the argument in the staff report is that, you know, we have to factor in density and, you know,
blah, blah, blah, blah.
But the fact of the matter is, NINIMO is in a unique position from the rest of the country where the rest of the
country can talk about hypotheticals and what would happen if a bunch of dispensaries moved into one area or
whatever. Here in NINIMO, we've had close to 30 operating for about three years now.
The sky hasn't fallen.
Everything's fine.
And as a matter of fact, I can think of one former problematic bar in downtown
and IMO, which turned into a complete dispensary, cancelled their liquor license,
and all of the complaints across the street that the Pacifica high-rise condo is completely disappeared.
You can go ask the by-law department yourself, or as I'm in a complaint in years.
Because the fact of the matter is, donors like to go to bed early, and they don't like noise, et cetera, et cetera.
The point being here is that the 300 meters between retail shops,
It does nothing to mitigate the risk of children, it won't increase it, it won't decrease it.
The fact of the matter is, unfortunately, I smoke cigarettes, and I also use cannabis.
I can go to any corner store, gas station, grocery store, drug store, or wherever, and
I can buy a pack of smokes.
I think cigarettes are a little bit more dangerous than cannabis.
Just overall, I believe 300 meters between the shops, it's just over regulation.
Not only that provincial law is going to state, as you're all aware of, that if someone wants a retail cannabis license,
number one, they have to go through a public forum, meaning they have to, just like if you're going to open up a liquor store.
And number two, this council has to approve it. Every single one, the province is not going to approve any license unless
as support from the municipal government. With that said, public hearing, and you guys have the final say,
Why eliminate the possibility of allowing businesses to thrive by automatically putting in that 300 meters between shops rule?
Because all you're doing is over-regulating for the sake of regulation, there's no benefit there.
So I respectfully ask that you consider dropping the 300 meters between the dispensaries.
If the school board's suggesting doing 300 meters from a daycare in a park or a school to a dispensary, I mean fair enough.
I also personally don't really believe that it's not going to increase or decrease the risk of the community, but if you have to do it, you have to do it, I understand it.
But I mean, if you're going to put 300 meters between shops, it's going to result also in job loss right off the bat.
Sure, some of these dispensaries are probably not going to get licensed, some are going to close down.
There's going to be job loss already in any way.
So as a local government, what you can do is do what you kind of mitigate the loss of jobs just because you don't really have to put in this regulation.
Another point, too, is just the fact that commercial vacancies, I don't really see a line up of here in the South Minimo, a line up of new businesses that are just eager to fill all those vacant commercial spots that those dispensaries are going to result in having here in a couple of months.
So, once again, let's encourage small business growth, even if it is a taboo subject like
cannabis.
And, yeah, it's given the fighting chance.
I know.
Thank you.
Councillor, I'm strong.
Oh, no.
I might spur staff up.
Okay.
Councillor Besswick.
Thank you.
Mr. Donald, you mentioned 30 dispensaries operating in denial.
Some within 300 metres of each other.
And are they all operating legally?
Actually, they're all currently operating illegally if we're going by the word of law.
Right, and do they have business licenses?
No, they don't, but that's not to say they haven't tried for the last three years.
But they don't have business licenses.
The city won't accept their money, that's correct.
Thank you.
No further questions.
Thank you.
Councillor Armstrong.
No, I'm waiting for staff after.
I'll wait until he does his report, and then I'll ask my question.
Okay, great, thank you.
Okay, sorry.
Damn, pardon me, Councilor Brown, I don't know if you're okay.
Mr. Lindsay.
Thank you, Worship.
I just have a few slides to walk through the recommendations.
Before we start, I'm not going to go into a lot of the regulatory context here, but
in general, I think everybody knows we're moving quickly towards the legalization of cannabis in the country.
We're now scheduled for October for cannabis to become legal, the way the systems being set up right now in real general terms is that the federal government is going to license and approve production.
They put in rules in place about production. They put in rules in place about personal cultivation.
They've largely left decisions around distribution to each province.
So each province has done it a little bit different.
Here in BC they're following a model, which I would describe most similar, are almost identical to how we deal with liquor distribution.
And then it'll be done through the province through the liquor distribution board.
In terms of the retail model in the province is what we're being told is there'll be a combination of both public and private stores.
Again, exactly like we see on the liquor store front.
So the task force looked at a number of topics as Councillor Kipp recommended, but certainly
part of the main part of the discussion was around how do we address this issue of retail
stores in the community. The province has really left it to each local government to determine
how they want to proceed. And when we talked to the task force there's really three main options
and we said we can identify cannabis retail as an as-of-right use in our zoning viala, which
which means it would be a use permitted in multiple zones.
We looked at the second option of creating site-specific zoning, so you create a specific
use for cannabis retail and you require rezoning for each of those, or the third option is
not to allow any retail at all within the community.
And the task force is recommended that second option, so the first three recommendations before
you this evening are really around that recommendation and it's that we make sure it's clear in our
zoning bylaw, the cannabis retail stores are separate and different than our general retail designation.
And that we require site-specific rezoning for each and every cannabis retail store.
So again exactly like liquor stores, the applications that we made to the provinces, referrals will come
to Nanaimo. And if council approves with this approach, those applicants would need to submit
rezoning applications to ultimately be vetted by Council and approved by Council.
To assist with the rezoning, there is a recommendation to proceed with criteria which will assist
in those review of those files.
Now it's important to note that these are guidelines.
They're not adopted by by law, so anything we talk about in terms of a setback or a distance
in separation is just that.
A guideline that we would have got
the right applications against
and bring them forward to Council.
So like with any other guideline,
Council has the ability to consider them
as part of an application,
but they do not become black and white laws, so to speak.
So the guidelines that were included,
and I'll go into a little bit more detail,
include a separation between cannabis stores
of 300 meters.
The draft guidelines we put in front of the committee
And he also had a recommendation of 150 meter separation from retail stores, from schools and daycares,
which is again similar to your rezoning criteria you have for liquor stores.
So we were, because the province is dealing with it, generally the same as liquor stores,
the approach from staff was to maintain that philosophy and treat them similar to liquor stores.
You'll note in here part of the recommendation by the task force was that we reach out specifically to the school board
and receive their input on the separations from schools.
The school board, and I think it's attached to your agenda this evening, is a correspondence you receive from the school board.
And they're actually recommending it not proceed with the 150, which is in the current draft, but
that we look at increasing that to 300 meters from schools and daycare.
So I'll talk about that a little bit more in the upcoming slide.
The final recommendation around retail stores is that we not look at creating a specific business license fee for
retail stores right now, liquor stores in the community apply under our general business
license fees, which are $165.
We do have varying fees in our business license by-law for night clubs and cabbages and lounges,
which are higher.
So there's been a long-standing understanding that we're going to review those as part
of a liquor control strategy, so the recommendation of the task force was not to introduce new rates
It's now but it be reviewed as part of a review of those liquor license fees in the future.
So just talking a little bit about the guidelines, I know this is impossible to read on the screen.
But those, the polygons you see here are setbacks of 150 meters around existing schools and
existing licensed daycares in the community, the colored areas, the brown and the yellow and red.
Those are the areas in town where we generally see commercial uses.
So we're just giving a sense at this time when we put this together to the committee of what are the impacts of 150 meter setbacks on our existing commercial areas.
The next slide is we took the recommendation from the school board and increased those buffers to 300 meters so this entire city obviously on the left on the right is a little close up of downtown just to give you some context.
So the green is setbacks around school board property and the purple is setbacks around licensed daycare.
So again, these are recommendations and you've got your first round of input from the school board.
I think as we go through this process and the public hearing, you'll continue to get input on what the appropriate setbacks are.
We're not here this evening to get final determination from council.
I think that'll come as we bring forward the bias, but I wanted to give you a sense of what those policy recommendations would look like.
The setback between stores is interesting and this is where we differ a little bit between what the pros
Approach to cannabis retail. Under the province's own rules for separations around liquor store, they have a 1-kilometer separation. So that's the policy which is governed the most recent round of liquor stores that have been added to the community. So most of those stores exist within 1-kilometer or a minimum of 1-kilometer from each other. The province was very clear when they brought forward cannabis retail that they were not going to implement the 1-kilometer setback at a provincial level, and instead they were going to leave it to local governments to decide what the appropriate
separation between stores where so I include this graphic and we do this for the committee just to give you a sense when you look at something like the
downtown what a one kilometer buffer we do in terms of separation versus a 300 meter buffer which is ultimately what what the committee was
recommending and again in the guidelines I think it's important to point out it talks about a recommendation of 300 meters but it does say there's areas in
in town, where you have higher density like your downtown, where you may want to look at a reduced setback below what to 300 meters is.
Again, we'll be reviewed on a site by site recommendation.
The next series of recommendations deal with the processing.
So, of course, under our existing viola right now, we have medical marijuana growing in production.
This is quickly going to become an antiquated term.
We no longer need medical, but it'll simply be growing in production.
So we're recommending that be replaced with cannabis production and processing, and then these will, again, will be federally licensed facilities.
Right now, medical marijuana and growing production is a site-specific use in the I-4 zone, given the changes that are being done at a federal level.
The task force is recommending that council consider outing that as an outright use in the I-4 zone.
So generally, if you think of the area at Duke Point, recommendation number six.
So, the federal government in addition to allowing the larger-scale cannabis production and processing,
they're also prepared to license what they're calling microbe or craft processors.
And I'll talk about a little bit more on the next slide, but they're generally the small-scale processors.
So, the recommendation from the task force is that we look at allowing small-scale production within our I-1 and I-2 zones
subject to an older abatement strategy, which is very similar to how we deal with other similar uses.
A recommendation number seven was that we not look at adding cannabis production within our air cultural zone at this time,
or our AR-1, AR-2, the city has limited amounts of agricultural land and the vast majority of those are within close proximity to residential or there on lands which are designated for other uses.
So the recommendation was to not include them on air cultural zone properties now.
I would note that the ALR is still struggling with this issue of how well they address them on ALR lands, but
the city has a very, a very small amount of ALR lands within our boundaries.
I include this graphic because it's possibly the most Canadian thing I've ever seen.
But the federal government, when they came out with this discussion about what micro cannabis is,
Yes, they said it's 200 square meters or half of a neutral zone of an NHL hockey rink
and they actually included this in their literature at the federal level.
So I thought I had to find a way to include that in a presentation.
But 200 square meters is that micro-processing that the federal government will license
in again is that recommendation to include that in our light industrial zones.
Next series of recommendations around public consumption and recommendation number nine is
that we update our smoking by law to clarify that it includes cannabis.
So there's a draft smoking by law that's attached to the report this evening, but we will
be bringing it forward.
I have counsel proceeds with these recommendations and for consideration of by law adoption.
Recommendations number 10 and 11, last
slide, sorry, 10 and 11, so 10, the task force had
a recommendation that this package of recommendations be sent to the school board for the review and
input. Since that time, I've sat down with school board, reviewed the report with them in the
letter that you have before you this evening is actually their response. So it includes two things,
a recommendation to increase the setback to 300 meters from schools and daycares but also that
the school board be included on referrals with individual applications so that they can provide
input as those applications are vetted by council. And then as councilor Kip mentioned,
recommendation number 11 was that councilor direct staff to complete a review upon the anniversary of
these files. As we would do with almost any time we bring forward comprehensive new regulations,
We'd recommend obviously that those be evaluated and reviewed in this case when you're following the adoption.
And your worship, that's summary of the recommendations.
Thank you.
Is someone prepared to move the recommendations?
Thank you.
Moved by Councillor Kip, seconded by Councillor Rimmam.
Councillor Hall.
Thank you.
Through you to staff, with regards to renaming a cannabis production and processing.
What about all this stuff that we hear about extracting oils and cooking and, you know, as that comes, where does that fit in?
Is that going to fit somewhere?
Yeah, in your, in your worship, I think this is what Councillor Kip was referring to when he's saying that the rules are going to evolve.
So right now, the federal government's been very clear that this is about dried cannabis and seed, so
the retail store will be dried cannabis and seeds, but the store has certainly been left open for
oils and edibles in the future.
So I think those issues around other forms are going to change issues around public or consumption.
Lounge, for example, those things are going to evolve and change, but
And these recommendations are a response solely to what we know as the regulatory landscape as it's proposed to exist come October, but you're right, it's absolutely going to evolve.
So, then a follow-up with me, if somebody decides to come and say, well, I want to have an extraction facility to extract oils from cannabis, would that be a one-off for us to come before council to put them in a zoning, I guess.
Yes, Your Worship, I think the way it's drafted right now, it just says cannabis production and processing.
So I don't think you would need any further amendment.
As long as you had federal approval to do that, you could do that under our, the draft zoning is being recommended by the task force.
Which is only I-4.
For the large scale facility, that's correct, yes.
Thank you.
Councillor Armstrong.
First of all, I want to thank Councillor Kip for all the work that he did, Mr. Witten gave us an update and said they were
really excellent sessions and really well done. So thank you very much for all the work that you guys did.
I struggle to with the 300 meters, I don't see why we even need a distance.
You talk to kids and whatever and they say actually the closer to the school, the harder it is to get because there's more eyes looking at them.
So, you know, so I just find it, you know, it's interesting when we spoke or attended at the LGA, LGLA sessions with the lawyers who
You recommended not having distances because it can change so much that one minute woodland school would be an example.
Now we build it, then they decide to reopen the school.
What do you do with the built or the people that are already there?
Because if you allow the school to reopen, you're breaking your own zoning, so they're one off, so whatever.
But that's an issue.
And then my other question is that I don't know if it would go here, but what about those?
Is there any place where you have to declare that you've been growing plants for future?
because mold will be an issue no matter what, whether you're growing 10 or you're growing 40 plants.
You could have mold and water damage and there should be something I believe in our,
our bylaws or whether it has to be in the real estate to disclose that marijuana has been grown.
Thank you.
You wish to thank you and that question actually ties into something which I was going to note which is apparently I missed a slide here with recommendation number eight, which is in your report, which deals with this issue of personal cultivation.
We've had a history of having problems with homes that are used for large scale production and mold is just one of the problems that we end up with.
At this point, it looks like under the licensing, people can obtain licensing to grow for their own under the federal existing federal program.
It looks like that will continue for some period of time.
In addition to that, which brings around, brings those challenges around, you know, homes and mold and et cetera, in addition to that, the federal changes around cannabis legalization are very clear that they include provisions for individuals to grow for own personal cultivation, and the limit is four plants per what they call dwelling house, four plants per dwelling house, and that's around, so regardless of how many adults you have in the house, you know,
four plants inside or outside the house, and then they left it to the province to further regulate that, and the province is saying, yes, you can have four plants outside the house, but they can't be visible from any public area, so like a public street, for example, you wouldn't be able to see someone's plants growing.
So the committee looked at the federal regulations, the provincial regulations, and decided based on where they're going not to add any further local government or municipal regulations around that four-plant personal cultivation.
I want to thank Councillor Kip as well, we'll go back to the council on 2011, I can remember
Councillor Kip telling us that we were going to have to start looking at this whole issue
of cannabis and zoning, and where it could be sold and among lots of other things, and
he felt that we should get started on that.
And so I want to thank him for that, because it was a long time coming, but here we are
with this report today.
It's a good report, I want to thank Mr. Lindsey and the staff and that whole committee.
I have a couple of questions. First one, not agricultural rural residential zone.
Is that different than the agricultural land reserve?
Yes, your worship. The city has a, I think of agricultural zones,
much the area around Linley Valley, for example, or north of Linley would be agricultural.
control, much of the area in Jinglepot would be agricultural, some of the lands in the
Jinglepot on the far reaches of the community would be in the ALR, but the vast majority
would not be.
So, these ones we control, that is correct.
That is correct.
Thank you.
The other thing that I thought was interesting is what Councillor Armstrong said about the
a local government academy suggesting that we not have zones, I guess, or circles or areas where you couldn't be.
I have no opinion on that whatsoever, really, except that if we do maintain them, I think we need to address how you measure them.
Because it certainly come up when we've had liquor stores wanting to open up.
And we've been of the opinion that it doesn't, that with, it isn't outside the circle.
And they're saying what depends on how you measure it.
And so we need to be precise about those things.
And the thing about the numbers of, you know, how far apart each individual store can be.
I think that that's been problematic in cities where they have gone ahead and embarked upon issuing licenses
and then ran into the trouble about who gets first pick, right?
Is it a difference of one day applying on Thursday and someone else coming in,
applying on Friday and because they got here Thursday, they get the prize.
They found, other cities have found that to be a problem simply because they have been
allowed to be there, not licensed, but none of them have been licensed.
And so how do you choose one over the other in terms of how close the art to one another?
And I asked a counselor in Victoria if she had any regrets about the work that they did
and the rules that they put in place.
And she said that really was the only one.
And in her view at this time, you just have to let the market decide.
And otherwise, it just becomes really wide open, I would say, to some sort of quid pro quo or, you know, some tampering with the rules or whatever.
And you want to look at, if you want to be as clean as possible and you don't want to be open to that or even open to the charges of that.
So, those are the only comments I have, except
to say I don't think that we give permission for schools to open or close, do we?
So, you know, we wouldn't have to worry about giving woodlands the okay to open and,
yeah, but they don't have to ask if they can open, they decide to open.
Anyway, that's just, um, thank you. Councilor Four, I'd curious if you would happen to
know how many of the 30 dispensaries in the 9-0.
Closet, pochup, in the NIMO, are within that 300 meter distance of each other. I know of three up on
Nickel Street, but I'm not sure about any of the others being within that distance. I'm curious if you know
University of Councilor Phil, I don't know exact numbers, but there are areas of concentration. I agree with you. Nickel Street would be one.
We tried to build some flexibility in the guidelines for that very thing that there may be some areas of town where you want to consider
or something less than 300 square meters, but I'm sorry, I don't know.
Well, I'm actually quite fine with the 300 meters.
I don't think it's going to limit small business.
I've done some math, and I think even with the 300 meters,
it would allow for roughly 10,144 dispensaries,
if they all chose to get business license at one time.
So we could be inundated.
If we could become the pot dispensary capital of Canada, if we so chose to work this into
our tourism, I, I, I, glad that we're looking at the smoking byline regulating, that's
a definite one, I know right now. I, I, I smoke for 42 years and I quit smoking cigarettes
that's the day I died, so that's been three and a half years now.
And I don't even like the smell of cigarettes anymore.
I can't believe how bad they actually smell.
And when I'm walking down the street, I can smell pot.
And some types of pot smell a heck of a lot worse than others.
So I don't really want to be breathing that in,
whether it'll have any effect on my lungs
that the smoking hasn't already or not.
So I really appreciate what Councillor Kip
the rest of the task force have done.
And I look forward to voting on these recommendations.
Cute Councillor Kip.
Oh, thank you.
I just chaired the committee.
That's it.
Chair, I don't know on the committee.
We're using the work term cannabis
because marijuana has a bad connotation.
So we decided to change that.
But vaporizing would be in the smoking bylaws too, I don't know if that's clear to people.
The distance, I believe, is arbitrary.
I attended FCM, and it was the same issues across the country that people are dealing with.
And it's really a cowboy show out there, and it's going to be an interesting paradigm over time.
But I appreciate the work that staff did, Mr. Lindsey and the staff did a great job.
Pulled it together quickly, and the people that participated.
So I would just want to mention those couple of things that it is the smoking bylaws
an important one for it to look at, too.
Thank you, Councillor Fester.
Thank you.
Just thanks to Jim and his committee.
Quickly, the BC government's website has the regulations for those people that are out there
thinking that they can run down to City Hall and make application for a retail dispensing license.
All applications will go through the province, and then they'll be sent back to us at the city, as long as they check all the boxes off to be able to be sent back to us for consideration by the municipality.
So step one is to go to the province, step one is not to come to the city.
And so all the rules and regs are on the BC government's website right now.
On October 17th, I think, is the day that it all kicks into gear.
So if there's any other clarifications there, Mr. Lindsay, then perhaps you could let us know.
Councillor Hull, thank you on the same lines of what Councillor Brestwick was saying.
and what Councillor Brennan was saying, how do we know so is it first come first served
because we don't know when the province is going to process or they're going to send
us a lump at a time or they're going to send us one at a time and then we're sending
it to school district 68, all applications to be vetted.
So it seems like it's a little bit complicated or how is this going to roll out so the people
that want to apply what Council of Restwick says,
went to the province and the province
kind of gives us a different order when they come back
and they say, well, we've got 20 downtown,
so that's it, we're done for downtown and no more,
but then the 23rd one comes in and they're all for downtown,
so how are we going to deal with that
when it comes up, is there going to be a process?
Yeah, I think those are good questions
and I think a little bit is going to depend on
how we finally see the province rule us out
So the guidelines suggest that what we'll want from the province is sort of a preliminary
letter of approval.
So it's the province and their licensing branch that will ultimately determine who's
fit the word they use, the term they use is fit and proper, who's fit and proper to hold
a license to sell this heavily regulated form of cannabis.
So our intent is that they would redo that fit and proper, give us a letter of approval
in principle, and then council would vet those applications.
You know, with the one kilometer setback for liquor stores, it kind of became somewhat,
they regulated the number you would get in a store because of their imposed setback.
You're right.
Without that setback in place, I'm not exactly sure how they'll vet that, but I think we're
going to have to take a somewhat of wait and see approach in terms of applications.
But councilor Besswick's absolutely correct, the initial application ultimately will be to
the province.
I don't even know that they're ready to open up and receive applications yet, not the last, they weren't the last time I looked at their website.
These recommendations, if they're passed tonight, are going to come forward for by-law amendments, so we need to, we still need to go through that process, finalize the by-law adoptions, have counsel finalize the guidelines, and then before we're in place to start taking applications, so we're sometime off before we get to that point.
Thank you.
Councillor Caprican. I just want to say that the liquor store spacing
to me when it first came out was almost an anti-competition issue because they owned the liquor
stores until that came out and then they didn't want competition close to their own vehicle
of sales so I believe they put a fairly large distance in. The incident I don't think that
is I can walk about every two or three hundred yards and then I walk the main highway and get
to drink beer or glass of wine at every restaurant, every licensed place, every facility.
So relating to a one kilometer for liquor stores is kind of, it's a bit of a misnomer
for the relational value of how much alcohol is available, how many cigarettes are available,
and those type of things.
So again, I just wanted to make sure that I thought it was an anti-competition law stopping
the private people coming into liquor business, and that's changed dynamically.
And then it changed also that they can move their liquor establishment around.
And it wasn't allowed yet to be with your beer parlor or whatever before and now you can move it around.
So those rules are there but they vary quite often, thank you.
Thank you.
So you know for the speakers, there's 11 different motions here, can take them together.
They've been moved and seconded.
Call the question halls in favor, a post, motion carries.
Thank you.
Now, we were supposed to take a recess at 9 o'clock.
What's counsel's pleasure to keep moving or to take a recess?
Okay, we'll keep going.
So, the next item is under bylaws with no company report, Park Dedication
Bylaw, number 2018, at 7259, and then it's the motion that counsel reconsider.
Who's moving this motion, please?
I would be able to not have available at the time the motion was a win.
This is my first opportunity to address it at a council meeting.
And I would appreciate the council reviewed the.
Thank you.
So it's been moved by Councillor Kip.
Is there a seconder?
Seconded by Councillor Fuller.
Thank you.
Councillor Thorpe.
The reading of your mouth.
Thank you, Chair.
Is now the time to read the by-law or do we vote first whether or not to reconsider?
Pardon me.
All is in favor.
Opposed? Motion carries.
And now I will move that part dedication by law 2018, number 7259, to dedicate, sorry,
to dedicate land for part purpose to be adopted.
Second the move.
Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Any speakers?
Before we vote on adoption, I'm not going to debate it. I just want to make a declaration
that with 250 acres available, I can still find it hard to believe we couldn't find 10, 15% of that to use for affordable housing.
So I'll be voting against it.
Call the question, all those in favor.
Opposed?
Show Mamma K. Opposed.
Motion carries.
Next one, zoning amendment by law, 4,500.117.
Thank you, Chair.
I'll move that zoning amendment by law 4,500, 0.117 RA 378 to rezone a portion of 2560 Bowen Road to allow a site-specific use permitting auto-sale service and rental in the Community Corridor Zone, CLR3 be adopted.
Thank you.
Sir Secretary.
Seconded by Councillor Armstrong.
Thank you.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, call the questions in favor.
Opposed?
motion carries.
Next one.
I will move that zoning amendment by law 2018, number 450-0.121, to rezone 2202 Meredith Road from single dwelling residential R1 to townhouse residential R6 with site-specific provisions to increase the maximum permitted building height to 9.2 meters and increase the maximum allowable floor area ratio to 0.7 be adopted.
Seconded.
Thank you very much.
Seconded.
Seconded by Councillor Hongon.
I won't make the mistake.
Again, call the question.
All is in favour.
Opposed?
Motion carries.
There's a viola status sheet which is page 1516 of the addendum.
It's for information only.
There's no correspondence.
Notice of motions.
And last but not least, question, period.
Thank you.
There's only one listed, and that is Bernie Brunny.
Do you wish to ask a question?
Come on down.
You're a steward avenue, mayor and honorable councillors.
The director of community development is asking that you close the deal for a piece of property
that's owned by the city on the NIMO River Road.
I'd like to ask why you're considering selling this piece of property in a time when there's very
Little property around that could be used for a community value also the price on this
piece of land is
16,500
Excuse me somebody is really getting a good deal here somewhere down the road
So I'd like to know why you're considering selling this property at this time because being owned by the city of
a memo means that it is actually being owned by the people of Nanaimo.
Thank you.
In actual fact, it's not a piece of property that we would normally, that we would
normally consider to be a property.
It's actually a very narrow sliver of a right-away for a sewer pipe.
It's being used for a sewer?
Correct.
There's no longer in service.
So the people that are buying it are putting in a sewer there?
No, no, it's a piece of property that we have as a city as a rate of way on their property that we're
going to be selling to them.
Okay, because we're not using it anymore.
Okay, maybe you could just have clarified that a little bit further because, you know, when land is being sold
by the city, like it, I sort of, you know, worry about it.
Can you ask one more question?
Well, there's a lot of development.
There's a precedent, Brunei.
There's a lot of development happening in the city, and I'd like to know if you ever check the
trees that are on those properties, because the trees are being cut down like crazy.
And there's lots of cities in the world now that are not cutting trees down anymore.
And pretty soon it's not going to be green, and I'd like you to just really think of that.
I mean, every time a development comes along, bang, first thing that happens is the trees come down.
You know, really?
All right.
Thank you.
Good day to explain some of the things that we look at.
Mr. Lindsey?
Your worship, certainly, with all development applications, they are vetted under our tree management plan and the tree bylaw.
So if trees have to be removed and on many sites, they do have to be removed to accommodate development.
Their replacement is our first priority, but generally, we look at both conservation wherever possible.
replacement where removal is required. Thank you. The recording secretary, Ms.
Gruey.
Thank you, Your Worship. There's a gentleman that just came down that is wondering if
its Councillor's pleasure, if you could ask a couple of questions. Mr. Anderson?
We're actually more points of information on things that came up tonight. My name is
I'm Jess Anderson. I live up on Selby Street. I'm more than slightly familiar with the homeless situation last eight years of lived on Selby Street. I've watched 49 evictions.
I've reported over 35 break-ins at my place.
I've seen the drug deals, the prostitution, the fights, and to everything else it goes with a street scene. What I have noticed over the years is that one of the biggest things about the homeless problem is their visibility. And you're talking about a drop-in center during this.
the day, but it's their behaviors and their homeless situation at night that has to be dealt
with, and a daily drop-in when they can already go to the library and so on and so forth isn't
really effective.
Do you have a question for Councilman, Mr. Anderson?
Okay.
My question is, would the Council consider taking some of that money and putting it into
something effective. What I mean by effective is, it's their visibility that
bothers everybody most. And one of the biggest parts of the visibility is they
have to carry their household with them in a cart or a shopping cart or whatever.
They're visible, they're dragging it around, they're sitting in everybody's
doorway, they're getting chased, hitherto on, you got 14 or 15 security guards,
It's chasing away from different buildings downtown.
If the council would consider
renting a storage space for them to throw their stuff during the day,
those that wanted to work would be able to not have to worry about their property.
They'd be less visible.
They'd be a little less unhappy.
And by law enforcement wouldn't be running and grabbing their stuff all the time.
And it's pretty cheap to rent a bunch of two-foot lockers and place them in a public parking lot,
say lock your stuff up for the day, especially for the ones that want to go to work and currently can't,
because they've got to carry too much stuff around.
So to answer your question, sir.
The question is, would you consider doing something like that, which is cheap and simple and easy?
and far more cost-effective than a plate of service.
Thank you, sir. Thank you. To answer your question, yes, I do believe that that was part
of the drop-in centers mandate, including a number of other things, showers, those sorts
of things. But storage facilities were part of that.
Okay. Second part, I was going to ask on.
The question was raised by one of your counselors about cannabis processing for oils and foods and so on and so forth.
And nobody seemed really sure on how that would be done.
It would probably, my understanding from talking to people with health Canada would be dealing with that same as they do with all the natural
that's just a point of information I wanted to bring forward.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Motion to adjourn.
Seconder.
Vice Councilor Thorpe, thank you all those in favor.
Opposed?
Motion carries.