Good evening, everyone. As corporate officer, I call this meeting to order.
For the information of the public, Councillor Spock is joining us online while Councillors Morley and Barry and Merrick McMenson are unable to attend.
Due to the absence of the mayor and acting mayor and pursuant to the council procedure by law, the members present must choose a chair for tonight's meeting.
So at this time, I will ask for a motion to appoint one of the members in chambers as chair.
Thank you all, move the Council of Point, Councillor Your Couture is chair for this evening.
Oh second.
Any discussion?
All those in favor?
Motion carries.
Councillor, you two too, you are now chair.
Thank you everyone for bearing with that procedural aid on there.
So that time of year, I guess there's been sickness going around, is my assumption with that.
We'll move on to item two, which is our territory acknowledgment.
Councillor Harder, could I have our territory acknowledgment, please?
Thank you chair.
The city of Langford sits upon the traditional territories of the co-saleish peoples.
The waspsum, songies, and sheeninations.
As well as the wasshanish peoples represented by the start-lip,
kitchen, sail, seek from Malhap for nations.
We thank them for sharing this beautiful land.
Thank you very much, General.
Would this want more for the meeting conference?
Good evening, everyone.
My name is Marie Watmal, and I will be the moderator for tonight's meeting.
Participation by the public is in person or via Zoom.
By the using the Zoom app or telephone.
If you're joining us for the Zoom app, and wish to make a comment, please use the raise hand function in the app,
keeping in mind your able to both raise and lower your hand.
And you'll be called on based upon your username.
You'll need to unmute yourself when it's time for you to speak.
If you're joining us by a telephone, you must press star nine on the telephone key patch.
To raise your hand.
You should hear a recording that advises you the moderator will be notified you wish to speak.
And you'll be called upon using the last three digits of your phone number.
Please press star six to unmute your phone.
If you're attending in person, you can approach the podium on at a time once the public input person begins.
And in all cases, please start by providing us with your first initial.
Last name and municipality of residence indicate which item are items on the agenda you wish to speak to.
During public participation, you may speak to any item on the agenda subject to the three-minute time limit.
And there may be more than one opportunity to speak, but additional comments are limited to those not raised by you previously.
At this time, we remind the public that the city doesn't tolerate bullying or harassment of city staff elected officials,
or members of the public during counselling committee meetings, so please keep your comments respectful.
For any matters not appearing on tonight's agenda, please contact City Hall by calling 2-5-0-478-7882.
During regular business hours, only if you experience technical difficulties in getting through tonight, please contact City Hall tomorrow.
As always, the city also accepts written submissions and comments.
Thank you very much. I can have a motion to approve the agenda.
Thank you chair Almyw, if that council approve the agenda is presented.
It will second.
Thank you very much. And if there's no discussion, I'll call the question on that. All in favor.
And any opposed?
That carries.
We're bringing this on to item 5.
Public participation. We'll start off in the gallery here if anyone would like to speak to any item on the agenda.
Please raise your hand and I can call you forward.
And we can get started with that.
Seeing no one at this time in the gallery, I will move online.
And I do see one hand raised online there, so I'll hand that over to let them in.
I'll pizzervurn through, please omit yourself in the app.
Provides your first initial last name or municipality of residence for the record and indicate which item items on the agenda you wish to speak to.
Can you hear me there?
We sure can.
Okay, I'm sorry. I just missed the very beginning there of the opening.
Are we talking about the proposal of rezoning on Sunderland Road?
Any matters on the agenda, so that would be the you're talking about the bylaw.
For the rezoning application.
Yeah, go ahead.
Okay.
My name is Vurn True owner of the future orphan law that 2626 Sunderland Road, Langford BC.
I've been a willing seller since day one on this project.
In October of 2023, this mayor and council promised to never orphan another property in Langford again.
Yeah, here we are.
January 19, 2025, the sustainability committee recommended that no action to be taken by council.
Two weeks later, council is ready to move this project forward without further consultation after the developer wrote a letter to the city.
Find it kind of fishy.
If that's the threshold for moving forward, the man do I ever have a show stop for for you.
I'm currently on vacation in Australia.
I've had to reschedule my life yet again to bring by concerns forward.
As I've been doing now for the past two years with the city and four years with this developer.
To be very clear, I am all four development in Langford as long as it is done in a sustainable fashion.
The reason that I oppose this application are as follows.
Number one, this will be another failed project.
Number two, we already have two failed projects on Pete road.
Do we really need a third?
Number three, one of the members of this original group has already declared bankruptcy.
Number four, the maintenance proposal for these properties is a bribe to achieve rezoning on a project that they have no plans on starting, let alone completing.
Number five, we only need to look at the track record of the past four years to see the intent.
They can't even be bothered to respond to me about the replacement of our joining fence.
It was installed 18 years ago and has suffered increased rot due to lack of maintenance of prickled bushes on their side of a fence.
Number six, my property value has been destroyed.
Number seven, the proposed public space atop the parking that borders my property will not only take away all of my privacy and enjoyment in my backyard.
It will increase the height of the parkated cells at intent to 15 feet of height.
So it's going to be 60 feet in height and 85 feet in length.
This will create an intolerable heat sink to my property and steal any morning sun.
In closing, the city has made it clear.
They cannot force the developer to buy a property.
However, the developer cannot force the city to rezone theirs.
There is no legal recourse for voting no tonight.
If you truly care for the citizens of Langford, you will vote no to this rezoning application.
If you don't care, and it's only about your legacy as a mayor or counselor, you will vote you through.
If you could just finish up, we are just over time here, but thank you.
This will be a deciding factor when the citizens of Langford go to the polls in October.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Do we have any other members online at this time?
See, no other hands raised.
I'll look back to the gallery for a last call.
Oh, I do see another hand raised online.
I will let best up.
Well, if when user ending in 417, please press star 6 on the telephone keypad to unmute.
Write your first initial last name.
The municipality of residents and item are items on the agenda that you wish to speak to.
Please.
Let's go.
It's Larry March speaking.
Go ahead.
Please.
Okay.
Yes.
Yes. We live in Langford.
You know, we've been here about eight months now.
I'm looking at the density of this project.
And it seems pretty high for this location on 22 stories.
For one of the buildings is a death.
Two high-adents and I'm wondering how the traffic is going to be coordinated on Pete Road.
Has it been any traffic studies done or traffic analysis done for the series?
It's pretty bad right now.
And it's just going to get worse, especially accessing on Pete Road or Sunderland Drive or Sunderland Road.
So that's kind of just my concerns right now.
I believe the density is too high and I can of course the application at this point.
I just think it's too much for this area.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
And I see we have another user online there.
Thank you.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
We've been 26 30 Sunderland Road.
The house right close to the open not.
I want to speak about of course the development you are obviously going to prove from what I understand.
I just wanted to let you know that we will do a freedom of information request,
requesting the exchange between the city and the developer.
Because I want to see exactly the reason why the city changed their mind on this development.
At the last meeting there was absolutely no rush to prove this development.
Until there is a clear plan on endorsing on enforcing the maintenance plan.
It is obviously not enforced right now and you showed us from past experience that you have no way to enforce anything regarding developers.
So I would like to have like a clearance where on how are you going to enforce the maintenance plan and how are you going to make sure our property value is not going to decrease.
And how my life in this neighborhood is not going to get worse.
Today I have to work my daughter down the street in the morning because of sketchy people living in the empty houses.
If you go down the path there is there is literally trash on the lots which is unsafe for my kids.
My kids found drugs in this path just because developers destroyed our neighborhood.
So what are you going to do to keep our kids safe?
And for us to be happy to live in this neighborhood it becomes a disaster.
I'm ashamed of inviting people because of what it looks like.
So please give us transparency and I sense some email.
I had some answers.
I want more than that.
I want to see your exchanges with the developers and I want to make sure the decision are taken in good faith.
And in the best interest of the main court citizen.
Thank you, LA.
Can we just get your last name for the record please?
Then it's DA entity.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hi anyone else for public participation at this time either online or in the gallery.
Well thank you very much everybody.
With no other hand raised I will follow public participation to a close.
This moves us on to the consent agenda.
Can I have a motion for council to adopt the recommendations of the consent agenda?
I'll move that council adopt the recommendations for each item of the consent agenda as presented.
Second.
Thank you very much.
And I'll call the question all of favor.
And any opposed.
That carries.
We'll move on into item eight.
We have our committee resolutions.
First up is 8.1 committee advisory committee.
And that is 8.1.
The west shore RCMP annual report.
Thank you chair.
I'll move that.
Council received the 2025 west shore RCMP annual report for influence on.
Second.
Thank you very much.
Any motivation on this?
Yeah.
Springfully.
Yeah.
Thank you chair.
Community advisory committee did have the opportunity to.
Receive this last week when it was presented by Superintendent Glesby.
Really appreciative of Superintendent Glesby for making himself available and being.
Great generous with this time.
Just in responding to the committee's questions.
I'll note that the committee was quite complementary on this year's report.
Just noting the level of detail and spatial analysis that was presented in contrast to some of the previous years.
So a lot of gratitude for that.
And just recognizing his new role in the community.
And I think he's been on in the role for about two weeks now.
It was really great to have him here in chambers.
Nothing further for me. Thank you and Councillor Wigner. Yes, thank you. I don't know a lot to add. It was great to hear from the new superintendent and appreciate the conversation that the committee had.
That's quite interesting and informative. So also the report had quite a few interesting visuals and statistics. So it's worth a read for people that are interested.
And the previous council meeting we did get an introduction from the superintendent as well.
For people that might be interested in knowing a little bit about his background. So that's all I have.
Thank you very much. All uh, while the question on that motion, all in favor.
And any opposed?
That carries. We'll move on to item 8.1.2 application for an extended area of operation for the liquor primary license.
I'll move that council direct staff to inform the liquor and cannabis regulation branch that the city of Langford will opt out of the public notification for the application to extend the area of operation.
For an existing liquor primary license for the log has pub located at 2323 mill stream road.
And I can second.
Thank you and any motivation on this item.
Yeah, so similarly straightforward for this item. The applicant is just looking to expand their services into a glass to area.
So just essentially expanding the patio.
Committee had no concerns and they were quite excited to see as well that this area was friendly.
So felt no need to opt into the process and typically this is something that is covered in provincial realm. So I don't think there was any concerns of the committee level.
Thank you very much. And anything to add to council.
Yeah, not really. I guess I'm sort of a housekeeping item in a way. We've seen this kind of application before where we have often out.
Love the public notification as long as there were no concerns. So as we didn't hear any.
And in fact, there was some positive comments. I feel comfortable.
Thank you. And I do see council spot on mine.
Thank you chair. I just have a question probably through you to planning or who never would be dealing with form and character around the fence.
And I'm just wondering how much say we have on that.
It says that a picket fence will go in place there.
And I'm wondering about the look of that the maintenance of it, the ongoingness of it.
And then favor of the recommendation, but I am concerned about the materials that will be used and how this will appear.
If I could just check in on that.
Yeah, I think you can respond for that question.
I don't believe it's entirely germane to the actual agenda item on hand is this is just about opting out of the liquor license.
But that has definitely a great question, but it's better suited to it under four on.
Thanks chair. I'll check with staff separately. Thanks.
Thank you very much.
With that, I will call the question on 8.1.2 all in favor.
And any opposed.
That carries.
I will move on to item 8.1.3. This is by law number 2265 for the lingered station.
Yes, I'll move that council, consider giving first second and third reading to the lingered station by law number 2265 2026.
Then I can second.
Thank you.
It was great to have this item brought to committee.
Really just taking the opportunity to review our by laws and around the cultural district on station avenue now that about four years of past since it first opened.
The committee had a really great discussion just surrounding the merits of updating the current regulations, the permitting guidelines and the view model.
And there was some comments as well noted at committee.
Just regarding some additional opportunities that south look forward through this update in.
Presenting some opportunities to advance our reconciliation initiative at the city.
By encouraging greater indigenous participation and finding some creative ways to connect the community with local makers and artists.
So I was really happy to see this coming forward and be supporting it.
Thank you very much, any other comments from this item.
I just have a question about just the I guess through the chair to staff about the fee structure and the idea that we wouldn't increase it regularly every year as a way of just making sure we don't fall behind.
I just would like a little bit more information about that.
Through the chair. Thank you for the question.
It's lofted review this as the CPI increase was added after a year or so after the length of the station open.
And upon reflection and looking at the pricing of the units and how they are creeping up.
Given that the district isn't yet where we'd like to see it in terms of footsteps and the vendors being busy are throughout the week and also year around.
We didn't want to see those prices escalating beyond reach.
Entrepreneurs that are there because it would essentially take away the intent of what we're trying to do and we're just not there yet.
So we just felt that it was better to keep it like the fixed rate and set of.
Having them go up.
Over here.
Thank you just a quick follow up then.
It sounds like it's just a very evolving dynamic situation still and it's pretty fantastic.
But we're looking for more regular foot traffic.
So I guess I was thinking the staff time of looking at it every year might be more than a regular increase but it seems that may be.
Your ability to assess the situation needed might prevent a business from leaving which would you know for trying to fill a station I can see that being quite a bit of work as well.
So is that part of how you factor just retaining those businesses.
Yeah thanks for the question to the chair we don't anticipate seeing the rates going up.
I would say at least the next three years we are still in a building phase and although we have seen a lot of interest.
And vendors like I've shared with the committee have actually grown up and have scaled up at the district from ten foot to twenty foot and recently the clinical move to working order.
Is this in line for which is a great success story.
So we want to keep nurturing that and we just feel within the next three years then we could re-evaluate.
For now we don't see us needing to evaluate this on an annual basis.
Thank you that's helpful appreciate the extra information.
Thank you very much I'll call the question on this item all in favor.
And anyone opposed.
That carries unanimously thank you.
Last committee advisory.
The advisory committee resolution we have by law number two two three nine and two two one two the animal control by laws.
Thank you chair before I bring a motion forward on this one actually we did have some discussion at the committee and I was wondering if I could ask a question three is staff.
Please do.
Thank you through.
During the committee there was an amendment brought forward and at the time I believe that there were some questions that staff may have wanted to get back to the committee with with a more full some response.
I'm just wondering if staff have had the opportunity to provide a more full some response to what was discussed to committee.
Thank you chair through you.
So we have had a chance to look at this and and it is actually something that was quite carefully considered when we were drafting the by law.
So there is a regulation and it's called the spheres of current jurisdiction environment and wildlife regulation and under that.
The city to regulate prohibit and impose requirements respecting the feeding or attracting of dangerous wildlife or members of the family survey which is the dear family.
However, it's important to note that under the provincial wildlife act general regulation.
It states at section 23.01 one a person commits an offense if the person intentionally bates or feeds a turkey or an ungulate within 200 meters of a dwelling school yard or playground in region one.
Region one is all of anchor violent and dear or members of the ungulate family so now you've all had a biology lesson today.
And so yes, we could put in a regulation.
However, the province has already done that they've created an offense under the offense at.
And we've reviewed some of the other.
By laws in the region.
For example, a big for is is a person must not intentionally feed or leave food out for the purpose of feeding dear.
Oak base is that a person shall not feed among other animals dear.
A squimals is no person shall intentionally feed or leave out food for the purpose of feeding wildlife in there they include dear so.
It's basically a duplication of what the provincial.
Prohibition yes.
So I'll let Lauren Fetcher speak to the potential impact on staffing resources if this were to be added.
But for the purposes of prohibiting it, that's already been done by provincial legislation.
Thank you, and to carry on through the chair.
During the committee meeting, I did make the the comment or the note note that.
Should this bylaw amendment be made or to the proposed bylaw.
The impacts on staffing or the requirements for staffing based on complaints.
Would be significant something as simple as growing flowers in your in your front yard is effectively an attractive for dear I know that I've got dear in my own yard and so.
You know the the bylaw itself may with that include and make create unintentionally of course.
I'm just a man's on city staff and we as it is now we are keeping up we don't want to be raised with the added.
Publication because the public will complain and we will have to address those complaints.
Thank you very much before we have a motion just given what we have heard tonight we have any questions from council on this item.
Thank you to the chair.
Okay, so this is quite a bit of new information. Thank you very much for that filling me in there I guess I'm wondering about the dangerous aspect of dear.
So yes, we don't want to have the meeting our flowers and things so maybe people can fence it off or what have you but.
New blocks are quite aggressive or other times, you know, maybe dear little cubes so I'm just wondering if they are considered.
Are they are they listed as in just a with this provincial legislation, would there be I guess enough teeth to that for any specific.
Tack or you know through some area where they're repeated Lee having an aggressive year to have that dealt with properly.
Sorry, I think I might have caused some confusion so under the environment and wildlife regulation that is under the community charter.
They've just said out what that we can regulate prohibit and impose requirements.
With respect to dangerous wildlife which are specifically defined animals or members of the family survey which are dear so it's not.
I didn't intend to convey that dear are considered dangerous wildlife there to separate things is just that those are the wildlife that we can regulate under that regulation.
Okay, sorry, that does help clear that like a little bit one more probably we're done in question but just trying to get really clear on this but is there.
If there's a problem with dear who do people call.
That would be the provincial conservation service.
Thank you.
Any other questions at this time.
No questions thank you chair. I will move in the committee motion as read in.
I'll move that council consider getting first second and third reading to city of Langford animal responsibility by law number two two three nine twenty twenty six.
That the addition of and dear following dangerous wildlife under part four section twenty two.
To read twenty two a person must not feed any dangerous wildlife or dear or provide dangerous wildlife or dear access to food for any other edible substance.
And that council consider giving first second and third reading to city of Langford animal control miscellaneous and ending by law number two two one two twenty twenty six.
Thank you and we have a second for that.
Second for discussion. Thank you very much. Councilor who can more to be.
Thank you. I have brought it forward just recognizing the will of committee.
To be honest, I do feel a little bit torn about this and I recognize will be debating by law so.
I will keep my comments short at this point. I just wanted to make sure that the will of the committee would reflect it at this table for the discussion.
Thank you.
I'm sorry for waiting any follow up.
I guess one more question through the chair to snap if I might just to be clear on the process then.
There will be opportunities to look into the further and then have another debate with council when it comes back as a.
I love.
It's held on the agenda later tonight as dialogue nine point or under by loss is nine.
That's what I was afraid of. I'm like when am I going to be.
I will see them. Thank you, though, this further. So I guess at this time, we're just looking at it as a resolution. And so I will have to hold on to those other thoughts. Perhaps they'll be more discussion coming later.
Thank you. If I may to staff on the side of my deal with a question, I just came up as I was going through this.
Hearing that, dear are already covered underneath the provincial wildlife act. And so there's the recommendation to deal with the CEOs and the province for that side.
I'm just wondering how that relates to the entirety of part four. I believe that'd be second twenty of the bylaw then, which is entirely with respect to feeding or attracting dangerous wildlife.
Thank you through the chair. So given the nature of dangerous wildlife, given that we don't want bears wandering our streets and that they are more likely to.
What just rub garbage, for example, and getting to a staff believe and tree. We've had talks, presentations to this council from I believe the organization is called bear wise.
Given the this variety and the the potential.
We believe that that regulating dangerous wildlife is a good use of our staff resources and education and making sure that people are not attracting.
Or doing anything to continue the attraction. Whereas.
Beer are not nervous as much of a safety risk to the public.
Thank you very much. I can start a rough visually.
Thank you through you. I actually do have a question just rising from the discussion. I'm not sure if bylaw would have a comment to this question, but do we have a sense of how much enforcement recurrently performing on on complaints related to wildlife.
Through the chair.
At present.
Our primary source of concern around any type of wildlife is very specifically around bears.
And I have to say those complaints come in typically in the spring when bears are coming out or more into the fall when they're there.
But it's basically around trying to sign up for the winter.
But throughout the year.
Lankford does has what have it share of beer. Sorry, bear complaints.
There are very few deer complaints specifically.
I would say that probably my chosen has far more air concerns.
Excuse me, the length for it has.
Hopefully that helps answer the question.
Thank you. I would have a follow up and this is putting on the spot.
So I recognize if you don't have response at this time.
Is there a sense of how many conservation officers are currently patrolling or serving the link for the area?
Yep. Through the chair.
My understanding is that Vancouver Island is serviced by at least five conservation officers.
And those people do travel down the island.
Of course primarily on the basis of incoming complaints from the public and through the wrap line.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
On that I will call the question on this committee resolution is read in all in favor.
And any opposed?
Not carries. Thank you.
We're moving on to section nine now of the agenda.
We have nine point one by law number two one four six.
And I think probably the best way is we move into bylaws here.
My apologies.
You're going to be to start off to see if we have any questions that any member of council has with respect to these.
And then once we go on through some questions move on to entertaining a resolution at that point in time.
And Councilor Wigner I do see your light first.
Thank you.
We did hear quite a few questions come up from the public.
I guess it'll will pick a couple that I think are crucial in the task for another speaker.
Would staff through the chair could staff remind us about what was done for the graphic analysis.
It's been in many weeks and even months that we've been debating this.
There was a traffic impact assessment, but and also we're doing a transportation plan.
So this is a very complex situation.
If you could comment on that.
Through the chair, yes, there was a complete traffic impact assessment completed for this property prior to rezoning.
We had to pass the high threshold of being approved not only by the engineering department here at City of Langford,
but also the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and that was just the first step in that process.
Of course with this rezoning being deferred until after the OCP or the official community plan was adopted.
That gave staff the opportunity to take the density from the OCP and put it into our traffic model as we are currently working on our transportation master plan.
So not only were we able to have the information of what the immediate impact of this development would be, say, on the nearest.
Lesson or so intersections, which is kind of the scope of the.
It's the graphic impact assessment that's done is done on a finer scope and everybody was always worried about what's the broader impact of all of these developments combined what's the compounding effect.
And we were able to take the density that the projected potential density based on the OCP and our housing needs assessment target.
That into our traffic model and anticipate what the impact is on those in your by intersections and of course we have done two phases of public engagement as far.
And we're at the point now in the transportation master plan that we can confidently say and as you've seen through the presentations from what that there's no significant amount of.
Road widening meeting that we don't need to for lane heat roads in order for the density in our downtown core the work of course as per the.
OCP and all of our different policies around transportation there does need to be mode shift and we do need to prioritize.
The different modes of of transportation are listed in the hierarchy of of transportation in the OCP.
But through the resolution as you can see we were just able to confirm what came out of the TI which was that Pete road the offshoot of Pete road needs to be connected through to the bill.
And we heard from community.
You know that this provides some relief to that community that's already feeling like it's hard to take a left turn out of that intersection already.
So the intersections of Pete road and Pete road and I know they're the same name but that is that there's an intersection just across from the fire hall there we where we have a parking right for BC transit.
And that will connect through to the bill or we'll have to connect through to develop prior to building permit or they have to bond for it.
And we'll have to obtain the right of way for that as well.
And then the intersections of Pete and Pete and the intersections of Pete and our encote will become right in right out.
So those are the you know some of the immediate.
Results of the traffic impact assessment and of course all their frontage improvements and everything of that nature.
That will contribute to active transportation corridor along the.
Pete to senderland connection there's a piece of road dedication there which would the development would also improve which will help with more shift.
And then if through our transportation master plan as we've discussed the Pete road to senderland corridor being the the Pete road being the transit corridor in Jacqueline being the.
Patential active transportation corridor there's a plan for the whole city and staff are very much looking forward to bringing that forward.
Once we have all of the public engagement and we got a lot of public engagement points to incorporated there so we're very much looking forward to bringing that forward but at this time staff can say with confidence that we can support this application.
Thank you and actually considering if I can jump in there quickly just based off of what the engineer brought forward.
Am I right in understanding you've listed several projects and upgrades for traffic in the rest through this area.
That the vast majority of these are either being done by this development or through funds raised by this development that would not otherwise be able to be done in as rapid up succession.
Thank you chair for the question so any requirements that come out of the TA so any of the recommendations that come out of the traffic impact assessment are directly tied to that development to pay for.
Not with DCC's or anything like that it's just that in order to what they're building permit they'll hire they have to build or bond for the requirements that are in the TA if Council passes the resolution as it stands today.
Other broader improvements as you may have alluded to would be covered by our development cost charge a road development cost charge program or you know there's other funding sources as well that.
I could be contributed to those improvements in the future, but that's typically how we address if there's a compounding effect that it's it would be considered a regionally beneficial.
Improvement therefore would be applicable for our DCC program.
Thank you so some potential immediate upgrade required for that element permit as well as the.
That's correct and and if anything changes so if the density changes or the drive locations change and then the TA would have to be updated and the resolution is flexible to capture any of those amendments as well because it says any any recommendations from the TA so.
Anything in the development changes throughout the development period the TA would have to be updated and then reapproved again by the city and MOTT.
Carage implementation and they will not receive a building permit until those are either built or bonded for.
Thank you very much for that's the real explanation with that very much appreciated.
Councillor waitner is I encroached on your time please back to you.
It's very complicated stuff my other question is quite different so if you don't mind I will.
One more question before I give way something that's come up so much is the maintenance plan and the ability to enforce it and so this is an unusual condition that we've got here.
And how enforceable is it really we're trying to do our belts and suspenders approach here but before we have our by laws for the good neighbor policy and our construction impact mitigation strategy specific by laws.
How can we enforce.
On a property that you know I'm hearing from the public is not in great shape right.
Thanks through the chair registering the maintenance plan and a section two nineteen covenant on title does improve our ability to enforce matters that are not covered by current by laws as councils aware there.
Vila is kind of under development right now through the good neighbor policy and construction impact management strategy that will speak to matters that are in the maintenance plan that are in city by laws right now.
If it went bad occurs over the coming months, that will, you know,
look at that by law enforcement mechanism as well, but in the meantime, those matters
are not referred by by law as so through registering the maintenance plan on title, that
gives us an ability to, you know, follow up on those matters, receive reports on, you know,
the degree of maintenance that's occurring as committed to in the maintenance plan, and
it'll follow up with a property owner, um, as needed to ensure that those commitments
are being adhered to. And if I can just add to that, uh, those cabinets are enforced through
corridor. So then if we get a corridor and it's not enforced, then it would be a contempt
action. Thank you very much. I have a follow-up to that. But, John, sir, how do I do
want to take the floor if you have something related to this item? Thank you. I was going to ask
about this plan, but I appreciate that. Thank you. My kind of follow-up from what this conversation
has been is along that maintenance plan, and really alluded to in public participation there,
which is the difference between what we are currently seeing, which is the long leg to get the
actions on many of the properties in the core. And, like, actually many of us have this table here
being a resident of the core. We see this every day, the, uh, quite prominent impacts this
has in our, in our, in our neighborhood. And I just, uh, I hope that this really is able to be the
benefit for the public that through this meet and sorter, at least my interpretation of it,
is that it prevents us from having this long leg time for the remediation or action, like,
works randomly seeing. And just wondering if I do have that right interpretation or if staff
can walk that out a bit. Thank you through the chair. So, uh, yes, we, we have the ability to
act once the maintenance plan is not. Not.
And so it's just important that our maintenance plans are clear and enforceable and then we can go, but as I said, we do have to go through the court, we don't have control over your time necessarily. So I'm not saying that it's an overnight fix, but certainly would be enforceable sort of court order.
And thank you Mr. Chair, if I could add, it's really hard for someone to dispute us holding them to their own plan, right? It's hard to claim on do hardship when we're just holding them to their own plan in their own commitment and that in a way does make it more enforceable.
Thank you very much. That provides me a bit of ease on that difference as to what we're looking at this time around versus what is resulted in the distrust that a lot of the public has in our court right now. And sorry, I'm talking to you, Mr. Fletcher.
And just to broaden the discussion a little bit further, we have to, we can't compare what's going to happen in the future to our past sort of experiences with a new mechanism coming in the play where we can actually monitor.
We can we can have a bit of a high grading the observation as it has it develops is going to probably put the city in a far better position take action whereas in the in the past we just haven't had that awareness we haven't had the mechanisms.
I think we're going to be in a far better position to have a better handle on the situations as the developer.
Thank you very much. Councillor Wigner believe you did say you had additional follow up questions. Is it all in the same item or would like to allow Councillor how to the chance if she has a different question at this time.
It could just add a quickly follow up here just because this is a sensitive topic and I know that some of these buildings are occupied and some are not occupied so to through the chair just wondering if a comment on.
I'm not sure how to ask things exactly but does maintenance plan apply to both I mean I saw a lot of detail in there but can you just remind me of there's not going to be a need to involve the tendency branch or other levels of government because we have this maintenance plan we can.
I understand it it's both occupied and unoccupied. So I don't want to speak too much about it but we can't you serve.
Real maintenance plan we can't you serve requirements of the residential tendency act so those would still be applicable with respect to any tenant properties.
Thank you actually that could be good thing if if the tenant wants to complain we will still have the right to do so as a tenant landlord relationship but this maintenance plan has both provisions for occupied and unoccupied properties so I think.
Yeah just wanting to think about that level of detail that there would be potentially different actions needed depending on whether they're occupied or not but they are all in the maintenance plan so I don't think we have a follow up question there.
Thank you and Councilor how did you have a question at this time regarding this by law.
Thank you you know I didn't have a question my questions about the transportation plan and both maintenance plan have been answered and staff have provided additional months on some of the regulatory levers so.
Thank you just because this is right the item I do want to reach out to Councilor Spalk online just confirm that you don't have any questions before motion is considered on this item.
No thank you sir.
Thank you very much.
Councilor Wagner would you have another question for the title.
I did have another question just to be absolutely clear so through the chair we hear about feasibility of projects as a question that comes from the public.
You know not wanting another failed project but it's my understanding that we don't consider that so just looking at staff for clarification of we need to put aside.
As hard as that is we need to put aside things in the neighborhood that are hurting people of experienced and consider this application on good faith assuming that it would.
Through the chair yes each application is considered and must be considered on its own merits this is about land use and density and rezoning and.
It shouldn't be influenced by what neighboring properties may or may not have done.
Thank you with those questions being addressed I would that be looking to entertain a motion if we have someone willing to bring one forward at this time.
I actually do have one more question if I wait.
Please just again to clarify and then I would be prepared to make a motion but.
It was brought up that in last decisions that the council had decided not or committee have decided not to take action but that's not how I understood the resolution I understood it as not taking action until such time as a landscape on came forward.
And then we had new information come to us as a council that was provided in public so I just wanted to make very clear before I do any motion that.
Was there any information that staff had that was not provided I recall a letter that was in the public agenda and we made some adjustments to the application based on that letter but I just want to be very clear about what is.
The reasoning behind moving forward with even though the committee resolution was to have another look at it.
Through the chair.
I'll just make two points the first being that both of our advisory committees the community advisory committee in the sustainable development advisory committee are that just that they are advisory.
So as when council sits around this table they can take that recommendation that comes out of the committee into account but they are not the decision maker council is the decision maker so.
I obviously council can take the discussion take the recommendation of committee into account when they make their motion following.
Like when they are considering that item at the next council meeting but it's not a binding recommendation is for council to consider as part of their deliberations on the second point would be that yes the.
We can did provide a letter of outlining new commitments say which to make to address some of the concerns that came out of a committee around landscaping and public open space.
And the heat island kind of reflection.
comments that had that had been made house regards the neighboring property and that letter was posted publicly as part of the council agenda.
As well as spoken to during public participation when council considered that committee recommendation on for very second.
And those that deliberation can be seen in the video of that meeting and all information that council considered as part of that deliberation is part of the agenda under that item.
Thank you.
That is helpful because this is challenging so I will move that council give line for zoning by law amendment number 707 2614 261626262626262626262626.
Pete road and 26222625 and 2629 Sundayland road by law number 21462626 or second and third readings.
Thank you.
And Councillor Wagner I'll look to you for any motivation.
Thank you.
We have been through this twice a committee.
First I was not the chair of that committee.
Councillor Gottry was running the committee and I asked so many questions and then when it came back this year.
We I was the chair of the committee and we've looked at it again and there's still so many questions and then tonight again we've had so many questions.
It is there's no doubt is the high density project.
It's a very large project and it's not intense scrutiny for this council.
It's our first power project that we we have to own it.
In the passive and very vocal about the city center concept map that I thought was just creating so much problem in the community.
But now we have the official community plan and it does speak to this density in this area.
It's a transit corridor and having worked through that process over like almost 18 months I would think.
Open over a year with a lot of public feedback and not everybody would be happy with how it turned out but it does have very clearly that this density.
Can go here and we focus so much on quality city building in the official community plan.
New design guidelines coming that will fly to this development the construction impact mitigation and good neighbor policy will also apply to this project.
And then many conditions I counted up 22 terms and conditions that were added.
So we really tried again to say belts and suspenders we tried to think of things that would help the community see that there was more green space I asked for many things that I felt were important free bedroom units because I've heard.
Family size units are hard to get in the city center and people do want affordable homes near transit and shops and services.
And so this could provide some homes for those kinds of people and multi generational families or many roommates.
Fortability is just such a challenge and as we talked about we are not really able to consider the feasibility of our projects we just have to put that aside and look at the project and and way.
We think there's enough community benefits so I kept asking for more.
I asked for more trees more green space public right of way on the private space that is a different than I've ever.
Part of an application before where that was considered so we have been working very hard to make this very robust process with many conditions that.
We're trying to really bring that community benefit in line with our quality city building goals that came through our official community plan so.
But given all that and the questions that also were brought up tonight.
I am supporting the motion.
Thank you very much council.
Thank you and thank you for your comments.
I will be supporting motion tonight and I'm very grateful for the discussions that we've had at this table in the community and at the committee as well.
Because it's taken a while to get here but I do think that we're better off for it just through all of the questions and contemplation that's been considered to date.
When this application was first delayed or momentarily paused to wait until the OCP was completed.
You know I really respected that decision because I think our community is at a bit of a crossroads right now when it comes to growth.
And what I hear frequently from members of the community is that growth isn't necessarily a bad thing but we don't want to continue to see growth happen.
If it means.
Crawling out into mountain sides and blasting away hillsides and clear-cutting forests.
And the reality is that in an island in a community was pounding the biography.
That means that we have to start having these challenging conversations about how we want to grow up and how we want to that's fire existing areas.
Within this application, I really appreciate the focus that the applicant.
Has considered the consideration that the applicant has provided around our intention and our vision to create a family for a city center that's more welcoming families.
And right now if you try to find a three bedroom condo in length for it, it is very challenging because we just simply haven't been building them.
So I think a 10% ratio.
I would love to see more but I do recognize that financial viability is very challenging in the development industry right now.
And that is a consideration for permitting unimics.
But I do think that that is a huge benefit for this proposal.
And I just want to comment as well around some of the comments that have been made regarding park space.
And recently, our last council meeting we adopted our purpose in trails monster planned.
And especially in the city center where there are so many people moving to the city center, so many families.
It's really important that we have an adequate park strategy.
And this application provides wonderful onsite amenities on site green space and public space for its residents.
And you know the city.
I think we'll be able to continue focusing on our destination parks and neighborhood parks.
Like portrait park and woodlands that are within walking distance to this proposal.
So I do just want to close off by saying I recognize that enterprises can be very contentious and especially when we focus.
As a community for so long on quality or sorry on quantity rather than quality.
I think it is going to set us up for a challenge in conversation, but I do appreciate how we found this conversation.
And I appreciate that there is ongoing recognition and we're happening behind the scenes to make sure that we are building that solid foundation.
To make sure that we're not just running city hall as a business, but we are building an institution.
And making sure that this institution has the capacity that we need to have the right by laws policies, guidelines and regulations in place.
So that we can go successfully moving forward.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Spock just out.
There we go.
Your hand is up.
The floor is yours.
Thank you chair.
I just want to start with acknowledging that this is being a great discussion.
And also I appreciate the work that our staff has done, but I also want to acknowledge the significant community input that I've received on this application.
Since we brought forward the sustainable development community recommendation and and also previous to that, but especially since then.
Many residents have expressed that at this point in time, they don't support this tower at this location.
And as an elected official, I feel very.
We strongly that I have an obligation to listen carefully to their feedback.
This proposal does align with our official community plan and our broader growth objectives.
And as I said, the guidelines, policies and the work that has been put into this is commendable.
However, I feel very strongly that we need to consider cumulative impacts, not just
whether this fits on paper, but the timing and the sequencing across the city center, whether or not it's appropriate.
At this point, a second and third reading, I think it represents a significant step forward.
So, at this point in time, I'm not persuaded that advancing this application serves the best interest of our community in terms of pacing and infrastructure.
Readiness and as much as the huge effort and robust work that's being done in maintaining the public trust I am not hearing it at this point in time.
And I want to be clear that my decision is not a rejection of growth.
It's not a, it's not a rejection of this proponent.
But it is a judgment about timing and cumulative impact.
So, I will not be supporting the second and third reading at this time.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Spock.
For for myself, really echoes the comments that I made when this first came forward from the standable development committee, which was very much at that time going into the meeting.
We were dealing with a lot of our issues around properties that were not being maintained the fallout of previous previous projects and as we said, as we heard today during public participation.
The other failed project, what is going to be the impact on the community?
Are we going to have the other pit and the rest?
The reality of the situation, though, is as I'm out of that last meeting when this came forward from the committee, was that we are in a very different institutional framework today.
And we were when those first projects were coming forward, resulting in what we see in our downtown core now.
And it was through those conversations that I really believe that is a city we have institutionally matured that we have brought in the bylaws.
We have brought in the protections that we need so that a project like this going forward as the potential to provide amazing benefits to our community once built.
But we've seen the risks, if it doesn't, we've seen the risks when I go sideways.
And I think a big part of our role of the city is to ensure that we are protecting our residents from those risks.
And I believe we are at that point.
I believe that with the work that we have been doing over these last three years and building up the bylaws here in the city and building up this institutional maturity.
I believe that the city is at a point where it can manage a project like this.
And even if this project in the end is not feasible.
We will not be left with the shell.
We will not be left with the derelict site as we have been from properties in the past.
I said it last meeting that in many ways this is our last chance to try to get this right for this fails.
I think we will not entertain a power for decades.
And so there's a lot of pressure on this, there's a lot of pressure on the city and the bylaws that we have put together.
But in conversation and looking at reviewing a work that we have done as a council, the work that staff has done in bringing these bylaws into place and enforcing them.
I do believe that we are well positioned to protect our residents and to see the benefits of this project.
And really ensuring that we are mitigating against those risks.
So that being said, I am supportive of this in general.
So any last comments, motivation from any members of council before I call the question on this data.
Just before sorry to interrupt.
And just before you do that, be clear.
This is first second and third reading of the bylaw.
I know lots are spotted so it's second and third, so I just want to make sure the video is clear.
Thank you very much for that clarification.
For second third, adoption still yet to come.
I will call the question on this all in favor.
And any opposed.
That is councillors.
That is a post.
That brings us on to item 9.2 bylaw number 2239 and 2.2.
1.2.
Similarly, we will start off if there is any questions.
And then if there is the motion.
Sure, I have a good question.
But yes, so we are back to the animal control.
We get the right thing at some looking at the right thing here.
I guess based on the conversation earlier.
I would like to clarify that staff is recommending that we don't include beer.
In this at this time because it's already.
There is a way to manage that through conservation officers.
So I just want to be really clear because there was quite a bit of new information that came out for me from the discussion.
But.
I guess do you believe that the provincial conservation officers are the best to handle the.
Potential damage or risk or anything from deer.
And that.
It may complicate or bylaw to extent that would really require a lot of staff resources.
So the province as an active legislation that makes conservation officers responsible for.
Management of.
Beer if acted a regulation that makes it an offense under potential law for someone to feed animals that include beer.
And then they have also granted the authority to a municipality to regulate prohibit and impose requirements with respect to ear.
So we if we put it in then it becomes something that we to enforce with our resources.
And we will become the first step rather than the province.
I think that's where the box feels.
Help them intended.
Thank you. I think that brings the clarity I was looking for.
Thank you.
Any other questions at this time.
Looking for a motion then for item nine point two.
Thank you.
I'm going to move that council give animal responsibility by law number two two three nine twenty twenty six first second and third readings.
And that council give animal control miscellaneous.
Mending by law number two to one two twenty twenty six first second and third readings.
I will second.
Thank you and any motivation at this point in time.
So so far we talked a lot about deer but I'm just going to pull back and talk about the rest of the by law because this is a very important date that's coming to council.
I was surprised to see that the city actually hadn't made any updates to this by law since I think 1986 or 87.
So it is quite overdue and I think quite timely as well just recognizing that.
You know especially through COVID we've got a lot of new dog ownership in the community and as it stands our current regulatory tools don't necessarily give us.
A lot of discretion in enforcement when there isn't an incident for in the event of an incident arising.
So I appreciated just having the dangerous and aggressive dog definitions clearly laid out.
Disapport community safety moving forward.
And then as well just given you know at this during my time at this table I have been a vocal advocates.
For our community to become more aware and more proficient in not encouraging.
Wildlife interactions when we move into neighborhoods where they previously may have room free so I do support.
Some of the wording and the viola just to discourage those types of potential interactions from happening.
In our community just hearing the comments tonight regarding enforcement.
Some of the you know main themes that we're seeing to date I didn't hear from staff that deer is a current enforcement concern.
I do recognize that it is probably occurring in our community given the fact that this is a very.
This region is it's full of deer.
But I I do recognize the challenge is an enforcement and I'm comforted by the fact that there is already a way for us to enforce this through provincial legislation.
And I I do hear the concerns around staff capacity just recognizing this is.
Unfortunately another instance where we're seeing provincial resources perhaps not.
In line with our community needs and although I.
We feel encouraged to help I do want to put pressure on the province to make sure that they're funding those programs appropriately so that this doesn't get.
Last down to property taxpayers to have to do a fund and manage so with that in mind putting that forward on the table for council.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
I don't sure.
Thank you.
Yeah, I got so into the deer.
I actually have a question if I'm not about deer.
Please do.
So it's through the chair.
I was I'm wondering more about the dogs of and that there's many.
Schools that have fields and playgrounds and that kind of thing and how do we manage.
When it's not the CRD or not the city of life or property.
What people might be using the goals is almost like an off leash dog park.
So could we get some clarity on what residents might do.
If this bylaw would apply to that situation.
Perhaps I can help through the chair.
Presently school district 62 is the property holder when it comes to all of the school related playing fields playgrounds those types of areas.
And by their own policy.
They do not allow for dogs to be on the school grounds during school hours.
That's a change from a few years ago where it was an absolute prohibition to have dogs on school property.
I believe it was about two years ago.
School district revisited that policy and determined that when classes are not in session having dogs on these playgrounds and playing fields or sorry sports fields.
It really isn't a problem.
And so with that change in policy there's been a lot fewer complaints.
And I've checked with the animal control people on this.
The use to receive quite significant numbers of complaints about people taking dogs on the school grounds after hours.
Since I'd adjustment me by the school district.
Those complaints have dropped off substantially.
But in in attempt to ask answer the question.
Generally it is it is the school district itself through its own staff.
Where someone has if someone has to step in and deal with a dog and a dog owner.
The property they manage that themselves and our bylaw will apply only to city control sports fields playing fields facilities playgrounds that type of thing.
Thank you very much for that clarification.
And on the same topic I can start I believe.
Thank you through the chair.
I was reminded of a question that was brought to my attention between committee and now and that's just regarding the licensing fees.
Recognizing this bylaw proposes some updates.
Can staff just confirm with the licensing fee process would look like with applicants would have to apply to the city of Frankfurt and the CRD or if it's just the one body.
Through through the chair.
Thank you for the question.
The form of contract with the service provider and that's the CRD of course.
It would be the licensing fees are able to the CRD the contract itself has the CRD observing the license fees and any picketing amounts so penalties that come out of violations of the bylaw itself.
And that is seen as because essentially.
The CRD are managing the licensing the canvassing if that's a necessary step.
And enforcement as well as collection of unpaid fines so the contract really does allow that contract to the ability to be fully managing of that aspect.
Thank you I think the comment was just in the spirit of not wanting to.
I encourage pet owners from obtaining a license and wanting to encourage responsible pet ownership so I appreciate that clarification that it's not a duplication of the fee but just in the.
Thank you.
That's correct.
Thank you.
The chair.
Just please super fair on this if someone gets bitten by a dog on school property what do they do because I don't know that there's any.
And the call if you know what I mean.
Who do we.
Thank you for help.
Yes, I may say the chair. There's still under the annual control bylaw, even though the bylaw itself
does not manage the presence of dogs on school property. It is still the mainstay or managing
the behavior of dogs. Everything from the requirement to be licensed. The picking up of
dog droppings and that kind of thing, all falls into the bylaw. Has would any type of an unfortunate
situation like a dog bite, and that would be investigated by the CRD under its contract and
enforcement of this bylaw? Thank you very much. There comes to a comment, I guess, at this point that
we've got to, we've already, for a second, so I think I can move into a comment. This is quite comprehensive
and there's some good news in here about making sure that we're taking good care of animal welfare
is dressed in here as well, and I appreciated that there was a lot of thought went into, I think,
you know, when you do update something to go very comprehensive like this, I thought was very important
step. We'd have so many residents with dogs and it's going to only increase, I believe the
stat was 30% of people have dogs and more people are moving here because we know we're fast growing,
so yes, it's very timely and appreciate the level of detail.
Thank you. My comments before I call the question really due, just go back to the item around the
around the deer. I really do see the benefit in having this explicitly laid out as was originally
recommended by committee. I recognize that this is covered by the province, but so is bear and
other wildlife. In my experience in recognizing this is just anecdotal. I have not looked up the
statistics on this, on whole, but I've had far more things to get run in with deer than I ever have
with bear or cougar, and that's just by many years of work and many years of being out in the bush all
together. Whether that be here within city limits or in the wild, so recognizing that
there are beyond a new sense and they do provide a level of danger to our community.
So personally, I did like to see that as part of this, I recognize that it was an additional
ask on staff and there is the potential for it to be revisited in that in that light, but as it is,
I don't think I can support it without that, as I do think that it was an important addition in the sense
here in some retrospect. So with that, I will follow the question if there are no other comments. All in favor.
And a post. That's just myself a post. Thank you. I will move on to by-law number 2248 and any questions on this item.
Seeing none, if we have a motion for by-law number 2248.
For me, I'll just skip the right page here. Turn the page. I move that counsel.
Give length for zoning by-law number 3751234. Goldstream avenue RT1 text amendment by-law number 2248
2926. First, second and third readings. Thank you. And do we have a second?
Second. Thank you. And answer a webinar. Do you have any motivation on this item?
So this Goldstream site was quite an interesting discussion. Again, every application we get seems to have quite
a bit of nuance to it. Working challenges, there's density concerns, and yet this was just a text
amendment. So there are seven townhouses that were already approved. And this was just to add some
permanent suites, rentals. And I felt that given that there was no parking variance, and we actually reduced
my community. We recommended two units and there's three parking spots. We were trying to be very sensitive
to having enough parking in the area and acknowledging that there's a lot of trees along the road
side there that we want to protect the trees, but not overdue frontage in this particular case.
So it was quite a lengthy discussion. And so at this point, I would continue to support. I didn't
receive other information that would have changed my mind. But I do know there was a lot of community
interest, and that this is challenging area. But I also think this is a nice place for people to live.
So it's, it's an affordability concern having something that is a rental within a townhouse
makes sense as a sort of an opportunity that we don't have a lot of that type of housing for people.
And you do find that in strad as they manage the parking quite well with their static councils,
nobody puts up with the people, breaking all the rules. We went through that as a strad of being
quite into enforcing our strad of bylaws. So I do support this application in terms of it's
being able to provide some homes and it's only two units, which I know for some people feels a lot.
But the seven townhouses were already approved. So along with this application, I guess I would add,
because it came back we are able to add things like heat pumps and the low carbon
concrete policy, and that they will have to park in their garages. So there was some opportunity here
because of the update that I think this is an improvement. Thank you very much. Councillor Hurder and
comments. Thank you. Maybe it's a point of privilege at first. As the secondary I am allowed,
or through the chair. As the secondary I am allowed to vote in opposition. Is that correct?
Absolutely. Once the motion is on for belongs to the floor. Thank you. I appreciate those comments
from Councillor Waigner. I will not be supporting this application. We did hear from residents
in the surrounding neighborhood and previous meetings. I don't think we heard from any tonight.
But just recognizing some of the challenges and concerns that have been expressed to date
and recognizing that this site has been, or this site has been the subject of multiple applications.
I do currently feel that the seven townhouses that this site permits is an appropriate level of
densification or an appropriate level of density rather. I appreciate the applicant looking
to find new ways to encourage home ownership, my home entry. But I'm just not sure that the site is
the particular or is the right fit for that type of suggestion. So I will not be supporting it.
Thank you. And while I've comments as well, I was going to ask Councillor Spock if you wouldn't
before first. I see your hand raised. The floor is yours, Councillor.
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. So yes, we did have a really good discussion at committee about this
and our last council meeting. I think already that the seven townhouse units is significant
density for that area that doesn't really lend itself to active transportation. It is a beautiful
neighborhood. We did hear from the neighbors. However, and we did reduce one of the units taking one
suite out of the units. So it's not perfect, but I am going to support this. We do acknowledge that
home ownership is very, very difficult to attain. So I think there is the mortgage helper
aspect with the suite in the townhouse. And also there's the point of family diversity that I believe
council are very spoke to at the last meeting. Different combinations of families and people that
define themselves as family and they can live comfortably within in one dwelling, sharing it with their
sense of integrity around it. So although on balance it, it isn't perfect, but I think that it
is allowing more residents to move into a very beautiful area. And I hope that in future we can work on
the infrastructure along Goldstream so that people can let their kids get on the bus if there's going to be
better transit down there eventually. And we do have the trail. That is that is along there. And I think
we just need to continue to monitor the challenges on that road, which is basically along the lake.
Thank you. Thank you very much. And it can definitely echo a lot of the comments made. The difficult part
from me with this bylaw is really that we are looking at the text amendment. And we are comparing
what is being proposed not versus what is currently there. Well, rather what was previously
proposed. So we are comparing one set of current laws, the regulations and bylaws, who are previous one,
we don't have the actual visual onsite as what the current situation is. Through this really to highlight
what Councilor Wagner brought forward is that by this text amendment, yes, there are tremendous benefits
that we've been able to add to the community. We are concerns that come up with this as well,
but at the end of the day taking a look at it, I really do believe that these concerns are mitigated
and mitigated primarily. In the fact that we are providing potentially two new homes for two
families by allowing this addition of the rental sweets. And that is a massive benefit in this
time where so many families are struggling to be able to find affordable homes or even find homes at all.
So we've done a lot to ensure that the parking side is being mitigated. We've done a lot to provide
those additional parking spots and the community needs in this. And at the end of the day,
I think it is a bit of that balancing act and I'm very strongly and as a part of this given that
context. So with that, if there is no other comments, I will call the question. All in favor.
And any opposed. That is just a counter harder and opposition.
We will move on to by law number 2250. This is the 1029 Marwood Avenue. If we have any questions on this
before motivation. First, sorry before motion. Say no questions. If we have a motion for this by law.
Thank you. I will move that council give link for zoning by law number 300 amendment number 7254
1029 Marwood Avenue by law number 2250 2026 per second and third readings.
Second. Thank you. Now to you again, Councillor Wagner for motivation.
Thank you. Yes, as you know, chair of the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee and having been
through a process of really digging into what this means. It's quite an interesting application
again. So subdividing and having more density in this area. But I think it was a thoughtful application
of it. It seems to fit with what's already there. There was a layout and part of it is fitting with the
small scale multi unit housing legislation that again, it takes some of the control out of our hands
because when you make these lots, there's a certain density that is proposed by the promise that we'll fit
there. But I saw some improvements to the budget on both Marwood and Brown Road. There was, you know,
addition of heat pumps again and other features that made this application. The museum
perhaps one of those missing middle gentle density type of applications in an area that we know is really
great for families and it is always hard to see all the trees come down as they well when buildings go in
and yet that's that's how this neighborhood has been evolving. So trying to look at this application
in that context, I felt I could support it. Thank you very much and any motivation from yourself,
Gildzarder. Thank you for you not much to add. I would agree with the comments that this is quite a
thoughtful proposal. I do agree that it will fit really well into the existing neighborhood context.
You know, I hear from residents who live in the Happy Valley neighborhood from time to time and
they often just talk about how wonderful it is to live there because of their neighbors,
because of the existing community that's been developed over climb. So I see this as a wonderful addition.
I appreciate the improvements that will be coming to Marwood Road. We're sorry Marwood Avenue and Brown Road
in particular, just recognizing I think Marwood Avenue does tend to see a lot of
vehicle traffic during, before and after school, pick up and strengthen the difference that
I do get hosted at the Luxon Fairgrounds there. So I think overall this is a positive addition
to the neighborhood or this will be a positive addition to the neighborhood and I'm happy to support it.
Thank you very much, Councillor Spock and the comments on this by law.
Nothing further, thank you. Thank you very much. I won't call the question on this one. I'll
give her.
And that was it.
All in favour, so none opposed to that carries. Sorry, my, everything just jumped on me. There we go.
We are now on to 9.5 by a law number 2265. This is the link for station by law any questions before we entertain a motion.
All look for a motion then.
Thank you all move that council give the link for station by law number 2265, 2026, first, second and third readings.
I will second.
Thank you. Any motivation on this?
Thank you. We've had good discussion at committee and earlier this evening during the committee resolutions portion of the meeting. So I'll keep it brief.
Just look forward to these updates coming forward.
And my gratitude to staff as well for all of the time and effort that's put into making solution avenue in the cultural district of wonderful, as it is.
Because it's consistently in area of the cities I hear acclades for and just how much it's allowed, especially downtown residents to connect with their neighbors so.
It was definitely missing for a long time just having that casual third space and it's really developing into a beautiful beautiful asset for our community. So thank you.
Thank you, then.
Thank you. Yeah. I with the questions I asked earlier. I feel quite good about this. I think this area is quite exciting. It's developing.
We see lots of music in the park and food trucks and really appreciate stuff just making it very vibrant.
I go down there quite a bit myself and see different cultural festivals and you know it's great to see so many people coming out that are having a new experience.
You know, I just really loved that kind of lighting festival. I went through this year, learned about Columbia and lighting day to celebrate the beginning of winter.
So I've learned through the station. I think it's great.
And I see that there's a lot of thought put in here as well to supporting indigenous initiatives and artists initiatives.
So I think that we're setting ourselves up for continuing to grow this space and I like what I'm saying.
Thank you very much. Seeing know the comment. I'll call the question on this all in favor.
And that carries unanimously.
Now we're on to by law number two to seven six. This is the sewer utility by law number 1600 is there a staff comment on this as for the background report or just as presented.
I was always to freeze the SCRF and user rates for 2026.
Thank you very much. Are we have any questions on this report from please.
Thank you through the chair.
I'm just wondering if staff can comment or provide a little bit of background on the next on the move away from setting a few structure for five year period and moving towards that annual restructuring that we've been seeing in recent years.
The future the first five year rate setting was from 2015 to 2019 and since that time we've been setting rates on an annual basis.
Over the last couple years we've been doing discussions with.
We've been doing discussions with the second of the two 21 year periods of the agreement and so work fairly working through finalizing a financial model for this period and that will see.
The changes has a result of that financial model and at that time we may be able to set a multi year rates going forward.
If that's a main reason why it's been had done annually.
We've lost years just in anticipation of that information coming forward.
Thank you.
Thank you if I may just build off that do we have a expected online for that for me have someone going to be complete or is that still allow for the term in.
For you.
I would need to be on some time late spring perhaps into the summer.
We're doing currently reviewing and again of our consultants reviewing the information provided by wish room very mental.
We've been updated with some growth projections that needed to be updated as well and so I would expect late spring into summer something coming forward if not before that.
Thank you for the chair I had a similar question but just to clarify this we're looking at financial modeling over the next 25 years of this plan I gather there's a sewer master plan but because it's.
Independent company we don't necessarily see all this information but will we we see a public report on this.
Financial modeling and is it over the life of what I believe would be another 25 years or so.
Through the cherry it's an additional it's another 20 years.
So it was to 21 year terms the first 21 year term yeah inspired or was renewed in September 2025 and so there's like a 20 and a half years remaining in the current agreement and what will come forward.
So I can effectively be looking at rates.
I merely won't necessarily be projecting all of the information I'm going forward by will bring forward if I read setting into the future whether that's a five year period or a three year period initially so that is the information that will.
I'm going to go this year.
Thank you very much do we have a motion for this item at this time.
Please thank you all move that council give sewer utility by law number of.
One six zero zero twenty sixteen amendment number nine by law number two two seven six twenty seven six first second and third readings.
Twenty I think I miss read that it was twenty two seven six twenty three six.
Great I will second as corrected.
Thank you very much and any motivation on this.
Thank you just briefly appreciate the questions and responses from staff that helps clarify things for me.
I also appreciated the report including the comparator graph as well just to kind of get a sense of where link for stands in relation to some of our neighboring municipalities so I will be supporting the motion tonight.
Thank you and council.
Yeah it's it's something we serve.
We have looked at anytime sort of anticipating these ongoing negotiations.
Taking quite some time I'm pleased to see that the rates are frozen this year while we continue to negotiate.
It does say they'll probably have been the future but.
Well I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it so appreciate that there's a lot of ongoing negotiations and I.
Thank you very much seeing no other hands or light so I'll call the question on this all in favor.
And that is unanimous and that carries.
I will move on to item nine point seven this is the revenue anticipation borrowing by law is there a comment from staff on this item or again just the report.
This is effectively a most keeping item it's a requirement of our banking agreements.
This comes forward every year as a result.
The city has never had to borrow through a revenue anticipation borrowing my line and we don't that and this being able to or needing to.
This year the reason why municipalities have these is that because we collect the majority of our income halfway through the year.
And we have a municipality that would be more cash strapped or cash flow strapped may need to borrow in order to cover their expenses for the first six months.
So that's the reason why this is going forward, does they say we don't anticipate it or nothing to use it.
Thank you very much any questions on this item.
If we have a motion.
I would do prepared to move that.
We're going to go wrong page.
Pardon me.
I'm simply ready with the right page.
That council give revenue anticipation borrowing by law number twenty to seven twenty twenty six for a second at their greetings.
How second.
Thank you and any motivation on this item.
So you know I think this was pretty well explained we've seen these each year.
I'm glad to know that we don't budget for it.
We don't anticipate needing to use it, but we do.
Benefit from having it as an opportunity if something really.
You never know.
It might happen so definitely.
It's well named revenue anticipation borrowing.
So yeah, it's a good.
Thank you and any comments.
I'll be in front there.
Thanks.
Thank you.
I will all the question and all in favor.
And that is unanimous as well.
I carries.
And that brings us through by laws.
Next item up is our in camera resolution.
Do we have a motion to go in camera please.
Thank you chair.
I'll move that council close the meeting to the public pursuant section ninety one I and G of the community charter.
You consider the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege.
Including communications necessary for that purpose.
Litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality.
Second.
Thank you.
Thank you everyone who came out tonight.
I will call the question all in favor.
And opposed.
That carries unanimously.
We are heading in camera.
Thank you.