[2:51] Good evening everyone, welcome to the July 27th Special Meeting

[2:54] of Council. I'd like to first recognise we are gathered

[2:57] on the traditional territory, the CNEMIC First Nation. Our clip

[3:00] today is Mishila Gurrie. We have all of Council and

[3:03] Attendants. Tonight's Special Meeting of Council is being held in

[3:06] accordance with the Community Charter and Council Procedure bylaw 208

[3:10] - 208. Pardon me, number 7272. If during the meeting

[3:14] any member of the gallery has a question regarding an

[3:16] agenda item, please write down your name and the agenda

[3:19] item on the question period sign - up sheet, which

[3:22] is on the table to the double doors to my

[3:24] left. Please note that the Council Procedure bylaw states questions

[3:27] will only be taken on staff reports consent items or

[3:30] other business items. Recognising that most of you in attendance

[3:36] night have been a previous Council meetings. I'm not going

[3:38] to go through the long statement about public decorum and

[3:42] no clapping, jeering, or cheering or other demonstrations of emotion

[3:46] from the audience, please. And I trust everyone will be

[3:49] respectful of those basic considerations. First item on the agenda

[3:53] is the introduction of late items, Ms. Gurry. Please, we

[3:56] have some. Yes, thank you, worship, and good evening, council.

[3:59] For late items tonight, we have agenda item 8A Mayor's

[4:02] leaders table. We are replacing the NIMO Accord document with

[4:06] the revised version. For agenda item 12C emissions intensive heavy

[4:13] industry uses. We're adding the following delegations. Number one, Paul

[4:17] Chapman. Number two, Erica Frank. Number three, Andrew, and Alex

[4:21] Hudson Degen, Cheryl Bancroft. Number five, Bethany Ricker, and number

[4:26] six, Carrie Park. For agenda item 3, 13b rezoning application

[4:34] for 2, 2080 and 2160 East Wellington Road. We're adding

[4:38] a presentation from Mark Holland, West Plan Consulting Group. Carl

[4:42] Taes, Highland Properties, and Glen Froze Highland Properties. For agenda

[4:47] item 13C, Development Permit Application for DP1397 - 3679 Shenton

[4:54] Road. We're adding a delegation from Jackson Bo Hammend Roe

[4:59] Architects. For agenda item 13D, we are adding a delegation

[5:03] from David Din. And agenda item 17B Councillor Eastmere Motion

[5:09] regarding the last Lost Intersections Public Art installation. We're adding

[5:13] a delegation from Amelia Jelensoo, and that state - your

[5:17] worship. Thank you very much. Motion for DOPS of the

[5:20] agenda is amended. Move Councillor Thorpe, Secretary Council Perino, all

[5:23] those in favor, any opposed, none. Motion for adoption. The

[5:26] minutes is circulated. Move Councillor Eastmere, Secretary Councillor Hemmons, all

[5:30] those in favor. You oppose none. Mayor's report, I only

[5:36] have two items tonight. The first is very good news.

[5:40] It's to confirm that the Municipal Boundary Extension has received

[5:44] provincial approval, which means that tsunamic First Nation Reserve lands

[5:48] are now included for voting purposes within the municipal boundary.

[5:53] It arose out of a joint request from CENEMIC First

[5:55] Nation and the City of the Nile to expand in

[5:57] album's municipal boundary to include tsunamic reserve lands. Because otherwise

[6:03] they had the right to vote, of course, in all

[6:06] elections, including for school board, but had to vote for

[6:09] regional director. And in particular, this was a bit silly

[6:13] when you consider that IR number one, for instance, is

[6:16] completely surrounded by the jurisdiction of the city of Nanaimo.

[6:21] It is a positive move for this city and a

[6:24] positive move on the Road to Reconciliation and Recognises a

[6:28] long - stranding irritant is the kindest term I can

[6:31] use between the larger community and the snamic First Nation.

[6:36] That is a very good news story. However, it is

[6:43] with great sadness, as I've, knowing him for. 55 years

[6:50] that Nanamo City Councillor, formerly Bill Holden has passed. I

[6:57] first met him as a student at what was then

[7:00] Malespina College. His wife, Willie, and I contested a nomination

[7:06] for a certain political party some years ago. She became

[7:09] my constituency assistant. And I can say that on behalf

[7:16] of Nanaimo City Council and the residents of our community,

[7:20] we extend to Bill's family are sincerest condolences. Many people

[7:25] had the privilege of knowing and working with them. He

[7:29] had very long roots in this community. He was one

[7:33] of that almost the first year, but not quite. The

[7:37] first faculty of Melespina College. He was a professor of

[7:42] English and First Nation Studies at Malspina College University, now

[7:46] VIU from 1970 to 2001. He was an IMO school

[7:51] trustee from 1976 to 1980. And again from 1982 to

[7:57] 86, and during that time he served as chair for

[8:00] five years. He was an Nimble City Councillor and regional

[8:03] board director from 1986 to 96, and again from 1999

[8:09] to 2011. Only our much beloved Lloyd Sherry probably exceeded

[8:15] the length of service to this community. He was in

[8:19] addition in Nanaima Co - op board member from 1998

[8:22] to 99, and he was the Vancouver Regional Library Chair,

[8:26] a position that Councillor Hemmons has held from 2008 to

[8:30] 2010. He devoted years of his life to public service

[8:36] and helping shape the future of this community. He brought

[8:40] dedication in a genuine commitment to that community. He brought

[8:43] those qualities to his role and his contributions helped advance

[8:46] important conversations and decisions that continue to influence our city

[8:50] today. Those who serve uncounsel, we all hope, and I

[8:55] think I can say this of the current council, because

[8:58] they care deeply about the place they call home. Bill

[9:03] Holden was no exception. He believed in animal, and he

[9:06] worked to make our community stronger and better prepared for

[9:08] the future. Public surface often demands long hours, difficult decisions.

[9:15] Incredible personal sacrifice. Particularly in terms of your relationship with

[9:20] your family. And Bill meant those responsibilities with the sincere

[9:24] desire to serve the public interest. And he did it

[9:27] with a smile on his face. He never bore anchor.

[9:30] He was not one of those people who easily criticized

[9:34] anyone around him or criticized those who took a country

[9:37] position. The loss of former Councillor hold him his felt

[9:41] not only by those who knew him, and a personal

[9:45] way, but by the broader community served. As we reflect

[9:47] in his life and legacy, we recognise the lasting value

[9:50] of his contribution and the role he played in an

[9:53] almost civic life. You would be hard - pressed, as

[9:58] I've mentioned by way of service, to find someone who

[10:00] served as long on both the school board and on

[10:03] council. And it is, of course, a mark of our

[10:07] respect. And thanks to him that the Nible City flag

[10:12] at City Hall has been lowered into half - mast

[10:15] in honour of his passing. This gesture reflects our community's

[10:19] gratitude for his years of service and acknowledges the impact

[10:22] he had in an eye when its residents. I might

[10:27] say that when I think of Bill Holden, he reminds

[10:30] me of what the late Hubert Horatio Humphrey said of

[10:35] himself and his life in politics. He was a happy

[10:38] warrior. Bill was our happy warrior. On behalf of the

[10:43] residents, the city of Nanaimo, again, and all members of

[10:46] our council past and present, I offer our heartfelt sympathies

[10:49] and thanks for Bill Hold'em's years of dedication to all

[10:52] of us and to the city he so loved. We

[10:58] have nothing to rise and report on, Ms. Gurrie. The

[11:02] mayor's leaders table, the non - war chord, delighted to

[11:06] welcome Donna Hayes, who's a member of the Mayor's Leaders

[11:09] Table in Colin Stansfield, the chief executive officer of the

[11:13] Nanaima Prosperity Corporation. Is with us tonight is Colin. Not

[11:18] yet, not seen, all right. Ms. Hayes. Welcome, you're no

[11:22] stranger to this podium, and to service the community. Thank

[11:25] you for all you do. Your worship and Council, thank

[11:29] you very much for entertaining our conversation today. Colin sends

[11:34] his regrets. He is on vacation with his family. On

[11:37] the beautiful sunshine coast. So it was about a year

[11:40] ago today that I came before this council on behalf

[11:43] of the mayor's leaders team and asked for your support

[11:46] in working on a strategic planning session with various organisations,

[11:53] institutions, and community leaders within our community. And I am

[11:57] very proud today to come and give you an update

[12:00] of what has happened during the course of the last

[12:02] 12 months. Hopefully all of you had an opportunity to

[12:05] read through the documents that we previously submitted, and I

[12:09] want to start the presentation with the opening line of

[12:12] our preamble, and it's that Nanaimo stands at a moment

[12:15] of consequence and possibility. And I have to say that

[12:20] everyone that came to the table to have these conversations

[12:23] about what the future of the Naimo and what is

[12:26] impact to Vancouver Island could be. None of us came

[12:29] to the table thinking that there was possibility and consequence.

[12:33] We came to the table knowing that there was. And

[12:37] we came with the intent of putting it on paper

[12:40] to come together to share tonight and with our various

[12:43] organisations about what we think we can bring to the

[12:46] future growth and prosperity of NaNimo and Central Vancouver Island

[12:50] as a region. Quickly, I want to share with you

[12:54] who was at the table. The city of Nanaimo, The

[12:57] Mayor Representative, the city of the Nanaimo along with many

[13:00] of your staff members. SFN and Petroglyph Developments was at

[13:04] the table. The port authority, the airport, Vancouver Island University,

[13:10] the school district, the Chamber of Commerce, the Nanaimo Foundation,

[13:14] the Nanamo District Hospital Foundation, and Ireland Health all came

[13:18] together in five sessions to talk about what the future

[13:21] of our community means to the people who live, work,

[13:24] and play here. So what we came away with wasn't

[13:32] what we thought we were going to come away with

[13:33] at the first meeting. We've come away with a document

[13:37] that we're introducing you tonight as the Nanaimo Accord. It's

[13:41] a shared commitment to move with purpose, coordinated action, and

[13:45] build lasting prosperity across Nanaimo, and I would say the

[13:49] region, because as I share what's in the document and

[13:52] how we intend to move forward with the document you're

[13:55] going to see, it's not just the people in Animal

[13:57] we're talking about. It is definitely the people on Vancouver

[14:00] Island and the impact that we will have to those

[14:03] not only here, but in British Columbia and in Canada

[14:06] as we move forward. So why did this process matter?

[14:12] And why does it need to happen now? And it's

[14:14] because we strongly feel that we are entering a decade,

[14:17] we're isolated effort will no longer be enough. We're acting

[14:20] independently on independent projects will not get us the results

[14:25] that we need. We need to act with one voice

[14:28] as one community. We are no longer speaking as individuals

[14:32] or individual organisations. We are truly speaking as a community

[14:36] moving forward. Growth is accelerating the demand for housing. Every

[14:41] one of you here knows these pieces. Healthcare, major infrastructure,

[14:45] we're all searching globally for talent and services to relocate

[14:49] here and to provide those services to our community. Major

[14:53] public and indigenous led investments are moving at the same

[14:57] time. Senior governments and investors need to see one coherent

[15:01] Nanaimo story. The opportunity is real, and so is the

[15:07] need for alignment between our organisations. So where the Accord

[15:11] came from, the concept was bred at the mayor's leaders

[15:15] table where we identified the need for a shared civic

[15:19] vision and framework for moving forward. We came to you,

[15:23] we shared that with your blessing. We went forward to

[15:25] the Community Partners that I mentioned, and we had our

[15:28] five meetings over the course of this last year with

[15:30] the last one happening this past Thursday. At those meetings,

[15:35] each of the partners was asked to share their visions,

[15:38] their strategic plans, and the impact that they thought they

[15:40] could bring to the community. And what change could happen

[15:44] if they were actually to partner on some of those

[15:47] opportunities. And I can tell you that from that table,

[15:51] major conversations are already happening before we ratify the Accord.

[15:55] Things like Workforce Housing in the health care sector to

[15:59] enlarge our next project, whether it's our cardiovascular intervention centre

[16:04] at the hospital or our tower, which will mean We're

[16:11] already working on a joint project at that table on

[16:13] what daycare and what workforce housing would look like just

[16:17] by actually having meetings and talking about what our shared

[16:20] visions could be. We put forward a portfolio where we

[16:25] institutions put together their high impact projects, and we created

[16:29] a document. And then we've put together the Nanaimo Accord.

[16:33] The process was designed to coordinate without control partners to

[16:37] remain owners of their own plans while aligning around shared

[16:40] purposes. So here's what the Accord is, and I want

[16:44] it to be clear you were given two documents in

[16:47] your package. You were given a short documents about five

[16:50] pages long. It has a preamble. And then you were

[16:53] given an accord. And then you were given a second

[16:56] document which speaks to transformational projects where partnerships can be

[17:00] realised. The transformational projects page will grow and change. It's

[17:05] a living document. So it is not a stagnant piece.

[17:09] It will continue to be developing and growing with the

[17:13] partners at the table and new partners who see the

[17:16] vision for what Nanaimo can be who want to invest

[17:18] here, what they can bring to the table. So what

[17:21] the Accord is, is a statement of our shared values

[17:24] and ambitions. It's a compass for aligned action and investment.

[17:28] And it's an invitation to work together under a common

[17:31] banner. But here's what it is not. It's not a

[17:36] bylaw, a formal policy or a legal agreement. It is

[17:39] not a replacement for the city plan or partner strategies.

[17:42] It is not a financial commitment or new bureaucracy. This

[17:46] is not new red tape. This is not new government

[17:49] restrictions. This is about moving forward, not moving backwards. And

[17:55] endorsement signals alignment. It does not create legal or financial

[17:58] obligations in any ways to any of the people signing

[18:02] the Accord. So when you look through the Accord, you

[18:06] read our preamble. I read our first statement from that.

[18:10] What the CORD specifically does is it defines our guiding

[18:14] principles. And our values. Who are we? And we've defined

[18:18] them as a group. It also talks about what our

[18:23] collective ambitions are and what our success looks like. So

[18:26] in essence, it says who we are, how we're going

[18:29] to act together, and what is the definition of success.

[18:34] And then the portfolio is the transformational projects I talked

[18:37] about. And it's an invitation for others to join us.

[18:41] It's an invitation for those that are already in community

[18:44] to invest in strategic projects and guidelines. And it's an

[18:48] invitation for those who aren't here to come here and

[18:51] join us and be part of the prosperity. We believe

[18:54] that we're bringing to Vancouver Island. So in essence, it's

[18:58] one document with two jobs. It holds the shared civic

[19:02] community study and translates that commitment into visible, coordinated actions

[19:07] without comes. The core promise. We align policy capital infrastructure

[19:15] and talent so that success is one area unlocked success

[19:18] in other areas. So I have recently seen this in

[19:23] Ottawa. This is how tangible this piece and how important

[19:26] this piece is. I had the opportunity to have an

[19:29] invitation to the Minister of Infrastructure's Office to meet with

[19:32] staff. And I did that. I did that wearing two

[19:35] hats. I did that with the port authority to share

[19:38] the nation building project that the port is working on.

[19:41] And I've shared that nation building project at this table.

[19:44] I also went as the chair of the fair care

[19:47] alliance to discuss what fair and equitable access to health

[19:51] care looks like for those of us that live on

[19:53] Vancouver Island. And what a cardiovascular centre could look like.

[19:57] And I could see the eyes in the room glaze

[19:59] over and see people say, well, you're here asking for

[20:02] one project. So I started talking about, well, no, we're

[20:06] talking about workforce housing and health care. We're talking about

[20:09] veteran and senior's housing. We're talking about daycare to attract

[20:13] workers. We're talking about reimplementation of rail on Vancouver Island.

[20:18] And I started seeing that spark in the staff's eyes.

[20:22] So I left that meeting. And if you've been to

[20:24] Ottawa, you know, you go to your next meeting and

[20:25] your next meeting. And about three meetings in, we get

[20:28] a call that says, I know you're flying out today

[20:30] at 550. And there's a major ice storm in Ottawa.

[20:34] It's going to be a bit of a trial to

[20:35] get to the airport. The minister would like you to

[20:38] stay till question period, which I happened to know ends

[20:41] at 3. 30. He's not going to make it till

[20:43] 4. My flight's at 550. He needs to talk to

[20:47] you about what's happening in Nanaimo. The federal government is

[20:53] very interested in communities that can show a stacked infrastructure

[20:59] plan, how you are leveraging what you are building to

[21:02] provide prosperity and opportunities in other areas. That got myself

[21:07] and my port CEO who's here with me this evening.

[21:10] That got us directly into a meeting with the Minister

[21:12] to talk about what's happening in Nanaimo and very much

[21:16] an excited minister saying these are the kind of projects

[21:19] we can support. I did not have the accord. We

[21:24] need to have this document so we can be sharing

[21:27] it with those levels of government about how we are

[21:29] aligning on our values, our principles, our ambitions. Because in

[21:34] essence, we are aligning our culture, our conduct and tying

[21:37] them into outcomes. So this is just a brief example

[21:43] of what you'll find in the transformational project documents that

[21:48] is attached. We have highlighted to start with three major

[21:53] projects from three organisations. Now here's the reason why. These

[21:57] projects actually all overlap each other in a lot of

[21:59] ways. Taytuxon was a project introduced by SFN. I know

[22:05] everybody at this table is familiar with what's happening there

[22:07] and what a visionary project that is. How exciting that

[22:10] is for our community. It involves housing. It involves recreation.

[22:15] It involves economic growth and development. If I have to

[22:19] explain about the NRGH expansion, I have not been doing

[22:23] my job as the chair of fair care alliance. And

[22:26] I will apologise, but I'm pretty sure you're all up

[22:28] to date with what's happening with health care and how

[22:31] critical it is. If you also don't know about what's

[22:35] happening with port expansion, I've also let you down there.

[22:37] But, um, as I mentioned, we have a nation building

[22:40] project which ties rail into our deep sea port, which

[22:44] ties directly into some of the mandates coming out of

[22:47] Ottawa. I can tell you that ministers are pointing to

[22:51] Nanaimo as their biggest opportunity in Canada for growth. And

[22:56] how we can affect Canada as a whole. So why

[23:00] are these projects important? Well, they all mean that we

[23:02] need training programs. I had the privilege along with the

[23:05] mayor being up at VIU this past week to speak

[23:08] with the minister who was announcing 64 more seats in

[23:11] our apprenticeship programs. And to talk about the importance of

[23:14] VIU to us as community. They are part of this

[23:17] Accord. They will need to provide training for every single

[23:20] one of these projects that's listed here. The school district

[23:24] is involved in every one of these projects. As is

[23:27] are not - for - profits who will benefit from

[23:29] these projects and opportunity. So these are the first three

[23:33] projects to appear in our transformational project list. And I'm

[23:40] pushing the button, but this is not doing anything else.

[23:44] Uh, there it goes. So how the Accord is going

[23:46] to be used. We're going to use it to align

[23:48] our partners. We're going to use it for investment attraction.

[23:53] We're going to use it at senior levels of government

[23:56] to show how we are actually truly partnering with each

[23:59] other as community to be impactful and bring prosperity to

[24:03] our community. And we're going to use it for public

[24:06] communication. And what does endorsement mean. We're here this evening

[24:12] for a specific purpose. And just so we're clear, every

[24:15] organisation I list it is going through this exact same

[24:18] process. So as an example, the port authority board will

[24:22] be bringing back this back to our port board in

[24:25] September for them to endorse this document. All of the

[24:29] organisations I list will be signatories to this document signing

[24:33] on that they are actively participating in this process. So

[24:37] we are here tonight as our next step in the

[24:39] Accord to ask Council to endorse the Accord as it's

[24:42] been put forward. We recognise and for you to recognise

[24:46] the Accord as a shared civic touchstone to support partners

[24:49] using it to align advocacy in action. And a state

[24:53] that you are ready to work with others under a

[24:55] common banner. So next steps was this meeting. As I

[25:00] mentioned, every other partner group who has been part of

[25:03] this process is meeting with their boards because we all

[25:06] have boards that we answer to, um, to get sign

[25:09] off with the plan to get sign off, um, early

[25:12] this fall. It seemed like everybody's having their board meeting

[25:15] in the same week in September. So, uh, we will

[25:17] work our way through that. We will then be meeting

[25:20] with our provincial and our federal local leaders to be

[25:25] sharing the Accord and what impact we believe that it

[25:27] can have on community. And then we'll be sharing that

[25:30] further with groups like through VAEA and other organisations, um,

[25:35] moving forward to show as a leadership role what Nanaimo

[25:38] is doing. And I truly believe as we talk about

[25:41] these projects and we look at this process, this isn't

[25:44] just about an animal. This is about everybody who lives

[25:47] on Vancouver Island. I set it to the minister last

[25:50] week at VIU. How many cities that are not urban

[25:55] centres can boast a port authority can boast a university

[25:59] can boast a tertiary hospital can boast an airport. We

[26:04] have them all. That means we have all of the

[26:08] opportunity. And we are strongly aligned with our First Nations

[26:13] leaders. And so tonight I am here on behalf of

[26:16] the mayor's leaders table to ask the city of Nanaimo

[26:19] to sign on to the Accord and work with our

[26:22] group as we move forward in partnership with the other

[26:25] organisations in the city of the Nymal to truly bring

[26:28] prosperity to our community. Thank you. Thank you very much,

[26:35] Ms. Hayes. Much appreciated. We have a couple of questioners.

[26:38] Council Armstrong and Council Eastmear, please. Thank you, through your

[26:42] worship. Um, when you talk about public communication, how are

[26:45] you going to get that out to the public. Um,

[26:47] so there will be multiple faucets. We will all, um,

[26:51] how we've talked about it, but still to be determined

[26:53] by boards is we will all share it through our

[26:56] websites, through our social media pieces. Um, and that would

[26:59] include the city of the Nanaimo posting that you signed

[27:01] on to your pieces. Um, we have not planned any

[27:05] community meetings around sharing this, but we will do it

[27:07] that way and through our social media. So the big

[27:10] consistent messaging through all the partners. Correct. Thank you. Thank

[27:16] you, Council Read. Thank you through you. Thank you for

[27:20] this. I found it very interesting document to read and

[27:23] it was nice to see what I think is a

[27:26] shared vision that I think we've all sort of understood

[27:28] for a while, but to have it concisely written in

[27:31] this way is helpful. Um, I think my feedback in

[27:36] reading it, they're like page four and five, the items

[27:39] with the bolded text and then the item underneath. It

[27:42] wasn't clear to me like how to read those necessarily

[27:46] because there's equal spacing. So I think the bold text

[27:49] and then the, you know, the non - bold underneath

[27:52] kind of putting them together would make it clear that

[27:53] those are like little headings. Just from like an accessibility

[27:57] perspective, um, because you're touching on some pretty different issues

[28:00] there. I just wonder, do you think that it might

[28:03] make sense for council to wait on endorsing it until

[28:08] the other partners have given their feedback just because the

[28:11] cities, the convener of the committee and if changes need

[28:13] to be made that that, that, that could be something

[28:15] that council would then, um, have a chance to review

[28:20] how it went over with everyone else and endorse it.

[28:22] So I have two comments. My first is you have

[28:25] an election in October. And the boards to sign off.

[28:28] So I would, I don't know what your process is

[28:30] getting near the end before the election starts. Would hate

[28:32] the opportunity because this council really brought this group together

[28:36] to form this process. So my personal feeling is you

[28:40] should own this process. Um, the other piece is every

[28:44] single person who sat at the table was either a

[28:46] CEO, a CAO or a board chair of an organisation.

[28:50] So this wasn't, um, our staff populating, um, these meetings.

[28:55] And we've already all reviewed the documents at that level

[28:59] and already done our feedback for changes. So to your

[29:02] point about, you know, highlighting this are not high, some

[29:04] of those things may change. Um, my recommendation would be

[29:10] to, uh, for this council to support the Accord and

[29:17] principle. And if there were any major changes to be

[29:19] brought back to your attention after we've all had the

[29:21] chance to go back to our boards. Okay. That's, that's

[29:27] helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hemmons and Councillor Prinum.

[29:32] Thank you, worship. And thank you, Ms. Hayes, for being

[29:34] here and all of your work on this. Um, I

[29:36] had, uh, I had the opportunity to attend a couple

[29:39] of these meetings and they were very interesting. And, um,

[29:42] I just want to comment on the point you just

[29:43] made. These are the powerhouses in an animal that are

[29:47] sitting around this table. We have all of the major

[29:49] economic players. It's been fascinating. My question for you, um,

[29:55] it's been, it's wild to know that so many CAOs

[29:58] can coalesce upon three ideas for Nanaimo. Were there any

[30:03] others that were left off that there was a lot

[30:05] of interest in or was it a solid buy -

[30:07] in for these three. For the transformational projects? Yes. Yeah.

[30:12] So I want to say that every single organisation brought

[30:15] a minimum of one project to the table. And everyone

[30:19] agreed that these were the top three. Now, I do

[30:23] want to say that at previous renderings of the mayor's

[30:28] leaders table where we concentrated on infrastructure, we brought four

[30:31] 23 projects. The hospital and the port projects were the

[30:35] top of that group in that last whole process that

[30:38] we went through as well. And the reason is, is

[30:40] because the huge amount of overlap. So, um, you know,

[30:43] the airport brought forward projects. They need some of the

[30:46] pieces, the ports working on to support their projects. So

[30:49] if the pieces, the ports working on happen, then their

[30:52] pieces will fall in as well. As an example. Um,

[30:57] VIU will have some upcoming projects, but they want to

[31:01] be more recognised as being the education piece as they're

[31:05] transforming right now into the powerhouse that they will be

[31:08] to support these industries going forward. And so one thing

[31:12] that will be attached, in addition to the transformational projects,

[31:15] is a profile of each of the part of each

[31:18] of the partners. To highlight. But as I said, that

[31:21] document is to be living and to be changing. So

[31:24] it was brought up specifically, huge emphasis right now on

[31:29] rail, even though that's part of the port strategic plan.

[31:32] And if you delve into that, you get more information

[31:34] about what the recommendations on rail are. But that's a

[31:37] strategic piece that will become to the head as some

[31:40] of these other pieces get accomplished. Thank you very much.

[31:44] Uh, this has my full support. Thank you. Thank you.

[31:47] Councillor Prino. Thank you. Your worship and absolutely has my

[31:52] soul, my full support. Question for you. As you go

[31:56] through projects and you reach success, will you continue on

[31:59] with thee. And I'm a court as a group meeting

[32:03] how often. So I believe the right to talk right

[32:06] now is that we're probably going to meet twice a

[32:07] year. Okay. Um, but the intent is to continue to

[32:10] meet. We understand players at that table will change as

[32:14] people retire or new people come in. But to keep

[32:16] that core group, um, together. Yes. We will continue to

[32:19] meet these projects are going to be done in a

[32:23] year. No. Right. We know a hospital tower. Yeah. I

[32:27] like to say eight years could be 10 years. Um,

[32:30] our port strategy is a 20 year strategy. And so

[32:34] we will continue to meet to push these projects forward.

[32:39] Yes. So you've only got three projects that you're really

[32:41] concentrating on. How many, what's kind of the, is it

[32:46] only ever going to be three or are you just

[32:48] going? No, we're going to add to it as a

[32:50] group as priorities emerge. I think we all know this.

[32:54] Our federal government, for instance, has been fairly clear on

[32:56] what their priorities are. We need to be flexible and

[32:59] nimble to be able to respond to opportunities for funding

[33:01] from them. Yes. The province has made a couple of

[33:04] things clear. I particularly look at health care. Um, well,

[33:08] the budget was not, uh, was not really positive overall.

[33:12] Let's be quite honest in terms of healthcare for Nanaimo,

[33:15] it was positive. Our long - term care beds and

[33:17] we're digging there right now. So we need to concept

[33:20] plan. And the concept plan that's getting started and island

[33:24] health is committed to the 12th. That's why island health

[33:26] is also at this table. Um, so it is important

[33:29] for this group to remain together, but to remain nimble.

[33:32] And that's why the transformational project piece is a living

[33:35] document. Good. Because if we need to pivot because our

[33:38] federal government, uh, make something else a priority. And one

[33:43] of us has that in our strategic plan. We need

[33:45] to be able to pull that forward, go together for

[33:47] the funding and implement that right away. Excellent. So good

[33:50] to have you here. Always, always want to see you

[33:53] here. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councillor Brown and

[33:56] Councillor Guesslebrook. Thanks. You worship and thanks for the presentation.

[34:00] I'm just curious on the process in which new projects

[34:04] get added or subtracted from the transformational projects portfolio. So

[34:09] some will get deleted as they get accomplished. Um, which

[34:12] I think is a given. Projects will get added as

[34:15] I previously mentioned as different levels of government bring forward.

[34:20] Emerging concepts or stress other things like defence right now

[34:25] is fairly important to our federal government. Um, we at

[34:28] the port, for instance, know that there are lots of

[34:30] projects around ship building and whatnot. So that might be

[34:32] a transformational piece that has to be added or changed.

[34:35] And the document. The other thing is, is the reason

[34:38] that we want the, so I can be quite honest.

[34:41] This accord could be very quiet between the groups that

[34:44] are at the table. We could just go off and

[34:46] do our thing in private. We are very intentionally making

[34:49] it public and inviting other organisations to come forward and

[34:54] share their concepts or ideas that they think should be

[34:57] added or part of the process. Because there will be

[34:59] other opportunities that arise out of these projects that, that

[35:04] can't maybe be implemented by the people at the table.

[35:07] And we'll involve other people. We also want to be

[35:09] able to use the document for other people who want

[35:12] to invest in this community to come forward and bring

[35:14] forward their pieces and projects. And so that, those pieces,

[35:18] that's why we need to remain nimble to be able

[35:20] to take those away that maybe become redundant or have

[35:23] been completed, but to add those which rise in importance.

[35:28] If I may just thank you for that. And I'm

[35:30] just curious. So if the new project that gets added,

[35:34] does it require signatures again by everybody? No, because the

[35:37] signatures, um, I would say that it would require the

[35:40] group to come together and say, yes, it merits the

[35:43] importance. So whatever group would have to come and do,

[35:45] we all did presentations to the whole group with visual

[35:48] strategic plans and all of that to talk about how,

[35:50] and then we had sessions where we talked about how

[35:52] we could leverage each other's assets to maybe make the

[35:54] project more impactful. Um, and so whoever that group is

[35:58] would have to come and talk to the group about

[36:00] that. Um, but they will not be, the court is

[36:03] signed by the people that are at the table. There

[36:05] won't be new signatories to it, but new projects from

[36:07] outside groups could be added with the support of the

[36:09] group. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you, Councillor Gesselbrook.

[36:15] Great. Uh, thank you, Mayor, through you. Um, yeah, I

[36:18] really appreciate the work that, uh, went into this and

[36:21] you're reading through the values and the, um, principals and

[36:26] the ambitions. I'm like, Oh man, I can use some

[36:27] of this for my campaign platform. And I just reading

[36:31] some of the things like, uh, guiding values rooted and

[36:34] regenerative, restoring ecosystems, circulating wealth locally and creating lasting generational

[36:39] opportunities. Um, also, uh, principle of rewarding coordination, putting shared

[36:46] priorities first and recognising that collaboration achieves more than working

[36:49] in silos. For some of these ambitions like making housing

[36:53] childcare and essential needs more attainable, protecting forest rivers and

[36:57] shorelines as vital community infrastructure and building an entrepreneurial city

[37:01] hall that matches private sector energy with public purpose. And

[37:04] I guess my question is, is that these are all

[37:07] very beautiful things. And then you look at the projects

[37:09] like expanding the hospital and expanding the port, which will

[37:14] bring significant growth. And I think we've kind of moved

[37:16] past growth for growth sake. And these principles and values

[37:22] are really wonderful things. And spoken. I'm just curious, how

[37:25] do you foresee this according accountability between all the appart

[37:31] that we're going to experience? We're doing it in a

[37:33] way, in a good way. That is protecting, you know,

[37:36] these, these shared assets that we have environmentally, you know,

[37:39] funding and supporting the people that live here in the

[37:42] workers and keeping that wealth circulating locally. I'm just curious

[37:46] around how you foresee the accountability and how this accord

[37:49] could support that. So one of the things that I

[37:51] think is critical about the court is it is about

[37:54] accountability. So currently there are other than, and I'll speak

[37:59] as the chair of the port authority board. So currently

[38:02] as the port authority, when we do a project, we

[38:04] have to meet all sorts of standards, both federally and

[38:07] provincially, whether that's Department of Fisheries, whether that's transport ministry,

[38:11] whatever those things are. But I can do that project

[38:15] or we can do that project in isolation on our

[38:18] own without actually going back to those in community that

[38:23] would be impacted and saying, Hey, what are your opinions

[38:26] of what can you bring to the table? How should

[38:28] we do this in partnership? There is the, a cord

[38:31] is about creating that accountability. And going back to those

[38:35] partners and having those conversations and creating those relationships. Now

[38:41] the last year, all of those relationships have just been

[38:45] strengthened. I'm not saying they didn't exist before, but they

[38:47] didn't exist like they exist now. And so I think

[38:51] the perfect example is, and I'm going to use your

[38:54] self - end community centre as the perfect example. When

[38:57] the mayor's leaders table previously convened and did our infrastructure

[39:02] list, we talked about projects that were not about a

[39:05] single purpose. But that encompassed other purposes. And they included

[39:10] things like, how does it affect health care? How do

[39:12] they play into transportation? Where does policing play a role?

[39:16] What's going on with daycare? Don't just look at it

[39:19] as a single project, but put all of those pieces

[39:22] into it. And so as we move forward, we're looking

[39:25] to move forward as community as opposed to individuals. And

[39:30] when we think about projects, how does that impact or

[39:32] how do you work with other organisations moving forward? That's

[39:35] what the Accords about. That's its intent and its purpose

[39:38] is to create that accountability on the things we agree

[39:41] on. Not me picking, well, we're, you know, we care

[39:44] about number one, number four, number five. It's about, we

[39:47] care about all six items on those page as a

[39:50] community. And so we are all going to work together

[39:53] to achieve all six items on that page. Great. Thank

[39:57] you. Yeah. I think working in silos always, uh, leads

[40:00] to poor outcomes. So I think this greater integration in

[40:03] open dialogue on what we want to pursue and how

[40:06] we do it is great stuff. So thank you. In

[40:09] order Councillor Storpe and then Menley. Thank you very much.

[40:12] Your worship through you. If I may. Thank you, Miss

[40:14] Hayes, for being here tonight and for all the work

[40:16] you do in our community. It's much appreciated. I enjoyed

[40:19] reading this report. And I found very interesting. Um, I

[40:25] suspect Council will be, uh, quite willing to support it.

[40:29] I was especially interested in your comments regarding global supply

[40:34] chains and the dangers that we're seeing there of fragmentation.

[40:39] Uh, the scarcity of industrial land and the systems required

[40:43] to move goods, uh, and you mentioned rail. And I'm,

[40:47] I'm curious in looking forward to reading more detail about

[40:52] that because it's something that we keep mentioning, but we

[40:56] don't seem to be making progress on it. Um, my

[41:00] question to you is this. As I said, I think

[41:02] I suspect Council will be highly supportive. But in terms

[41:05] of governance, there is a saying first heard deferred. And

[41:10] my question is, would it be satisfactory to you for

[41:14] Council to wait and vote on accepting, uh, or endorsing

[41:20] this accord in September. As opposed to immediately tonight so

[41:23] that we have a chance if we wish to hear

[41:26] staff comments on it first. I kind of shared my

[41:34] comments a little earlier on my thought about this. And

[41:37] my thought about this is that. I would like to

[41:40] see this council take a leadership role. On signing the

[41:43] Accord. I feel strongly that the mayor convened the mayor's

[41:48] leaders table. And it started way back in COVID to

[41:51] find out how our community could survive a pandemic when

[41:54] nobody knew the answer to that question. And then it

[41:57] came together to identify things like what are the major

[42:00] infrastructure pieces? What's the donut economy? How do we keep

[42:02] youth engaged in our community. And it has evolved to

[42:07] where we are now to where we actually have this

[42:10] engagement from all these other organisations. And really that seed

[42:16] started at the mayor's leaders table started through the mayor

[42:18] in this council, putting together that group to say, we

[42:21] need to have a voice and do something different than

[42:23] other communities are doing. Now I want to say that

[42:25] Victoria has done something similar. But in our view, not

[42:30] as impactful or as directed as this is with the

[42:33] specific partners that our group has. I think it would

[42:37] send a very strong signal to the other partners that

[42:41] this council believes that they started the conversation at the

[42:45] Mayor's Leaders table, and they are endorsing this process going

[42:48] forward and are taking a leadership stand on that piece.

[42:51] I think that would speak volumes that this council took

[42:54] that leadership stand. All right. Thank you. I appreciate your

[42:58] candor and I'll be happy to support it myself. But

[43:01] I'll wait to see the will of council. Thank you.

[43:04] Thank you, Councillor Manley. Uh, thank you your worship and

[43:08] through you. Thank you for the presentation. Um, this, this

[43:11] is a very, uh, important document I think. And I

[43:15] really appreciate the process of bringing things to the table.

[43:19] Um, when, uh, the different organisations are speaking with ministers.

[43:24] Is there kind of an expectation that they're going to

[43:26] be promoting some of these core projects. When they're speaking

[43:33] with ministers from provincial or federal government? You'll find that

[43:35] those of us that are part of this process are

[43:37] already doing that. And we are co - hosting ministers

[43:41] as they come to community. So you will have seen

[43:44] Minister Fahrenworth, our provincial transport minister was here a couple

[43:47] of weeks ago. He was hosted by the port authority

[43:50] by the city of the Dynamo Unsugnamo working jointly together

[43:53] to bring ministers here. We have another invitation to federal

[43:56] ministers happening in November. It's the same piece. We're all

[43:59] inviting them to come together. Yeah. All of these things

[44:02] are very connected. What would you say before that, uh,

[44:06] if we're going to do a port expansion, we need

[44:09] hospital and health care. Yes. We're going to need workforce

[44:12] housing. Yes. So all of those things are, are integrated.

[44:15] I really appreciate the fact that when you go to

[44:18] Ottawa that you're pitching multiple projects, because I think it's

[44:21] pretty important. And it shows that we have it. That

[44:24] we have it together. And also, um, maybe just comment

[44:27] on the RDN, our commitment at the hospital board to

[44:32] increase taxes. I know people don't really like tax increases,

[44:36] but it's really important for getting these kind of projects

[44:38] done. Yeah. Well, I'll put on my fair care hat

[44:41] for a minute here then. I can't speak highly enough

[44:47] of the work that the RDM board has done particularly

[44:49] over the last four years. Um, we would be in,

[44:54] we would not be in the provincial budget with the

[44:58] long - term care beds. And we would not be

[45:00] on page 69 with a commitment of this provincial government

[45:04] to invest in acute care services at NRGH. If the

[45:08] RDN had not stood up and taken a leadership role

[45:11] in the conversation. There's not a chance. You didn't see

[45:15] any other municipality in this province stand up in a

[45:18] leadership role that way and do that. And therefore you

[45:22] saw no other region in this province granted their health

[45:26] care projects. Burnaby lost face two of their hospital. Seven

[45:30] Communities in BC lost their long - term care bets.

[45:34] The leadership rule that the RDN has taken, and I

[45:37] pay taxes like everybody else. So I don't like saying

[45:41] that we need to pay more taxes, but I was

[45:43] there with MSA, with the hospital foundation board, encouraging the

[45:49] RDN to increase what they're putting away for health care.

[45:53] Because we can't expect our children to have to pay

[45:55] for it all. We need to participate in it now.

[45:59] And taking the leadership role and the stance that you

[46:01] did, um, with respect to the cardiovascular intervention centre has

[46:06] given fair care of the ability to have this argument

[46:09] for special funding to come to our community at the

[46:13] federal government level. And that has never happened. So yes,

[46:17] this community, and that's why I'm encouraging this council tonight

[46:20] to once again, take a leadership role in a project

[46:23] like this because the RDN has done it. This council

[46:27] did it informing the mayor's leaders table. I know that

[46:30] this council, our leaders and are doing things that other

[46:33] communities are just or not doing. I appreciate that. I'm

[46:37] fully ready to support this. I think it's a great

[46:39] document. And I think we're, we're going in a very

[46:41] positive direction. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hemmons. Thank you.

[46:47] Worship. If you're open to it, I would like to

[46:49] move that Nanaimo City Council endorsed an IMO Accord. Secretary

[46:54] Pantheon. Just speak to it. No, thank you. Councillor Geselbrock.

[46:58] Thanks, actually another question for the delegation, if that's okay.

[47:02] Uh, thank you. Um, just in terms of, uh, The

[47:05] Hospital Expansion and the port expansion, um, it's going to

[47:09] require a lot of people to work there. And, uh,

[47:13] housing affordability has been, uh, major issue in the community.

[47:16] I think, you know, when we were writing the numbers,

[47:19] like 80 percent of people, you know, pay the rent

[47:24] here or purchase a house, you know, if they're going

[47:27] to spend more than 30 percent of their income And

[47:31] that availability to, to how those people that will be

[47:34] doing the work is a major, uh, choke point in

[47:37] being able to provide the services that we need here.

[47:40] Was that discussed much as a gap and something that

[47:45] in need of being able to be addressed as a

[47:49] core project in the community and to text and project

[47:52] address that a little bit. I guess curious how to,

[47:54] how is addressing affordability to actually like be able to

[47:58] provide the workers for this growth. So we've actually talked

[48:01] about this at length. Um, I want to say that

[48:05] we are taking a unique perspective on it. And so

[48:08] we already have a project that's going to come forward.

[48:13] Um, you'll probably see some announcements about it over the

[48:16] next six months or so as we get into a

[48:18] little bit more. But I will use the hospital as

[48:21] the example. They're 3, 200 employees who work their currently.

[48:25] The hospital foundation has done a survey about how many

[48:27] of those employees feel that they need access to workforce

[48:30] housing. Um, it was in the realm of 1400 employees

[48:35] felt that they would, if they could access workforce housing,

[48:38] that would help them with affordability. Um, and so, uh,

[48:42] the hospital foundation. And they're not the only foundation of

[48:46] their type. Colonna, I believe has done something similar on

[48:49] a much smaller scale. Um, we have created a strategic

[48:53] partnership working with the school district around two things. One

[48:56] is daycare. Now our project did not get approved in

[48:59] the budget to add 100 seat daycare at the Hospital

[49:02] campus. Um, but that doesn't mean we're not moving forward,

[49:05] uh, with it working on strategic plans for it outside

[49:08] of the box. So the one thing that we found,

[49:12] and you all know this, because you hear me talk

[49:13] about healthcare is we have to get outside of the

[49:15] box on how we fund projects. And so that means

[49:18] employer engagement in what workforce housing looks like. And so

[49:22] the hospital foundation currently, I said on their board as

[49:25] well, we are working on a hundred unit workforce housing

[49:28] as a start and a hundred seat daycare that will

[49:31] go a long ways to supporting currently what's happening with

[49:34] hospital workers. Other large employers in town are going to

[49:37] have to have similar conversations, but now the plan is

[49:41] to move forward in those conversations in partnerships with other

[49:43] groups. So as opposed to taking it on just on

[49:48] your own as an organisation, it's about strategically partnering with

[49:51] other groups about what that looks like. Great. Thank you.

[49:55] And so it sounds like that conversation is happening within

[49:57] the partners of the Accord. Is that something or a

[50:00] bubbling project that could allow greater collaboration at that accord

[50:04] level as a, as a potential project, um, to help

[50:07] with that coordination amongst the different groups? Yeah. It is.

[50:11] And actually I will say this, that partnership I just

[50:13] referenced is actually ahead of this accord being signed because

[50:17] both of our boards have already agreed in principle and

[50:20] signed off on us moving forward on projects. So it's

[50:24] the idea germinated during this last year. It's just we're

[50:27] working faster than the Accord process took us to all

[50:29] come to the same place. So yes, I think you're

[50:31] going to find this because we're all talking about it

[50:34] that this housing will be tied to part of this

[50:37] discussion. Great. Thank you. Thank you. And Councillor Brown. You

[50:42] worship. I just have comments for when council debates. I

[50:44] have no, no questions for the delegation. Uh, the motion's

[50:48] on the floor. Okay. Okay. So we're to be Ms.

[50:51] Hayes. Thank you very much. Much appreciated. Thanks, your worship.

[50:58] Um, I remember when this came forward, I was skeptical

[51:00] at the time. Uh, I can appreciate a lot of

[51:02] energy. And intention has gone behind it. And I do

[51:05] believe probably the intentions are very good. A lot of

[51:08] other communities have done similar. And I get it. Alignment

[51:12] and frustrations with lack of alignment within the community. However,

[51:15] I will not be supporting it. I'm fairly skeptical of

[51:18] anything that, uh, even if it seems minor at first

[51:21] shifts, uh, conversations to the board room, which I think

[51:24] are more appropriate in the public realm. And if Nanaimo

[51:29] tonight signs on to this, uh, projects can be added

[51:32] and they will be decided upon by folks who are

[51:35] largely have not been elected representatives for the community as

[51:38] a whole. Um, and I can imagine a scenario. I

[51:42] don't think anytime soon, but I could imagine a scenario

[51:44] where an incinerator on lands gets proposed without public debate

[51:49] as part of the portfolio. And I don't, I think

[51:52] had this table, uh, if there is to be projects

[51:58] added or to remove, they should come forward and be

[52:01] known by the community. If Nanaimo is a signatory on

[52:05] the Accord. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I'll

[52:08] respond really if you did that. If the taxpayers are

[52:11] being asked to provide all the funding and all the

[52:14] members will be asked being provided the funding. And it

[52:16] wasn't in a public place. That would be a different

[52:18] situation. But as Ms. Hayes is outlined in terms of

[52:22] how the Accord will work and what is proposed, I

[52:25] think it's perfectly reasonable. I'm also noting that we're now

[52:28] at 10 to eight. We have a long agenda. All

[52:31] those in favor. I can appreciate the, uh, length of

[52:39] debate on this, but it is quite a significant support

[52:41] by the community behind these three major projects. And I

[52:45] think that, uh, one of which has had quite numerous

[52:51] public debate around the hospital expansion. I think that's something

[52:53] that everybody has agreed on. Some of the other projects

[52:57] I think are new to the public awareness. Um, the

[53:01] Texton Development up beside VIU is a significant. Um, and

[53:05] I think that it's got very strong merits and can

[53:10] have major positive support in the community. And they also

[53:12] is the Duke Point expansion. And I think the idea

[53:17] of strengthening supply chains and being able to have an

[53:20] Inamo as a hub is very important. Um, for the

[53:23] movement of goods. Uh, I don't know how much sort

[53:26] of public awareness and input, you know, for the city

[53:30] supporting this type of development has in the public awareness.

[53:35] I definitely support the expansion of the port. Um, but

[53:39] I do share similar concerns to Councillor Brown in terms

[53:42] of the process of the city coming to the table.

[53:45] Now we started up the prosperity corporation that's done an

[53:48] amazing job bringing the players together around the chord and

[53:51] the mayor's leaders table. But this is the first time

[53:54] that it has come to the Council table. And as,

[53:59] um, Councillor Thorpe has brought up, you know, we always

[54:02] do first come to, you know, her deferred. And it

[54:06] is a delegation bringing a motion forward. And we might

[54:09] even actually have a bylaw around our procedural bylaw on

[54:17] being able to, um, make a motion on a delegation.

[54:22] And I'm just kind of curious, does our procedural come

[54:25] into effect on this. Ms. Gary. Yes, thank you, worship.

[54:30] So the procedure by law is, um, on your agenda

[54:31] for adoption tonight. So the changes haven't been adopted yet.

[54:35] Um, this matter was on your last Council agenda under

[54:38] consent items because it came from the Mayor's leaders table.

[54:41] So the recommendation to bring this presentation and motion to

[54:46] this table was on your last agenda. So just procedurally

[54:50] there was a forewarning to it coming. Um, as well

[54:53] as any other minutes and or discussion that happened at

[54:56] the Mayor's Leaders table is available on your agendas as

[54:59] well. Um, if they've, if they've been approved. So I

[55:02] just wanted to note that. And as to the making

[55:05] a motion on, on their was debate whether to put

[55:09] this motion on here because it did come from the

[55:11] Mayor's leaders table to have this. But, um, my bad,

[55:15] I knew it was going to be on the presentation

[55:17] screen. So, um, this came from the Mayor's leaders table

[55:21] was under consent at your last meeting that this recommendation

[55:23] would be before you tonight. So it's slightly different than,

[55:27] um, approving a delegations motion on the fly just to

[55:31] give you that background. Though it's at Council's discretion, whatever

[55:34] you choose to do. Maria, thank you. Um, I do

[55:38] think Councillor Bound does raise some concerns on just process.

[55:43] Having read the Accord and been, you know, privy to

[55:46] the discussions that have led to it. And I think

[55:49] the values that are outlined in it are very sound.

[55:54] Um, and I think that it is for the benefit

[55:55] of the community and the processes in place around the

[55:58] principles really do lead to a collaborative dialogue on how

[56:03] we go forward and the projects that we choose. And

[56:05] so that I am supportive and I can understand the

[56:07] timing challenges with the, uh, break in August and the

[56:11] election coming up. But it's something that I do stand

[56:13] behind and support. And so I'll be voting in favor.

[56:15] Thank you. Thank you. Motions on the floor, all those

[56:19] in favor. Looks like it's unanimous except for Council Brown.

[56:25] Thank you very much. Much appreciated, Ms. Hayes. Thank you

[56:28] as always for your attendance. Uh, the committee meetings for

[56:31] the Governance and Paris Committee Meeting held on May the

[56:35] 11th, June 15th. And at Finance Aut at June 17th,

[56:40] are just for receipt. No motion required. We have no

[56:42] consent items. Uh, delegations unrelated to agenda items. Uh, Andrea

[56:48] CO2 review of school zone speed limits, Ms. Katub. Good

[56:51] evening. Just introduce yourself for the record. You have five

[56:54] minutes. And when the minute left, I'll let you know.

[56:56] Thank you. Thank you. Good evening Mayor and Council. I'm

[57:02] Andrea Coutube, and I live in Nanaimo. Before I start,

[57:06] I just want to acknowledge that Bill Holden was my

[57:09] instructor. And I just received that news. Um, and he

[57:13] was very patient with me and answered all my questions

[57:15] about becoming a city council when I was a young

[57:18] person. So that may affect my delivery just a little

[57:21] bit. But I'm here to you talk to you tonight

[57:27] about some school zone changes. I'm not new to pedestrian

[57:33] safety. I was a school patrol guard for three years.

[57:38] And when I was 18, I got my trades ticket

[57:40] at VIU for being a flagger. Um, I've done some

[57:44] advocacy in the past for traffic safety changes at Colh

[57:48] Harbour Playground in Vancouver, as well as working to change

[57:55] some rollout of the first all ages and abilities protected

[57:58] by claim beside a school in Vancouver. I've also done

[58:02] some advocacy with BCEED access society around elopement at school

[58:07] yards. I know the city is working to. Sorry.

[58:17] What I wanted to bring forward is that I know

[58:20] the school zones are something the city is working on

[58:23] right now. But I noticed when I was dropping off

[58:27] my son that Nanaimo school zones aren't currently marked for

[58:31] all year or balanced calendar or summer school sites, many

[58:36] cities have specific signs now. Um, such as Burnaby and

[58:40] Coquilla, there was a BC Supreme Court case in 2010

[58:46] that established that the school day is more than just

[58:49] the regular school year. It can count Pro D days,

[58:53] for example. The regular calendar is the definition. So whether

[58:57] that includes summer school or not might be a little

[59:00] bit up for debate, but I believe that because our

[59:03] aim is safety, we should be putting up signage for

[59:07] summer schools. The school day is to find under the

[59:12] School Calendar Regulation. Is any day in session and a

[59:16] day in session means the principal and teachers are scheduled

[59:20] to be there for instructional activities, non - instructional activities,

[59:25] administrative activities, but not voluntary times if they come in

[59:29] early to start for September. It also applies to students.

[59:34] The city's current plan, uh, and I really appreciate that

[59:37] the transportation manager took the time to speak with me.

[59:41] Um, via email. The city is working on a project

[59:44] to establish permanent speed reduced areas. There's a focus on

[59:49] the areas surrounding schools and they'll be using these authority

[59:53] to regulate speed limits through municipal bylaws. But that phased

[59:59] approach is still a year away. And the governance and

[1:00:03] priorities meeting in September, but I think we could make

[1:00:05] some changes now just around the school zones for summer

[1:00:09] school and year round sites. By putting up the signage

[1:00:16] for year round and summer school sites, we could have

[1:00:21] drivers reduce their speed now. It just needs a couple

[1:00:24] of signs to transportation managers already looking into what it

[1:00:28] would take to order science. Another piece I think that

[1:00:32] could be improved is a communication plan with the school

[1:00:35] district because it's the school district that decides when school

[1:00:39] is in session, but is the city that's responsible for

[1:00:42] the school zones. Um, so I reached out to the

[1:00:46] school district. I haven't heard back from them yet, but

[1:00:48] I think that if the city and the district work

[1:00:51] together, there could be a communication plan just so that

[1:00:54] you know that, for example, the learning alternative site or

[1:00:58] island connect or running year round. Another thing would be

[1:01:02] to review whether admin sites such as deferen and the

[1:01:06] board office, which are both within school zones also need

[1:01:09] year - round signage. Going further, I would suggest reviewing

[1:01:15] whether secondary schools need consistent zones. I found some of

[1:01:19] the high schools had them and some don't. I would

[1:01:23] consider whether playground zoning or extending hours might better fit

[1:01:28] our changing communities because we have out of school care

[1:01:31] and child care, sports and extracurriculars, playground use and rentals

[1:01:36] by groups serving the same populations. Burnaby actually extended their

[1:01:41] hours till 10 p. m. while I'm not suggesting that.

[1:01:46] It's just a thought. Another thing would be to review

[1:01:48] frontage strategies for where the school district doesn't front right

[1:01:54] on to a major road that may still be a

[1:01:57] challenge. Such as Pleasant Valley. In closing, I'd just like

[1:02:04] to thank the city staff and councillors who took the

[1:02:07] time to respond and provide information and who are patient

[1:02:10] with me and learning about this as a parent who

[1:02:13] has to drop my child off at one of the

[1:02:15] sites. And I'm here for questions if you have any.

[1:02:18] Thank you. Thank you very much Councillor Perino. Thank you.

[1:02:23] You were very quick question. I just wanted to confirm

[1:02:24] you have not talked to the school board about this

[1:02:27] as yet. Is that right? I emailed the school board,

[1:02:30] but no response. I understand that someone was on vacation.

[1:02:34] Okay. And did you talk to our Sam Piatal. I

[1:02:37] haven't talked to the RCM. Okay. I just, I just

[1:02:40] wondered if you'd had any feedback from them and where

[1:02:43] they were coming from because it has certainly been a

[1:02:45] discussion at this table. And I know Councillor Armstrong has

[1:02:48] brought it up, particularly, you know, when do you have

[1:02:51] these signs? Where are they effective? What type of signs

[1:02:54] you have in your schools and around? So good discussion.

[1:02:57] Thank you for coming and speaking with us. Thank you.

[1:03:00] Thank you. Not seeing any further questions. Thank you for

[1:03:03] the presentation tonight taking the time. Thank you. Appreciate it.

[1:03:07] Uh, the next item or administer reports. The first is

[1:03:11] consideration of new permissive tax exemptions for 2027, Ms. Mercer.

[1:03:15] Please. Thank you, your worship. So the city has six

[1:03:19] organisations requesting to be put on the premise of tax

[1:03:22] exemption bylaw for 2027. However, only three of the six

[1:03:27] applicants have met the criteria outlined in the grant policy

[1:03:31] and guidelines. So the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board and

[1:03:34] they're applying for the first time for their property. They

[1:03:36] occupy at 6374 Metro Drive. Then I'm a youth services

[1:03:42] and they're applying their property they lease at 290 Bastion

[1:03:45] Street. And the fraternal order of eagles are a number

[1:03:49] 15. And they're applying for the first time for their

[1:03:51] property that they occupy at 245 Fraser Street. A small

[1:03:56] targeted review was done on 89 properties previously listed on

[1:04:01] the 2026 PTE bylaw. As there were some outdated records

[1:04:05] in the cities files. Uh, as well, six properties are

[1:04:09] being recommended for removal from the PTE bylaw for 2027.

[1:04:13] Despite attempts at CONTACT, no applications were received from the

[1:04:17] following. So the Bethlehem Investors Group 42393 Arbor Road and

[1:04:23] 2371 Arbit Road. The Hope Lutheran Church at 2174 departure

[1:04:28] Bay Road and St. Andrews, United Church at 315 Fitzwillian

[1:04:32] Street. So as these are places of worship, proportion of

[1:04:36] the property, uh, predominantly used for worship will continue to

[1:04:39] receive a statutory exemption. The remaining land around the church

[1:04:44] up to five acres. Can be exempted by council. So

[1:04:49] this is the portion of property that would become taxable

[1:04:54] as their application wasn't received. So having said that staff

[1:04:57] are going to reach out one more time to these

[1:05:01] four properties. To ask these organisations to encourage them to

[1:05:06] get their application in because they're a significant, um, property

[1:05:10] values. So should we receive applications for these properties before

[1:05:16] we come back to you in September? We will include

[1:05:18] those on the bylaw for Council's consideration. Um, the, and

[1:05:24] there were also three properties that we'll be removed as

[1:05:27] they're no longer occupying at the site. So we have

[1:05:31] Mid Island Abilities and Independent Living Society, uh, and an

[1:05:36] animal systems planning organisation society and the Society of Equity

[1:05:39] Inclusion and Advocacy. So staff are here to seek council's

[1:05:44] direction on these recommendations as well as answer any questions

[1:05:48] that you have. Thank you very much, Councillor Thorpe. Thank

[1:05:53] you very much. Your worship through you, if I may.

[1:05:56] Appreciate the report, a number of years ago when this

[1:05:59] was, uh, under the Bailey week of Council members, I

[1:06:02] sat on the committee, uh, overseeing permissive text exemptions. And

[1:06:05] I know the value they ring to our community, uh,

[1:06:09] what I have forgotten, Ms. Mercer. And maybe you can

[1:06:11] give me just a ballpark figure is the total value

[1:06:15] dollar amount. That the city gives out in terms of

[1:06:19] tax exemptions. Sorry to put you on the spot. Just

[1:06:23] give me a rough estimate. I'm going to hand it

[1:06:25] over to, uh, Anna, cause she will have those numbers

[1:06:29] right at her fingertips. Ms. Francisco, good evening. Welcome. Good

[1:06:32] evening Councillor and Mayor. The estimated value is about 2.

[1:06:37] 4 million dollars for about 1770 properties. That are currently

[1:06:41] exempt. Thank you very much. 2. 4 million dollars that

[1:06:46] the city has providing primarily to nonprofit organisations that provide

[1:06:50] services that benefit our community. And I think that deserves

[1:06:53] to be noted. And I think they are extremely valuable

[1:06:56] to our community and very worthwhile to the organisations that

[1:07:00] receive them. So, uh, I also know that there are

[1:07:03] strict guidelines and criteria that have to be followed and

[1:07:07] appreciate staff's diligence and making sure that that happens. Thank

[1:07:10] you. Thank you very much Councillor Gesselbrock. Thanks. Um, I

[1:07:15] guess I was just a little surprised to see, um,

[1:07:19] the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board as an applicant for

[1:07:22] permissive tax exemption. And my understanding, it's an association of,

[1:07:27] um, realtors and, you know, and they've lobbied council and

[1:07:33] they provide professional oversight and guidance. But, um, I just

[1:07:39] curious our criteria for selecting. I was just surprised one

[1:07:45] the need for public subsidy for the association and the

[1:07:48] building and just looking at the membership dues and what

[1:07:51] it would cost, you know, consideration of financial need and

[1:07:56] also just the eligibility, um, because I'm, yeah, I'm surprised

[1:08:00] and that there is a need from the association for

[1:08:03] a permissive tax exemption. Thank you. Ms. Francisco, please. Mr.

[1:08:08] Your Worship. We don't look specifically of financial need. And

[1:08:14] one of the reasons for that is because it's really

[1:08:16] hard to compare apples to apples. Sometimes we've got a

[1:08:19] large national organisation. Sometimes we just have local charities. Uh,

[1:08:23] so the guideline includes registered nonprofit status and charity status.

[1:08:28] Adherence to city policies. And of course, overall community benefit.

[1:08:33] So within the guideline in the policy, the real estate

[1:08:36] aboard does meet the criteria. Okay. Yeah. I think that,

[1:08:41] um, I think there's, it looks like there's quite a

[1:08:45] broad, you know, what community benefit is and no doubt

[1:08:48] the great work that's done there. And I think just

[1:08:50] look in the need and also the amount of subsidy

[1:08:53] that we do provide. I'm struggling a little bit with

[1:08:55] that, but I guess we'll, I'll, I'll save that for

[1:08:56] the debate. Thank you. Thank you. If there's no Council

[1:09:03] Manley. Yeah. I'm just, uh, I have some concerns around,

[1:09:07] um, telecom lamb Aboriginal friendship centre not being included in

[1:09:11] this list. And I, I would note that in their

[1:09:15] application, they identify that they have applied for funding BC

[1:09:19] housing has abandoned a whole bunch of organisations. They've abandoned

[1:09:23] a whole bunch of people. This is a really important

[1:09:26] agency that the looks out for people on the, you

[1:09:29] know, looks out for indigenous youth. In this case, you

[1:09:36] know, indigenous young women between the ages of 17 and

[1:09:39] 29. Who've experienced violence and they're trying to read, you

[1:09:44] know, some of whom are trying to regain and retain

[1:09:46] legal custody of their children. Um, I understand we have

[1:09:50] rules. That they have to have active funding or operating

[1:09:55] agreement with PC housing or another government agency. But I

[1:09:58] just feel like the BC government is abandoning organisations at

[1:10:02] this time. And I'd hate to see an organisation like

[1:10:04] this, uh, be punished because of it. And, um, you

[1:10:09] know, in their application, they do identify that this is

[1:10:12] the case. Um, so I, I would like to see

[1:10:18] us make, make, uh, an exception to the rule, uh,

[1:10:22] in this particular case. I know telecom laylum has a

[1:10:26] youth safe house. They have youth and elder housing. They've

[1:10:30] got great projects. Uh, they've got, um, housing for young

[1:10:34] moms. And now this housing, I think should be included

[1:10:36] in this tax exemption process. So if we're going to

[1:10:41] have a motion, or, you know, maybe a staff can

[1:10:45] weigh in on this, but I might ask for an

[1:10:47] exemption and emotion. Thank you. Is through your worship Councillor

[1:10:52] Manley if we might let Miss Mercer speak to some

[1:10:55] of the unintended consequences. You do have the discretion to

[1:11:00] amend anything like within your policy. And staff did evaluate

[1:11:05] telecom laylimbs based on the policy, but maybe Ms. Mercilite

[1:11:08] might like a few moments to outline some of the

[1:11:12] implications. And then you can go from there. Thank you.

[1:11:14] Thank you. Ms. Mercer, please. Thank you your worship through

[1:11:18] to Councillor Manley. So I think it was two years

[1:11:22] ago we had the criteria up in front of council.

[1:11:27] And that was the decision at that time was to

[1:11:30] make the policy the way it is. So since that

[1:11:32] time we have turned down other organisations, um, because they

[1:11:38] didn't meet this criteria. And I can't comment whether they

[1:11:41] are more worthy or less worthy than this organisation. But

[1:11:46] kind of the unintended consequences is if you do it

[1:11:49] for this one, I'm going to guess that you're going

[1:11:51] to have a lineup at the podium for other ones.

[1:11:54] But that is ultimately council's decision to do that. Um.

[1:12:01] Staff can add some additional comments to that. Ms. Bagan

[1:12:05] through the mayor to Councillor Manley. So I did speak

[1:12:07] with the applicant today. And as you confirmed, uh, they

[1:12:11] were not successful receiving the funding from BC housing. We

[1:12:14] did look at when we amended the policy to include

[1:12:17] non - market housing, the implications, um, financially for the

[1:12:20] city, uh, to include a broader range of non -

[1:12:23] market housing. And there was significant financial implications. Um, however,

[1:12:27] uh, having spoken with the applicant, this is, you know,

[1:12:30] considerable hardship for them. However, just like I mentioned in

[1:12:33] the report, there is the option that he did discuss

[1:12:36] with the applicant that if they are willing to enter

[1:12:39] into a housing agreement, uh, with a city, um, regarding,

[1:12:43] uh, their, uh, program that they offer, which will then,

[1:12:47] you know, confirm for the city that they are providing

[1:12:49] affordable housing for young women, uh, we can then work

[1:12:53] with BC assessment, uh, to reduce the assessed value of

[1:12:56] their property as they would be classified supportive housing, as

[1:13:00] long as you need BC assessments great to hear. And

[1:13:01] they were open to that, uh, option when I spoke

[1:13:03] with them. Thank you for that. Would they be able

[1:13:06] to then come back to us for tax exemption. I

[1:13:11] believe that tax assumption would go directly to BCSSment. And

[1:13:14] they would be valued at two dollars for the land,

[1:13:18] which is actually, for understanding better than what we could

[1:13:21] offer through the Permissive Tax Exemption policy. Okay. I appreciate

[1:13:25] that. I appreciate the explanation to you. I remember the

[1:13:28] discussion that there are a lot of, uh, housing units

[1:13:32] around the community. I just really understand the work that

[1:13:36] they're doing at telecom lay them. I appreciate what they

[1:13:38] do. And I'm, I'm happy to hear that staff are

[1:13:41] working with them. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor

[1:13:44] Armstrong. Thanks to Councillor Manley for doing that. And if

[1:13:47] the speakers, I'd like to move the recommendation. And a

[1:13:51] secondaire. Councillor Eastmer. Any discussion. Councillor Geselbrock. Thanks. Yeah. I

[1:13:57] mean, I think our, our policies just, um, seeing the

[1:14:02] Vancouver Island Real Estate Board, looking for a tax exemption

[1:14:05] of, you know, for 27, 000 dollars and revenues these

[1:14:09] association. I'm not entirely clear sort of the scope of

[1:14:12] public benefit. I do understand some work that they do.

[1:14:14] But I also understand that it is an advocacy and

[1:14:18] work for a professional group. And I'm curious, like we're

[1:14:22] so broad that, you know, the lawyers association and the

[1:14:25] different groups, you know, coming that do provide some professional

[1:14:30] guidance, um, but also, uh, just leads it open to

[1:14:34] a whole lot of other people applying. That may not

[1:14:36] necessarily meet what I originally thought with, you know, community

[1:14:39] service, uh, nonprofits. And so I can't support the permissive

[1:14:43] tax exemption at this time for BYUREP. So I'll be

[1:14:46] voting, not in favor. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[1:14:52] Councillor Armstrong. Ciri Adam then so that he can vote

[1:14:56] for the other two. We want to vote on everyone

[1:15:02] separately. Is that the will of Council. What are the

[1:15:08] ones. You want to see everyone's in. Three. All right.

[1:15:11] So in terms of the awarding or the exclusions or

[1:15:15] both. Of the whole motion is on the floor your

[1:15:19] worship as far as I understand. So we could go

[1:15:20] through them, Sirri Adam. All right. So, uh, the motion

[1:15:25] someone cares to make it with, well, with Notion's been

[1:15:28] made. Yeah. So you can just download respect to the

[1:15:31] bank crown and real estate board. All those in favor.

[1:15:35] Councillor Armstrong Eastmere Hemmons. Bear Crow, Councillor Thorpe, Council Perino.

[1:15:44] Those opposed. Councillor Geselbrock, Councillor. Vancouver Real Estate Board, that

[1:15:53] exception. Here at Sir Adam, yes. Opposed or in favor.

[1:15:59] Opposed and Councillor Manley motion carries. Thank you. The next

[1:16:02] is the name we use services. Well, it's, it's on

[1:16:09] the floor. Those in favor. Any opposed, none motion carries.

[1:16:15] And the fraternal order of eagles. Those in favor. Any

[1:16:18] opposed motion carries. You don't have to move the rest,

[1:16:22] Seriotum, if council is in favor of just moving the

[1:16:25] entirety or voting on the entirety has already been moved.

[1:16:31] Are we okay? Is a group with B? Yes. All

[1:16:35] those in favor of the exclusion. Thank you. Those opposed.

[1:16:39] None motion carries. Thank you very much, staff. Appreciate this.

[1:16:44] The next is the British Columbia Local Government Climate Action

[1:16:47] Program Future Funding, Mr. Holm, please. Thank you, Worship. This

[1:16:52] is just an update. And I guess opportunity for Council

[1:16:57] to become aware of and potentially take some advocacy on

[1:17:02] potential changes to the climate action funding that local governments

[1:17:08] have received. And I'm going to turn over to Ting

[1:17:11] Pan, manager of Sustainability to give a brief overview of

[1:17:16] this. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome. Please, the floor is

[1:17:20] yours. Thank you. Good evening. So, um, the staff has

[1:17:26] learned that the local government climate action program has not

[1:17:30] been renewed. And, uh, we would like to, you know,

[1:17:36] recommend Council to advocate to the provincial government to maintain

[1:17:40] this important funding beyond 2027. And Mr. Stewart and Ms.

[1:17:47] Brinkman has done an excellent job summarizing. And the background

[1:17:50] of this funding. And so I just want to briefly

[1:17:53] provide a little bit more context that these local government

[1:17:59] climate action program since its inception over the last five

[1:18:03] years has provided about, um, six million dollars in funding

[1:18:10] our climate action. And under its previous, um, program, uh,

[1:18:16] The Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program or CAREP. It provided

[1:18:21] the city around 1. 4 million dollars. So altogether, um,

[1:18:27] with the combined total is around a 3 million dollars

[1:18:30] for cities climate actions. And so what really set this

[1:18:35] program apart is one, there is no upfront investment to

[1:18:42] secure the grant. It's accodable, um, distribution. And that means,

[1:18:47] um, this is about the only grant that TEM staff

[1:18:50] doesn't have to invest a lot of time to prepare

[1:18:53] applications, um, and, um, it is not a competitive a

[1:18:56] process. Um, so this saves a huge amount of investment

[1:19:01] on staff resources. Um, and the second of all is

[1:19:04] extremely flexible. It doesn't restrict on your spending whether it's

[1:19:08] on capital or on operational expenses. And you can also,

[1:19:14] uh, use it to leverage other external funding. And the

[1:19:18] local governments are free to spend it as they see

[1:19:21] fit for their own purposes. So I think to summarize

[1:19:28] this is really without it continue. It will be, um,

[1:19:31] placing more burden on city resources to complete future climate

[1:19:36] action. Thank you very much. Question, if I may. Thank

[1:19:42] you. You worship a very quick question. Appreciate the support.

[1:19:46] So if I understand this correctly, then all of the

[1:19:49] funding will be cut. Is that correct? Or am I

[1:19:51] misreading it. Tell me I'm misreading it because I want

[1:19:54] to make sure we still get some funding, especially for

[1:19:56] the programs that we're doing. So your worship. So as

[1:20:00] of now, we don't really know beyond 2027 if there

[1:20:05] will be any funding coming from this program. So your

[1:20:09] idea then is to do, um, advocacy at this stage

[1:20:12] to have it continue on past 2027. Okay. That's correct.

[1:20:17] Thank you so much. Councillor Armstrong. Thank you. I'd like

[1:20:20] to move the recommendation as I think this is highly

[1:20:23] needed. Second Councillor Hemings. Any discussion? Not surprising. Seeing none,

[1:20:30] all those in favor. Any opposed. I've never seen a

[1:20:34] controversial ask the province for money. Uh, the next is

[1:20:39] C emissions intensive heavy industry uses. Mr. Holm, please. Thank

[1:20:44] you, your worship. So November, um, of 2025, uh, Council

[1:20:50] provided direction to staff to report back on options to

[1:20:53] exclude heavy, um, sorry, emissions intensive, heavy industry within the

[1:20:59] city, specifically identified in the motion where waste energy incinerators.

[1:21:05] Uh, chemical plants, thermal electrical generators, petroleum refineries and LNG

[1:21:10] export facilities. Um, uh, staff was undertaken a review of,

[1:21:16] um, a number of different factors, including jurisdiction with respect

[1:21:19] to air quality. So looking at, uh, what the cities

[1:21:24] jurisdictional authority is, uh, and that of senior levels of

[1:21:27] government. Looking at a city plan policy related city plan

[1:21:32] being the official community plan. Zoning bylaw as it applies

[1:21:36] to the identified uses in the motion. Also review of

[1:21:41] business license records to identify whether or not any existing

[1:21:46] businesses. Were operating under business license as a principle use.

[1:21:53] One of the listed uses. So not necessarily that wouldn't

[1:21:55] necessarily, um, get at whether or not there were accessory

[1:21:59] uses that could fit within the definitions. Uh, but, uh,

[1:22:04] specifically whether or not, um, any businesses were operating as

[1:22:08] a principal permitted use, uh, also undertook jurisdictional scan. So

[1:22:12] looking at other local governments, uh, and, um, identifying how,

[1:22:17] uh, some of those comparable communities were addressing similar uses

[1:22:23] through their land use regulatory provisions. Um, so with respect,

[1:22:29] I'll just quickly highlight some of the findings. So city

[1:22:33] plan and just a bit of a context city plan,

[1:22:36] the official community plan has two designations for industry. Light

[1:22:42] industrial lands. And then, uh, industrial lands, um, there's a

[1:22:45] map attached to the report that identifies the designated industrial

[1:22:50] lands, which are the lands on which the types of

[1:22:55] uses identified in the motion could be supported. Um, as

[1:22:59] well, uh, we looked at staff looked at 2020 land

[1:23:03] inventory and capacity analysis that was, uh, supporting background work

[1:23:08] to city plan and supported the land use designations. Uh,

[1:23:12] within city plan, um, that were intended to support the

[1:23:16] city's future industrial land needs also looked at, um, recognising

[1:23:20] this is a bit of a data document, but 2013

[1:23:23] regional district of Nanaimo Industrial Land Supply and demand study

[1:23:30] also understanding currently that, uh, the Regional District of Naimo

[1:23:35] board is considering, um, uh, potentially, um, uh, terms of

[1:23:39] reference for undertaken and updated study along the lines to

[1:23:44] replace or update the 2013 study looking at industrial and

[1:23:48] commercial and employment lands more broadly. Understand that's for consideration

[1:23:53] tomorrow at the, um, the RDN board table as well.

[1:23:57] We looked at staff, looked at the zoning bylaw, identifying

[1:24:00] that, um, the I4, the heavy industrial and, uh, W4

[1:24:07] waterfront for zone would support those types of uses. Uh,

[1:24:13] could support those types of uses. Looking at the definition

[1:24:17] of industry that the city has. It's quite a broad

[1:24:19] definition. Uh, that does allow for, uh, some of these,

[1:24:24] some of the, um, what we're identified as emissions intensive

[1:24:28] heavy industry uses by council in the November 2025 motion.

[1:24:33] Uh, and the jurisdictional scan looked at 11 different jurisdictions,

[1:24:38] uh, how they regulated these types of uses. And, uh,

[1:24:43] can go into details, Christine Mays, the author of the

[1:24:46] report, um, did the researchers here. We can talk about

[1:24:48] specifics if you'd like, but, um, general trend amongst the

[1:24:53] jurisdictions was for broader, more permissive rather than more specific

[1:25:00] regulations. So actually going sort of in the other direction

[1:25:03] to more broadly allow for, uh, industrial uses, uh, we

[1:25:08] can touch on, um, some of the details if you'd

[1:25:10] like. A number of options are presented in the report.

[1:25:15] I'll just kind of quickly highlight what they are. So,

[1:25:18] uh, option number one. We'll look at prohibiting some of

[1:25:23] the number of the uses petroleum refinery LNG export facility

[1:25:28] and waste to energy facilities as principal uses within, uh,

[1:25:34] within the city. Uh, those are identified as, um, I

[1:25:37] guess they were identified as clearly likely heavy emissions uses

[1:25:44] that are emissions intensive uses. Uh, very, I guess less

[1:25:51] potential for if council were to take this route for

[1:25:54] unintended consequences. Um, with respect to some of the other

[1:25:58] uses. So, uh, number one is sort of a limited,

[1:26:01] limiting prohibiting a limited set of the uses identified. Option

[1:26:06] number two is to bring forward amendments that would prohibit

[1:26:11] the list of uses identified. So that's waste energy incinerators

[1:26:15] chemical plants. Thermal electrical generators, petroleum refineries and LNG export

[1:26:20] facilities. So to prohibit those as principal permitted uses, uh,

[1:26:26] there could still be opportunity for, um, accessory use. Some

[1:26:30] of the industries do have accessory supportive uses. That rely

[1:26:36] on that are critical to their operation. Uh, number three,

[1:26:41] option number three is to look at a comprehensive review

[1:26:45] of heavy industrial uses through the zoning boylaw update. And

[1:26:51] that would look at, um, potentially a focused review of

[1:26:55] industrial uses through the zoning vial update. Timing could be,

[1:26:59] um, good with, if there is more information coming out

[1:27:02] of the regional district doing additional studies on, on regional

[1:27:08] needs as well, um, opportunity to engage more fully with

[1:27:12] or fully, uh, stakeholders and interested parties. Um, of course

[1:27:17] number four is as council as always, um, able to

[1:27:20] do is to provide alternative direction. So. Happy to take

[1:27:23] questions. Hopefully this provides some information and helps Council consider

[1:27:28] different options. Thanks. Thank you very much. Questions for the

[1:27:32] staff before we get to the delegations Councillor Armstrong. Thank

[1:27:36] you. I'm going to refer to, um, you have table

[1:27:39] one and then two paragraphs down. It says the city's

[1:27:41] currently in the process of reviewing the zoning bylaw. As

[1:27:44] part of their update. And as part of the update,

[1:27:47] staff will complete a comprehensive review of heavy industrial uses

[1:27:49] for cities industrial zones, which provide an opportunity to rebus

[1:27:53] practices. So why are we doing this now if this

[1:27:55] review hasn't been completed yet? Because, you know, my concern

[1:27:59] is there's been no engagement with SFN or industry or

[1:28:03] anomal prosperity corporation. Like I don't have enough information yet

[1:28:07] to make an informed decision. And then I'll ask a

[1:28:09] second question after. I can speak to that through your

[1:28:13] worship to Council Armstrong. So, uh, specific direction from Council

[1:28:17] on emissions intensive, uh, heavy industry. Is what, um, what

[1:28:23] was requested options to prohibit certain uses. That were considered

[1:28:30] emissions intensive heavy industry. The zoning bylaw would have not

[1:28:36] necessarily focused on those uses. But as part of the

[1:28:42] zoning bylaw update, we would look at alignment of, um,

[1:28:47] of industrial uses with city plan with the OCP. In

[1:28:53] follow up, please. And then my second question's on gasification,

[1:28:56] which is different than incineration. Uh, these conversations are happening

[1:28:59] with, uh, the RDN waste because we know our landfill's

[1:29:02] going to die out shortly. So how would that impact

[1:29:04] that would gasification fall under incineration since they're two separate

[1:29:07] things. I think, um, that would depend on how, um,

[1:29:14] it would depend on how ways to energy incineration is

[1:29:17] defined. Would be my answer. But, um, it's at this

[1:29:22] point, uh, there's not been, um, is not a definition

[1:29:26] hasn't been developed. And that's something that could be considered.

[1:29:29] Through, uh, engagement with, um, stakeholders like you're suggesting. I'll

[1:29:34] wait till after the delegations for Council discussion. Thanks. Thank

[1:29:37] you, Councillor Manley. Thank you, worship. This, if there was

[1:29:43] a bylaw change, it wouldn't permanently prohibit any of these

[1:29:47] uses. It would only require site - specific zoning, which

[1:29:52] would be staff reports, public hearings, and a vote by

[1:29:55] council. Is that correct? Three - year worship. Yes. I

[1:30:00] mean, Council would have the ability to consider zoning amendments

[1:30:05] to allow uses site specifically. If they were not permitted

[1:30:13] within, uh, within the zoning. Right. So just adds a

[1:30:19] democratic process to these kind of proposals. Um, this bylaw

[1:30:23] change, it won't affect HRMAC Pacific's current operations. Would. Maybe,

[1:30:33] Ms. Mays can speak to that, um, as far as

[1:30:36] I understand, uh, with respect to principal permitted uses, uh,

[1:30:42] no, obviously if there were, um, and I'll let Miss

[1:30:45] Mees expand on that. But, um, obviously if there were,

[1:30:48] um, zoning, uh, amendment considered there'd be opportunity for, uh,

[1:30:53] CORMAC and they can provide, um, commentary at any time

[1:30:57] through council, two council. But if there is a zoning

[1:31:01] bylaw amendment considered, we'd expect public hearing process. And there'll

[1:31:06] be opportunity through that process to get further input on

[1:31:12] that as well. But Ms. Mays can provide some, um,

[1:31:15] additional details. What I'm asking is it's an existing use.

[1:31:20] In my understanding is that an existing use cannot be,

[1:31:23] cannot be changed through bylawds. It's grandfathered in. Thank you.

[1:31:28] Thanks for the clarity and through your worship to Councillor

[1:31:31] Manley. So I think you're speaking to protected lawful nonconforming

[1:31:36] in the event that the bylaw created a lawful nonconforming

[1:31:40] situation. There are provisions within the local government act to

[1:31:44] protect those uses continuing. So there are implications there, of

[1:31:49] course, but there are provisions in the local government Act.

[1:31:52] Okay. So it wouldn't affect their current uses. And, um,

[1:31:55] I assume that that would also include, uh, the biomass

[1:31:59] cogeneration facility. They use hog fuel would waste byproducts. And

[1:32:04] that would still be considered an accessory use, even if

[1:32:08] they expanded, um, their biomass cogeneration facility.

[1:32:18] Through the chair to Councillor Manley. With respect to HARMAC,

[1:32:22] we have a specific use that's permitted in the I4

[1:32:24] zone. That's wood and paper processing. Um, which is what

[1:32:28] HRMAC would fall under currently. Um, with cogeneration, that is

[1:32:31] one thing that we identified in the staff report is

[1:32:33] the challenge with, um, uh, removing it outright as a

[1:32:37] permitted use is that it wouldn't cover accessory uses. So,

[1:32:41] uh, in the case of HERMAC generating power for, for

[1:32:44] other uses, they're biomass side. So it is accessory to

[1:32:50] their wood and paper processing use. And it's already, um,

[1:32:56] in operation. So it wouldn't be affected. Would an expansion

[1:32:59] of that be affected. Mr. Holm, uh, three worship

[1:33:08] provided, it wasn't a principal use. And it remained an

[1:33:14] accessory use. Then I would say no. A lot of

[1:33:16] it's going to come down to the details and what

[1:33:19] their longer term plans are. But, uh, if it's an

[1:33:23] accessory operation to the, uh, what was the definition again,

[1:33:28] Christine. Um, thank you, Ms. Mays. Wood and paper processing.

[1:33:33] If it's accessory to that, then no, then it wouldn't

[1:33:36] be impacted if we were thoughtful and careful in the

[1:33:39] way we defined waste energy. And we were sure not

[1:33:43] to exclude that use as a co - generation as

[1:33:49] an accessory use. Than it could be, could continue as

[1:33:53] accessory to the wooden wooden paper processing use. But it

[1:34:00] would not be able to, uh, exist as a, um,

[1:34:04] principal permitted use. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you.

[1:34:10] No further questions for staff at this present time. We

[1:34:13] do have, uh, six delegations. Uh, they'll each have five

[1:34:17] minutes when you're introduced yourself for the record when you

[1:34:20] come to the podium, uh, when the one minute left,

[1:34:23] I'll advise you a few minutes left. And the first

[1:34:25] delegation is Paul Chapman. Please. Uh, hello. My name is

[1:34:34] Paul Chapman. I live in the old city neighbourhood in

[1:34:37] St. Naok territory. Thank you for this opportunity to speak

[1:34:40] with you tonight. I'm going to be speaking about the

[1:34:42] virtues of site - specific zoning. For certain industrial uses

[1:34:47] that are currently allowed under our zoning bylaw. I think

[1:34:52] there will be people after me, delegations after me that

[1:34:56] will be speaking to some of the real world impacts

[1:35:01] and implications of being permissive. In what you include in

[1:35:05] your industrial zoning. So I'm going to just speak about

[1:35:07] the opportunities that, um, site specific zoning offers. And I

[1:35:14] think the primary one is that it allows the voice

[1:35:18] of community concern through council to be considered. For these

[1:35:23] impactful industries. And when I'm saying impactful, I'm talking about

[1:35:26] heavy polluting industries. We don't have to reach back that

[1:35:32] far. Do you remember the concerns around the data centre

[1:35:36] at Wellington? We don't have to reach back that far

[1:35:38] to remember the community concerns expressed around the possible expansion

[1:35:42] of industrial zoning cable bay. We don't even have to

[1:35:45] reach back that far to remember the community concern around

[1:35:50] the waste energy facility that was proposed to import waste

[1:35:53] from Vancouver for power generation. And, you know, how close,

[1:36:00] how near that was to becoming part of our airshed

[1:36:03] and a permanent way. Site - specific zoning isn't a

[1:36:06] blanket ban on industry. It looks at the costs and

[1:36:10] benefits. It can require rather than suggest best practices. And

[1:36:15] it strengthens a social license between the industry and the

[1:36:19] community. It can be, but it need not necessarily be

[1:36:23] an opportunity for Council to say no. For proponents that

[1:36:27] don't meet that social license. It doesn't mean you can't

[1:36:33] consider the industry. It means you must consider the industry.

[1:36:38] As Councillor Brown and others have previously pointed out, land

[1:36:41] use is a purview of city council. And the Community

[1:36:46] Voices heard at the incinerator protest and during the data

[1:36:49] centre debate. And at the cable bay rezoning, public hearing

[1:36:53] support the thoughtful consideration of site - specific zoning. I

[1:36:58] think that Option 4 from the staff report is the

[1:37:01] best one. And really it's about bringing in elements of

[1:37:04] the other options to give you a way forward here.

[1:37:09] So there's the options kind of in one and two

[1:37:13] around the removal of certain industries from being permitted that

[1:37:19] automatic permission under industrial zoning. And that's really the cautionary

[1:37:23] principle as the other element of Option 3 where there's

[1:37:28] a comprehensive review. And through that comprehensive review, you figure

[1:37:33] out which ones are permanently removed and then become part

[1:37:36] of site - specific zoning. And if there are ones

[1:37:39] that are deemed to be not harmful to our airshed

[1:37:44] to our watership, they can go back into the industrial

[1:37:46] zoning. Um. So I thank you for your thoughtful consideration

[1:37:53] of this. Thank you, Mr. Chapman. That was very brief.

[1:37:59] Any questions for the delegation, Councillor Thorpe? Yes, I do

[1:38:02] your worship. Thank you very much through you, FAM's Mr.

[1:38:05] Chapman. Thank you. I just want to make sure I

[1:38:06] heard you correctly because I'm not sure of what I

[1:38:09] heard. And that was, you seem to be recommending option

[1:38:13] four. An option four, in my agenda, simply says that

[1:38:17] Council provides alternate direction. Yes. So that's why I suggested

[1:38:21] elements of the other options that would be what you

[1:38:25] like. What that direction to staff would be. Right. Thank

[1:38:29] you very much. Thank you. Uh, the next is Erica

[1:38:34] Frank by Azuma, I understand. Hi, indeed, yes. I presume

[1:38:41] I'm audible invisible, yes? A good, good evening, Ms. Frank.

[1:38:44] You are visible and we can hear you. You'll have

[1:38:46] five minutes. If you can introduce yourself for the record

[1:38:48] and I'll let you know where the minute left. Thank

[1:38:50] you. Great. Thank you. Hello. I'm Dr. Erica Frank. I'm

[1:38:55] a professor and physician at UBC and I'm speaking supportive

[1:38:59] item 12C to create better accountability and clearer commitment to

[1:39:03] preserving the substantial lures of Nanaimo's healthy ecosystems. I wear

[1:39:09] another PET in addition to physician and professor that's useful

[1:39:12] here too. As an elected city councillor for six years

[1:39:16] at UBC's University neighbourhood association, I appreciate the needs that

[1:39:21] you have to balance. I hope to encourage you to

[1:39:25] move away from the notion of an anything goes heavy

[1:39:31] industry zone with its assorted toxic gases and effluence from

[1:39:36] the admissions. Intense heavy industry that's currently allowed in our

[1:39:40] bylaws. I came to UBC in 2006 as the Canada

[1:39:45] Research Chair and Preventive Medicine and Population Health. Pleased to

[1:39:49] be part of BC's extraordinary health promoting ecosystem for both

[1:39:53] humans and the environment. And that drew me to live

[1:39:56] on the island and to buy land and plan to

[1:40:00] settle in cedar. The remarkable ability we have to live

[1:40:03] in a well - zoned wilderness at the doorway of

[1:40:07] a gateway city like Nanaimo. That's why I wanted to

[1:40:10] live here and contribute this to this community. And so

[1:40:13] I don't want to stand passively by and allow these

[1:40:17] irreplaceable natural health - promoting resources get spoiled by short

[1:40:22] - sighted policies. I'm a specialist in preventive medicine and

[1:40:26] was the Canadian Medical Association's 2016 nominee for the director

[1:40:31] of the World Health Organisation. And it's clear to me

[1:40:35] here locally that if Nanaimo wants to retain and enhance

[1:40:39] its reputation as a healthy and desirable place to live,

[1:40:43] that these recommendations that waste to energy incinerators, chemical plants,

[1:40:48] thermal - energy generators, petroleum refineries and LNG export facilities.

[1:40:55] Indeed, have little place in such an ecosystem along with

[1:40:59] their toxic gases and effluence. In particular, this includes as

[1:41:04] a familiar to council, I imagine by this time given

[1:41:08] the many discussions you've had on incineration, uh, products of

[1:41:12] combustion like VOC's volatile organic compounds like benzene that cause

[1:41:19] respiratory and nervous system and renal and hepatic injury injuries

[1:41:24] to our lungs, to our livers, to our kidneys and

[1:41:27] to our nervous systems and that are also known carcinogens.

[1:41:32] The same is true of another product of combustion dioxins,

[1:41:36] which are carcinogens as well as endocrine and immune disruptors.

[1:41:41] And when something as singingly inert and as innocent as

[1:41:45] plastics are combusted, the resultant dioxins, the landscapes.

[1:41:56] Landing on the fruits and directly and getting bioconcentrate in

[1:42:00] the animals, um, that we eat both the terrestrial ones

[1:42:04] and the aquatic ones. So I would submit in closing

[1:42:09] that these recommendations form an extraordinary opportunity to maintain this

[1:42:14] system, not to discard this chance to keep a truly

[1:42:18] wild space, adjoining a substantial city, a space with environmental

[1:42:21] health that supports human health. Such preventive medicine opportunities as

[1:42:26] these are really rare in the world. It's what brought

[1:42:30] me to Nanaimo and what I think makes it special

[1:42:33] and attractive and providing extraordinary leadership. And so I encourage

[1:42:38] the council to support these wise recommendations. Thank you. Thank

[1:42:43] you very much. Questions Councillor Armstrong and then Councillor Manley.

[1:42:48] Thank you very much. And I just wondered if you

[1:42:50] could comment on the difference between gasification and incineration and

[1:42:54] your experience. We see all of Europe and Asia going

[1:42:56] towards gasification. Is there a big difference or do you

[1:42:59] still share the same concerns about gasification as incineration. Um,

[1:43:06] that actually is something that I can speak to having

[1:43:09] been, um, on city council at UBC when we allowed

[1:43:17] the, uh, bio - research, excuse me, the biofuel research

[1:43:26] incineration facility and gasification facility to happen at UBC. Um,

[1:43:32] I was responsible actually for making, giving the social license

[1:43:37] to make sure that that was, um, properly monitored. Um,

[1:43:42] there are, uh, different. And typically fewer issues with gasification

[1:43:50] than within incineration. But, uh, it is not, uh, it

[1:43:57] does not allow cart blanche. And the, um, the places

[1:44:02] where it's been used for things like, um, gasification of

[1:44:07] wood pulp like happens, um, at, at UBC and wood

[1:44:13] chips and waste wood. That's a really clean stream with

[1:44:17] no plastics in it, for example. That really make me

[1:44:21] very confident that dioxins, for example, won't be an issue.

[1:44:26] Um, if you're talking about gasification of less pure waste

[1:44:32] streams, which this would be obviously, they're quite a number

[1:44:35] of residual considerations for that as well. Thank you for

[1:44:40] your time. Thank you, Councillor Manley. Thank you for your

[1:44:44] presentation. And thank you for that information about gasification and

[1:44:48] the difference between, um, regular garbage and biomass. I think

[1:44:52] that's an important distinction. Um, you're a doctor and preventative

[1:44:56] medicine. That's your area of expertise. You would say, would

[1:44:59] you say that, uh, health care is more about more

[1:45:03] than just, uh, bricks and mortar. It's about the environment

[1:45:05] that we all live in. Yeah. At the, um, at

[1:45:12] the cable bay hearing, um, in April where I submitted,

[1:45:18] uh, written comments, the representative from HRMAC suggested that doctors

[1:45:24] like me would want to come to Nanaimo to be

[1:45:27] able to take care of a well employed population and

[1:45:33] having worked in occupational health and safety. I, I am

[1:45:39] a whole lot more interested in social determinants of health

[1:45:43] in this extraordinary ecosystem that we've created and preserved. And.

[1:45:52] Ability to have, uh, the medicine on social determinants of

[1:46:00] health on environmental health. And the NIMO really is at

[1:46:05] such a pivotal place and has such an extraordinary opportunity

[1:46:09] for leadership, um, that this seems like another place where

[1:46:14] we could really be a shining star in terms of

[1:46:19] attracting, um, both humans and, um, retaining an ecosystem with

[1:46:26] employers that want to provide this health promoting. System. Are

[1:46:33] you aware of statistics around people who live close to

[1:46:38] heavy arterial routes, uh, the life expectancy of people who

[1:46:42] live, you know, perhaps near a freeway as opposed to

[1:46:45] those who, uh, live farther away from, uh, sources of

[1:46:49] emissions. Yeah. There are, um, I can't, I'm happy to

[1:46:56] provide you with explicit data and follow if you'd like,

[1:47:00] but, um, find particulates, um, such as happen from, um,

[1:47:06] emissions both from transportation and also from stable sources. Those,

[1:47:11] uh, those exacerbate worsen, uh, asthma, um, uh, these, uh,

[1:47:18] many of these products, uh, create ground level ozone, which

[1:47:21] also worsen asthma, um, as well as, uh, worsening other,

[1:47:28] um, pulmonary and cardiac conditions too. Thank you for your

[1:47:34] presentation. Thank you very much, doctor. And I'm sorry, your

[1:47:39] respiratory specialist, fair comment, yes. A respiratory specialist. Am I?

[1:47:48] Yes. No, I'm a, I'm a board certified specialist in

[1:47:52] preventive medicine. Okay. Um, having said that, thank you for

[1:47:56] confirming. Um, my understanding is among the most significant determinants

[1:48:01] of health relate to poverty and isolation. Am I wrong

[1:48:04] in saying that? Well, it's absolutely true. Yes. Thank you

[1:48:09] very much. Any further questions for the delegation. Not seeing

[1:48:14] any appreciate your attendance tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Uh,

[1:48:18] the next delegation is Andrew and Alex Hodson Degen. Good

[1:48:23] evening. Good evening. Reduce yourself for the record. His usual,

[1:48:26] please. In five minutes and I'll let you know when

[1:48:28] you have a minute left. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Um,

[1:48:32] good evening. Mayor Council. My name is Andrew Dagen. I'm

[1:48:36] a resident of Gabriela Island. In regards to heavy emitters,

[1:48:43] burning the truth heavy air polluting industries. So this is

[1:48:48] the Bernaby incinerator. It's currently under investigation for allegedly poisoning

[1:48:55] its neighbourhood. Heavy air polluting industries, research has shown that

[1:49:02] heavy air polluters, the mid toxic air pollutants, hazardous ash,

[1:49:05] greenhouse gas emissions, particulate matter, sulfur, nitrogen, carbon dioxide. Volatile,

[1:49:12] organic compounds and heavy metals in spite of modern controls

[1:49:15] and industry assurances. Heavy air pollutants, many industries, as many

[1:49:23] studies and reports highlight the dangerous related to toxic air

[1:49:26] pollutants. I'm not going to read them all for you.

[1:49:30] You're all literate here. Um, the synergistic effects of heavy

[1:49:35] air pollutants synergism of heavy air pollutants refers to the

[1:49:38] phenomenon where the combined simultaneous exposure to multiple pollutants such

[1:49:43] as fine particular matter ozone sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides

[1:49:49] produces adverse health effects. And environmental effects that are greater

[1:49:54] than the sum of their individual damage. This interaction occurs

[1:50:00] because pollutants can alter atmospheric chemistry and hunts particularly absorption

[1:50:05] or trigger shared biological pathways in humans such as systemic

[1:50:09] inflammation, oxidative stress, which are more damaging together than an

[1:50:15] isolation. Synergistic toxicity amplifies health impact resulting in higher morbidity.

[1:50:21] Rates. The sacrifice zone. World health British Society Ecologic Medicine,

[1:50:28] ecology Otter One, many other organisations warned that living near

[1:50:31] a heavy air polluter like an incinerator is dangerous. The

[1:50:36] fallout area dependent on prevalent wind direction is called the

[1:50:39] sacrifice zone. The closer you live to the centre, the

[1:50:43] greater the health hazard. Eight out of 10 ugly industries

[1:50:48] are located in low income or marginalized communities. And I

[1:50:52] would like to point out here that Gabriela Island and

[1:50:57] Mudge Island are in the immediate sacrifice zone. And there

[1:51:02] are many hundreds of homes that collect rainwater for their

[1:51:07] potable drinking supply. The health effects. Primary environmental and health

[1:51:17] impact of heavier polluting industry contribute to climate change. If

[1:51:21] you're looking for funding, the great air quality form photochemical

[1:51:26] smog as previously mentioned called severe health issues, including respiratory

[1:51:30] diseases, cancers, cardiovascular and reproductive problems. Now I'm not going

[1:51:36] to quote Dr. Ricker here and steal her thunder. She's

[1:51:43] coming up next. Companies protect shareholders, not public health. The

[1:51:50] court's globally recognised that citizens have a right to a

[1:51:53] healthy environment. Worldwide heavy air polluting companies are facing investigations

[1:51:58] and lawsuits for failing to meet clean air regulations. And

[1:52:03] for demonstrating disregard for the health and well - being

[1:52:06] of the surrounding residents and the environment. BC government fails

[1:52:12] to protect the public. So our local Indigenous maintained that

[1:52:20] there are serious questions about due diligence, compliance, respect and

[1:52:24] basic decency from our leaders. Systemic failures by the government

[1:52:29] and industrial operators that prevent identifying address, longstanding environmental harm

[1:52:34] caused by companies at UPOINT dates back more than 40

[1:52:38] years, according to Chief Wise, 2021. Provincial Government is responsible

[1:52:44] for setting limits, but according to the Canadian Association of

[1:52:48] Physicians for the Environment, the permits issued failed to require

[1:52:53] continuous testing for heavy metals, dioxin, furons, and common impacts

[1:52:58] of pollution from heavy airpluting industries. Ugly industries are a

[1:53:04] liability. I'm going to go fast now. We support the

[1:53:09] option. Two, to prohibit ways to energy incinerators, chemical plants,

[1:53:14] thermal electric generators, petroleum refineries, and LNG export facilities. Thank

[1:53:20] you very much. Thank you. Questions for that allegation, Councillor

[1:53:25] Manley. Thank you. You referenced the incinerator in Burnaby. And

[1:53:31] do you know how that was determined that they found

[1:53:33] out about the toxic emissions and the dioxins in France

[1:53:38] that were landing in the yards? Do I know what

[1:53:41] they have found out? Do you know how they found

[1:53:43] out. No, not specifically, no. Oh, they were collecting samples

[1:53:48] of roofs of surrounding roofs, which in consideration of Gabriela

[1:53:53] Island, where there are many, many hundreds of homes collecting

[1:53:58] rainwater. For their drinking water supply. So if those dioxidants

[1:54:04] end up on their roofs or the nanoparticular, you don't

[1:54:07] even have to drink it. You just have to have

[1:54:09] a shower to get its absorbed through your skin. So,

[1:54:14] you know, it's heavy air polluting industries are a danger

[1:54:20] to our environment and our health. Sorry. If you wish

[1:54:26] to speak, please up to the mic. Oh, I am

[1:54:30] so sorry. Yes. So two. The mic. It's

[1:54:40] a lot worse when you get two in an area

[1:54:44] together. Thank you. It was actually an independent investigation that

[1:54:49] found it was not the regulator that found that there

[1:54:53] was toxic emissions coming from that incinerator in Burnaby. And

[1:54:57] so the regulator wasn't doing their job. Thank you for

[1:55:00] presentation. Thank you very much. Uh, the next is Cheryl

[1:55:05] Bancroft. Miss Vancouffed, I think you've heard the rules. If

[1:55:15] you'll introduce yourself for the record, you'll have five minutes

[1:55:17] when the minute left, I'll advise you. Thank you. Good

[1:55:22] evening Mayor and Council. Pleasure to be here and have

[1:55:27] a chance to speak with you. Uh, I'm here actually

[1:55:31] to add to what's been already mentioned from previous delegations.

[1:55:40] Um, what I find is that, um, options one through

[1:55:46] three. Which do address some site - specific requirements. They're

[1:55:51] missing some pieces. And it's the missing pieces that I

[1:55:55] want to speak to. What I find is that none

[1:55:59] of the options first address transparency. We have a particular

[1:56:08] proponent with an application before rezoning. And it's never really

[1:56:13] been, it's not been exposed due to the public exactly

[1:56:17] what they intend to do on that property. So I'm

[1:56:21] asking for transparency in any zoning application. Um, of course,

[1:56:28] consultation with SNNEMO. At third to review what the proponents,

[1:56:37] water uses will be. We know with climate change that

[1:56:41] we are, um, going through extraordinary dry spells. Um, proponents

[1:56:49] have licences for use of water. But that will be

[1:56:53] affecting the rest of the city as it expands and

[1:56:56] grows. And so what is there in your policies to

[1:57:00] review how much water use each, um, industry uses. Proximity

[1:57:09] to residential areas. So then I was boundaries are a

[1:57:16] line on a map. Of course, one in particular that

[1:57:20] is before you rezoning application does not show the residential

[1:57:26] lands on the other side of the line. In cedar.

[1:57:32] In RDN area. Now you've identified for industry inappropriate that

[1:57:39] industries that are inappropriate and urban and residential areas. But

[1:57:43] I don't see that being incorporated into bylaws and policies.

[1:57:49] Uh, in rezoning applications. TREECANDOPY implications. That's been a recent

[1:57:57] topic for the city. And how does that fit into

[1:58:01] rezoning applications. Um, the tree canopy, of course, with climate

[1:58:06] changes. This is our source of cooling. But also, um,

[1:58:13] in some applications, it could be diversion of streams. And

[1:58:20] on a property that streams that feed an adjoining forest.

[1:58:25] Of course, you know, I'm talking about the area west

[1:58:28] of cable bay. Currently the application is to divert water.

[1:58:35] And run it into the ocean. But that will divert

[1:58:39] streams away from an existing forest. Well, if this forest

[1:58:43] doesn't have water, uh, gravitationally running to it, we won't

[1:58:47] have a forest. Another implication is marine ecology. And I

[1:58:56] don't see that showing up. And reviews of zoning bylaws.

[1:59:02] So where does that factor in. So industrial expansion is

[1:59:08] inevitable. I think we understand that. Um, the Nanaimo Accord

[1:59:14] speaks to an integrated approach. That includes environmental responsibility. And

[1:59:22] the coordinated action for regional prosperity. Yet the minute. There's

[1:59:27] nothing in there that recognises, uh, the impressional community. You

[1:59:32] worship. Sorry to interrupt, but just, um, the delegation should

[1:59:35] be speaking to the report on the agenda and not

[1:59:37] any previous rezoning applications. So I'm just asking that in

[1:59:42] the resonance. So because the public hearing was, um, was

[1:59:49] adjourned, but not over. It's, sorry, it was, um, recessed

[1:59:54] or it's not over. So we can't hear any more

[1:59:58] talk on that rezoning application. This delegation should be speaking

[2:00:01] only to the report on the agenda this evening. Ms.

[2:00:04] Gurry is quite correct. I've given you a taken you

[2:00:07] back. You have a full minute to complete. My ask

[2:00:11] is that, um, like previous candidate had had mentioned option

[2:00:17] four. Which would be a blending of option three, which

[2:00:23] is to do a comprehensive review. And to include, um,

[2:00:28] industries that are being prohibited and integrate in the items

[2:00:33] that I've mentioned to you, consultation, transparency, water use. Proximity

[2:00:38] to residential areas, tree canopy and marine implications. And that's

[2:00:43] my ask. Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

[2:00:47] Uh, yes. Um, you had mentioned in your discussion that

[2:00:51] it was essential to consult with SFNs and AMICRUS nation

[2:00:55] on this. And so the views of the nation should

[2:00:58] figure, um, I won't say predominantly, but certainly figure importantly

[2:01:03] in any discussion council has around these matters. Would you

[2:01:07] agree with that? Yes, I certainly appreciate that. Thank you

[2:01:10] very much. Any questions that allegation. Not seeing any. Appreciate

[2:01:15] your time tonight. The next delegation is Bethany Ricker. Dr.

[2:01:22] Ricker, I think you've heard the drill. Introduce yourself. You'll

[2:01:25] have five minutes. And I'll let you know when the

[2:01:27] minute left. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you Mayor and Council.

[2:01:35] I'm Dr. Bethany Ricker, family physician practicing here in Nanaimo.

[2:01:40] Co - chair of the Canadian Association of Physicians for

[2:01:42] the Environment of BC. And an executive board director of

[2:01:46] the Nanaimo Climate Action Hub. I support a transition to

[2:01:50] limiting some emissions intensive heavy industries such as petroleum refineries.

[2:01:57] LNG export facilities and ways to energy facilities. Because of

[2:02:01] the potential for harmful impacts on health, community and climate.

[2:02:06] I want to use the example of CIDAMATS LNG export

[2:02:09] facility to demonstrate the potential for unforeseen harms of emissions

[2:02:13] intensive industries on a community. Leakage and flaring of methane

[2:02:18] produce harmful pollutants like nitrogen and sulfur dioxides, posing particular

[2:02:23] risk to vulnerable people such as those with lung disease,

[2:02:27] pregnant people, children, and the elderly. A few months ago,

[2:02:31] I filled a short - term low composition for a

[2:02:33] family doctor in Kitamat. Over my few weeks, working there,

[2:02:38] I saw many patients who themselves were concerned that their

[2:02:42] health was being harmed by air pollutants from the LNG

[2:02:45] expert facility. A father who himself worked within the industry

[2:02:50] brought in his young daughter with a long - lasting

[2:02:52] cough, saying maybe her daycare being right under the FLIR

[2:02:56] stack could have something to do with this. I normally

[2:03:00] healthy and active 40 - something - year - old

[2:03:02] woman had been to this clinic a dozen times over

[2:03:05] the past year with a chronic cough and shortness of

[2:03:08] breath, undiagnosed after multiple trials of antibiotics, multiple x -

[2:03:13] rays, SCT scan, and lung function testing. And elderly woman

[2:03:17] with baseline COPD came in for her puffer refill, much

[2:03:20] too soon, telling me that ever since that smoke started,

[2:03:24] her breathing had never been easy. These are the lived

[2:03:29] experiences of people living close to harmful emissions. These are

[2:03:33] the concerns that local health care providers and city decision

[2:03:37] makers are dealing with. In fact, frontline communities are so

[2:03:41] concerned about these possible health effects that multiple directly affected

[2:03:45] municipalities have called for an independent health impacts assessment, including

[2:03:51] DOSEN creek, terrorists, and squamish. These air pollutants not only

[2:03:57] harm our health directly, but also worsen climate change, which

[2:04:00] itself is the greatest health threat of our century. LNG

[2:04:05] primarily methane is 80 times as potent at greenhouse gas

[2:04:09] warming than CO2. And multiple studies show that LNG is

[2:04:13] no better than coal in its total emissions. Some of

[2:04:18] you on council are concerned that increased regulation will drive

[2:04:21] away investment and industry thereby risking increased poverty and poor

[2:04:25] job opportunities here in the Nanaimo. I am in full

[2:04:29] agreement that poverty is perhaps the single greatest determinant of

[2:04:32] health. We should not be pitting the environmental and financial

[2:04:37] determinants of health against one another. But rather these are

[2:04:40] two compounding risk factors, which often affect the same vulnerable

[2:04:44] population simultaneously. And this is for multiple reasons. It is

[2:04:50] more likely for toxic emissions to be created near poorer

[2:04:53] neighbourhoods. Or that people with the financial means will move

[2:04:57] away. And the voices of people with less financial capital

[2:05:00] are more often overlooked, even if they do have health

[2:05:04] concerns. Those with minimal savings are more harmed by forced

[2:05:09] time away from work if they themselves or a loved

[2:05:11] one are sick. And these effects do not only apply

[2:05:15] to passive bystanders, but we must strongly consider the health

[2:05:19] effects on industry workers themselves, those who are often at

[2:05:23] highest risk to ensure that they are adequately informed and

[2:05:26] protected from undue harms. One minute. Climate change itself is

[2:05:31] also much more harmful to people of lower financial independence.

[2:05:35] For example, being unable to install appropriate cooling in their

[2:05:38] homes or being unable to afford insurance costs as they

[2:05:42] rise due to risks of flooding and fires. The cost

[2:05:47] of fresh healthy food is another example of cost increased

[2:05:50] by climate change. So yes, both poverty and environmental exposures

[2:05:55] must be considered when we build industry in our community.

[2:05:58] And we must ensure that the most vulnerable are not

[2:06:02] saddled with the harmful consequences of our decisions. I am

[2:06:05] not against industry. Safe, healthy, stable, and gainful employment is

[2:06:11] critical for our health and wellbeing. Although every industry will

[2:06:16] have some effect on the natural environment and human health,

[2:06:21] our industrial development can be made more safe through planning

[2:06:25] the types of industries, their locations, and their health and

[2:06:28] safety regulations carefully. Thank you. Thank you. You're dead on

[2:06:33] you, Mr. Practice. Spoke fast. Questions Councillor Armstrong and then

[2:06:38] Councillor Manley. Thank you very much, doctor. My question is

[2:06:40] going towards LNG. I was doing a lot of research

[2:06:42] on the CEDEMAT thing because that's very controversial up there,

[2:06:46] obviously. Um, and they show that, um, they have a

[2:06:49] 74 percent higher rate of asthma. Is that linked directly

[2:06:53] to the LNG or could that also be to the,

[2:06:56] um, aluminum plant Earth combination? Very many factors. And in

[2:06:59] CEDAMOT specifically, they do have a very affected airshed because

[2:07:03] they have already had RioTintol Alcancility there for many years.

[2:07:07] And they are in a vulnerable airshed with the way

[2:07:10] their geography is and maintaining those emissions within the atmosphere.

[2:07:14] So as a specific example, CIDAMAT is at very high

[2:07:17] risk because of their airshed due to the combination of

[2:07:21] alkane, RioTento activities, plus LNG Canada. And now the potential

[2:07:25] for expanding to LNG Canada phase two and the floating

[2:07:29] LNG test. In the fall, if I may, because, um,

[2:07:31] from reading what I've read, I understand a lot of

[2:07:33] the issues come at the FLIRUP times. And the government

[2:07:37] only keeps the records for 30 days. Then they destroy

[2:07:39] them. So would that make it hard for you to,

[2:07:42] or any physician or whatever to trace. Back? Because like,

[2:07:47] would it not be a good recommendation to have those

[2:07:49] records kept for a lot longer than 30 days? Oh,

[2:07:52] absolutely. Yeah, it's very difficult to make direct connections between

[2:07:57] outcomes and what their causes, because this is the real

[2:07:59] world. There are many factors impacting individuals health. Um, but

[2:08:04] there have been for sure issues with kind of record

[2:08:07] keeping, as you said, but also with actual monitoring and

[2:08:10] regulation. There's been many revealing news stories, uh, studies coming

[2:08:15] out showing that, um, there have been industrial issues causing

[2:08:19] flaring to be much higher than the regulated and permitted

[2:08:22] amount. And also evidence that, um, the kind of permitted

[2:08:26] amount of flaring is considered on a kind of average

[2:08:30] operations basis as opposed to during the startup phase, which

[2:08:33] can actually last for multiple years when flaring and emissions

[2:08:37] from flaring are actually much higher. And those emissions are

[2:08:40] not being monitored or accounted for inregulating. Thank you very

[2:08:44] much. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Manley. Thank you. Yeah, it

[2:08:49] sounded like you were talking about the synergistic effect of

[2:08:52] LKEN and combined with LNG in that situation. Um, I'm

[2:08:56] curious about the situation in DOS and Creek. Are you

[2:08:59] aware of doctors that have left that community based on

[2:09:03] concerns about the air quality for their families? Yeah, absolutely.

[2:09:06] And you may remember me referencing this, uh, in the

[2:09:09] November meeting, um, DOS and Creek is central centrally located

[2:09:13] in an area of a high volume of fracking. So

[2:09:17] obtaining gas from underground using very toxic chemicals. Um, so

[2:09:23] in that case, yes, potentially air quality because there is

[2:09:26] flaring involved in the process of fracking as well. But

[2:09:30] additionally, there's huge contamination of the groundwater. There's a little

[2:09:34] carcidins getting into the groundwater. And as I spoke to

[2:09:38] last time I was here at the November meeting, uh,

[2:09:42] one of my colleagues, Dr. Mayer, who has been practicing

[2:09:44] in DOS and Creek for the past 30 years has

[2:09:48] truly alarming stories that even as a health care professional,

[2:09:51] your jaw drops thinking, how could there be this many,

[2:09:57] you know, glioblastoma brain tumors in people in their 20s

[2:10:00] and 30s. We never see those here in Nanaimo or

[2:10:03] how could there be this many childhood leukemias in a

[2:10:06] small community in Dawson Creek. So once again, things that

[2:10:09] are hard to gather very granular evidence - based data

[2:10:12] on, but the, um, you know, the known carcinogens are

[2:10:17] there and the cancer diagnoses are there. And so you

[2:10:23] referenced DOS and DOSN Creek and Terris, um, for studies.

[2:10:28] Are those being done by the regulator or that was

[2:10:31] called for by, uh, independent researchers? Yeah. The communities that

[2:10:35] have passed these motions are calling on the province to

[2:10:40] require an independent body to assess the health impacts of

[2:10:46] the natural gas industry. And, and, uh, in the case

[2:10:50] of CIDAMOT, it was an independent researcher who discovered that,

[2:10:54] uh, the, um, the, uh, emissions were 40 times, I

[2:10:58] think, the allowable limit. And what, what did regulator do

[2:11:04] you about that. The province. You know, from my understanding,

[2:11:09] there was, um, industrial, um, kind of concerns. Like this

[2:11:14] was not supposed to be happening. This was due to

[2:11:19] malfunctioning of some usual, uh, operations at the facility. I

[2:11:23] can't speak further to that. I don't want to give

[2:11:25] any false information about what was or was not done.

[2:11:28] However, it was revealed that the, the company itself LNG

[2:11:34] Canada was aware that their emissions were much higher than

[2:11:37] the permissible regulations allowed and that they did not disclose

[2:11:42] this to the regulator for months as they tried to.

[2:11:46] Get that back under control. Process of self - regulation.

[2:11:50] Do you know how many doctors left Austin Creek. I

[2:11:54] don't know specifically. And there is a lot of, of

[2:11:57] course, difficulty for people to speak out publicly about this

[2:12:00] because these are their communities and their loved ones and

[2:12:03] their friends. Um, but it's a small community, right? So

[2:12:07] from the hearsay reports that I have heard, it's somewhere

[2:12:11] a third to a half of the doctors in this

[2:12:14] small community over a period of several years moved their

[2:12:17] practices and moved away. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[2:12:23] I'm not seeing any other questions. Appreciate the presentation.

[2:12:33] Armstrong. Oh, sorry pardon me. Currently Park, how could I

[2:12:40] forget. Sorry. Don't be hurt. Good evening Mayor and Councillors.

[2:12:47] Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is

[2:12:50] Dr. Kierley Park. I'm a respirologist and I practice in

[2:12:54] the NIMO. I just wanted to take a brief moment

[2:12:57] to speak about the effects of air quality on public

[2:13:01] health and to say that I think it's imperative the

[2:13:03] decisions about industrial developments in Nanaimo be made not just

[2:13:08] based on economic factors, but based on potential consequences in

[2:13:12] terms of local public health outcomes. It's well documented that

[2:13:16] air pollution, and I know this is an untouched on

[2:13:19] quite a few times already, but just briefly to say,

[2:13:22] um, especially find particulate matter in the environment poses a

[2:13:26] major public health risk. Including increased mortality and hospitalizations for

[2:13:31] cardiorespiratory causes. To quote a report published by the Canadian

[2:13:36] Government in 2021. In Canada, an internationally health impact assessments

[2:13:43] identify air quality is one of the largest risk factors

[2:13:45] for premature death and disability. It's estimated that in 2016,

[2:13:51] air pollution contributed to more than 15, 000 premature deaths

[2:13:55] in Canada and almost 2, 000 in British Columbia. In

[2:13:59] that year, the total economic cost of all health impacts

[2:14:03] attributable to air pollution was 120 billion dollars. And that

[2:14:07] was a decade ago. I'm concerned about industrial developments in

[2:14:11] Enymol that could worsen air quality. Because whenever air quality

[2:14:14] goes down, it impacts the health of our citizens. And

[2:14:17] I see that all the time in our practice. The

[2:14:20] lens through which we examine new industrial developments proposals at

[2:14:24] a local level needs to include a public health perspective.

[2:14:28] I know that there are federal and provincial regulations for

[2:14:31] industrial emissions, but we know, and we've heard that they're

[2:14:34] not always adhered to. I think that any new proposals

[2:14:38] in this regard should be closely scrutinized at the municipal

[2:14:41] level with public awareness and with input from local health

[2:14:44] officials and providers in order to safeguard the wellbeing of

[2:14:47] our citizens in an AIMO. Thank you. Thank you very

[2:14:52] much, Councillor Brown. You think so much. Thanks so much

[2:14:55] for being here. I'm just curious, I wanted to ask

[2:14:59] the same question to other presenters. But is there any

[2:15:02] localized data based on the impact of existing industry on

[2:15:06] things like respiratory health and things like that? Not that

[2:15:11] I'm aware of. There's some BC specific data. And there

[2:15:14] are some studies in certain areas in Vancouver about markers

[2:15:19] of air quality and health outcomes next to very busy

[2:15:25] arterial roots like traffic routes, but I don't know of

[2:15:28] any of the nine. Right. And just one other question.

[2:15:31] And if you don't have the answer, I know it's

[2:15:33] off the cuff here. So is there a research out

[2:15:36] there about the impacts of say like automobile use and

[2:15:39] the, obviously it's pretty known. The pollution causing in comparison

[2:15:44] to industry, especially in some of the other areas reference,

[2:15:47] like what's the ratio of damage? And I know that

[2:15:49] can be hard, but I'm just curious if that comparative

[2:15:51] analysis is out there. Um, I think, um, I don't

[2:15:54] know that they've been able to tease out specific in

[2:15:58] sort of, um, like traffic versus, um, industry, uh, emissions

[2:16:05] from industry. Although again, the study that I was talking

[2:16:08] about for Vancouver, the, they were taking samples and trying

[2:16:11] to trace back, um, sort of where the different particulate

[2:16:16] matter came from. But again, that's sort of somewhere that

[2:16:20] was really close to a very busy highway. And so

[2:16:23] of course, a lot of it was traffic. So absolutely

[2:16:27] pollution from traffic plays a big role. Um, as do

[2:16:30] wildfires, um, but yeah, the, the emissions from heavy industry

[2:16:34] certainly, Clara. Great. Thanks so much. Thank you. Councillor Armstrong.

[2:16:39] Oh, no, what's for after. Sorry. Okay, I know we've

[2:16:47] got like four different options on the table. One of

[2:16:51] my concerns that, that I would like to see before

[2:16:53] we make a decision and I just throw that out.

[2:16:55] Is I would like to see engagement with, uh, same

[2:16:58] old First Nation before we even look at any determinations

[2:17:01] and better definitions. Like I think everybody knows my position.

[2:17:05] I think we need to look at gasification as an

[2:17:07] option. That's why he's asking the questions. And people, I

[2:17:10] think quite often mix up incineration with gasification. And I

[2:17:13] think biomass is netting like we said. Like I just

[2:17:15] don't have enough information yet. Like I agree. Like I

[2:17:18] think LNG is dangerous. Um, you know, like from the

[2:17:21] research I've done, I think that in petroleum, another, you

[2:17:23] know, concern I do have as well. But I don't

[2:17:26] think there's nothing information to make an informed decision right

[2:17:29] now. I'd like to hear more from that. You know,

[2:17:31] when we talk about community consultation, I think it's very

[2:17:34] important that we hear from some of the doctors that

[2:17:36] spoke as well so they can provide the, uh, their

[2:17:39] perspective for preventive medicine. I think it's important that we

[2:17:42] hear the economic benefits versus that. All of that. Because

[2:17:45] it is a big decision to make. I do understand

[2:17:46] site specific. But my issue is site specific is it's

[2:17:50] time consuming cost a lot of money. Um, if we

[2:17:53] don't get more information, like I was looking at number

[2:17:56] three, but part of me would like to make a

[2:17:59] motion to defer the decision until the engagement with, uh,

[2:18:03] SFN and Nanamo Prosperity Corporation, which was part of the

[2:18:06] original motion put in by, um, Councillor Hammond's be conducted

[2:18:10] and then be brought back to us after that conversation

[2:18:13] takes place because we have had conversations with SFN around

[2:18:17] industrial lands, especially when we're looking at, um, Duke Point

[2:18:21] area and all the rezones and stuff. So I just

[2:18:23] throw that out for consideration. Sorry, are you moving a

[2:18:27] motion to defer. Thank you. And Councillor seconds. All right.

[2:18:34] Councillor Hemmons. So your worship with emotion on the floor,

[2:18:41] we should deal with the motion first and then, and

[2:18:43] then have the break after. I'll ask Councillor's to speak

[2:18:52] slowly. So speaking in support of deferral, I think it's

[2:18:57] essential that we get the nation's perspective on this as

[2:19:00] well as, um, when we have this initial debate, I

[2:19:03] did ask staff to get prosperities take on this as

[2:19:08] our economic development agency. Um, I would like to hear

[2:19:12] from them. So for me, I support the deferral to

[2:19:14] listen to those two partners. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor

[2:19:19] Brown. Go slow. Yeah. No worries. Um, so just to

[2:19:23] be clear, the deferral, I'm not clear on what we're,

[2:19:28] what we've actually, like we've deferred it to have conversations

[2:19:31] with SFN. And we'll bring. Up that. My mic goes

[2:19:37] on. And then bring it back to Council for the

[2:19:42] decision as to which options we want to look at.

[2:19:44] Because I think it's important that we hear SFN's perspective

[2:19:47] on these lands because we do know a lot of

[2:19:49] those areas are impacted by some of their hereditary and

[2:19:53] cultural stuff. And they haven't been consulted on this yet.

[2:19:56] So I would like to hear from them. That's just

[2:19:58] my personal viewpoint and also ENPC is to impacts. And

[2:20:02] then have another report come back to come back to

[2:20:04] us. It's just something I threw out before I make

[2:20:08] the big decision on yes or no. Or. So be

[2:20:12] a worship just to clarify. Would it be the same

[2:20:14] report and these same options coming back before you after

[2:20:18] engagement with SNE and then I'm a prosperity. Thank you

[2:20:21] for sure. Okay. Uh, I'll speak to that then your

[2:20:24] worship, if I may, um, I can definitely support the

[2:20:27] first half of that. To me, the NPC makes no

[2:20:29] sense. They're an advocacy body that coordinates and convenes meetings

[2:20:34] with economic players. Could care less what they have to

[2:20:37] say about it. Um, I would rather speak to the

[2:20:40] industry itself. Uh, especially those property owners that are actively.

[2:20:48] Actively have active industrial operations. Or our planning active industrial

[2:20:56] operations on those properties. That's what makes sense to me.

[2:20:59] Um, and then I also think that, you know, that's

[2:21:03] an economic perspective. Absolutely needs to be balanced by a

[2:21:06] health perspective. And I note that you, you mentioned doctors,

[2:21:12] uh, and relevant agencies within your comments, but it's not

[2:21:15] within the motion. Uh, so to that end, and then

[2:21:21] I would just say, I think the third component there

[2:21:23] that I think is missing. And that would be, and

[2:21:27] I don't know where the appropriate place would be to

[2:21:30] receive comment from potentially ministries or whatnot. But, uh, the

[2:21:36] environmental component that would be absent as well. Because I

[2:21:39] don't think the decision is just economy versus the environment

[2:21:41] or economy versus the health. I think, I think what

[2:21:43] Council Armstrong, I don't want to speak for you is

[2:21:45] trying to get it is that we actually need a

[2:21:47] very informed discussion with the balance perspectives at this table

[2:21:51] before proceeding with one option or the other. But so

[2:21:56] as the motion stands now, I couldn't support it. Thank

[2:21:57] you. Thank you Councillor Thorpe and Councillor Hemmons and Council

[2:22:01] Manley and then Councillor Genslerbrook. Thank you very much for

[2:22:04] worship. I will be supporting the motion, although I guess

[2:22:08] I feel I would prefer that it was less restrictive.

[2:22:12] I was very concerned when I read in the report

[2:22:15] and I highlighted it. That, and I quote, no engagement

[2:22:18] has taken place at this time. And I'm not blaming

[2:22:20] staff because I know they were hurrying to get this

[2:22:23] report back to us as directed. But I think the

[2:22:27] more communication and engagement, the better, certainly with SFN. I

[2:22:31] want to hear what the prosperity corporation has to say

[2:22:36] and absolutely what the industries that are going to be

[2:22:38] affected potentially have to say as well. So I think

[2:22:41] there's a lot of engagement that needs to happen. And,

[2:22:44] uh, I am not comfortable making a decision on this

[2:22:47] until that engagement has taken place. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:22:51] Councillor Hemings. Thank you worship. I've already spoken, but I

[2:22:55] wanted to address Councillor Brown's comments. I actually find it

[2:22:58] a little rude to say that we don't care about

[2:23:00] prosperity or you don't. That's the organisation that Council has

[2:23:04] funded to give us expert advice on the development of

[2:23:07] the economy in the NINIMO. And we had a really

[2:23:09] great presentation from someone who's working very closely with prosperity.

[2:23:12] And I think they're doing really great work. So, um,

[2:23:15] I just found that a little out of line and

[2:23:17] I wanted to say that. I think prosperity is the

[2:23:19] right person or the right organisation because they have VIU

[2:23:22] at the table. They have deported the table. They have

[2:23:25] the airport at the table. So in terms of bringing

[2:23:28] perspectives of industrial players, absolutely they can go and get

[2:23:31] specifics. But I think they represent, um, our economic partners

[2:23:35] really well. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Manley. Uh, thank

[2:23:41] you. Then and I will prosperity corporation has already identified

[2:23:45] priority sectors and emissions intents heavy industry is not one

[2:23:49] of them. They've, they've, uh, they've identified marine and blue

[2:23:52] economy, clean tech and sustainability and advanced manufacturing and industrial

[2:23:57] tech. I think the Nanaima Prosperity Corporation is already on

[2:24:01] the path to where this community should be going. And

[2:24:05] so, um, you know, we had that presentation on foreign

[2:24:10] direct investment. I wasn't in attendance that on that day,

[2:24:13] but I did meet with Mr. Stansfield and went over

[2:24:17] the presentation with him. Uh, in terms of CNAMO, they've

[2:24:22] been very clear. They want to be consulted when there

[2:24:28] are proposals for rezoning, in particular, anything that's going to

[2:24:32] create additional pollution in their territory. And so the only

[2:24:37] way that that can happen is by creating site -

[2:24:41] specific zoning. Right now, um, a proponent could come in,

[2:24:46] an international organisation could come in by land. Let's get

[2:24:51] a development permit for building an incinerator. And, um, there's,

[2:24:57] there would be no requirement for consultation, not with city

[2:24:59] council and not with, um, first nation. And in fact,

[2:25:04] we might be bound by international trade agreements. To, uh,

[2:25:09] watch that proposal get, get built. And, you know, have

[2:25:13] a company like Wheel Braider importing garbage. From Oregon, Washington

[2:25:19] state, because we do have a, uh, an international agreement

[2:25:23] with the United States on the transfer of hazardous waste.

[2:25:28] It's the counter the U. S. Agreement on transboundary movement

[2:25:30] of hazardous waste. And, uh, Oregon and Washington are closing

[2:25:34] incinerators. So we could become the garbage dump of the

[2:25:38] Pacific Northwest without so much as a public hearing. Or

[2:25:44] any consultation was the name of. So this is the

[2:25:47] root for consultation with NaNamel. This is how they would

[2:25:52] have a voice in anything that happens. And they've been

[2:25:56] very clear with us. I think that the letter that

[2:25:58] they sent on April 7th was very clear that they

[2:26:00] want input on industrial activity within their territory that adds

[2:26:08] any additional pollution. In our territory. I don't know of

[2:26:12] other bylaws where we have gone to consult with Sonema

[2:26:17] on changes to our bylaws. Um, but, but maybe somebody

[2:26:22] could educate me about that. But I don't, I don't

[2:26:25] support a deferral at this time. Uh, so I'll be

[2:26:28] voting against it. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Gesselbrock. Thank you,

[2:26:34] Mayor, through you. Um, I don't support the deferral. Main

[2:26:41] reason I think some of the options provided, from the

[2:26:45] community, uh, on certain emission, heavy emitting producing industries, um,

[2:26:50] that we can make an easily a decision on a

[2:26:53] couple of things. For example, petroleum refineries and LNG export

[2:26:56] facilities. That's pretty easy decision to make to prohibit data.

[2:27:01] And just in a sense, ask that if something came

[2:27:04] for like that, I'd have to go to public hearing.

[2:27:06] Uh, I think also the question of municipal waste to

[2:27:11] energy. Um, that's one that's even in our regional district,

[2:27:14] Solid Waste Management Plan that we don't support that. Um,

[2:27:17] that's something that we could easily go ahead with now.

[2:27:19] We know in 2014, there is a huge amount of

[2:27:22] public protests that shut down a proposal that didn't need

[2:27:25] to go to public hearing right into the province and

[2:27:28] got the Council involved. So let's just close the door

[2:27:32] on that, that they didn't quite close on 2014. Um,

[2:27:35] and then, uh, so option one for me is something

[2:27:38] that we could easily do tonight. Um, and we don't

[2:27:40] need it to refer to later. I think that's a

[2:27:42] very balanced approach because, uh, chemical plants immediately going ahead

[2:27:47] with prohibiting that and thermal electrical generators. There's a lot

[2:27:50] of nuance there. And the things that are very aligned

[2:27:52] with what this council wants to do that we would

[2:27:55] be closing the door on which we shouldn't. And our

[2:27:59] zoning bylaw lacks the, um, nuance and the specificity to

[2:28:03] actually, um, have a good process in place of what

[2:28:07] should go to public hearing. Um, and that's why, uh,

[2:28:11] I agree with having greater, uh, engagement with SFN, um,

[2:28:16] and with the community on reviewing our heavy industrial allowable

[2:28:20] uses and amending our zoning bylaw. And option three says

[2:28:23] direct staff to complete a comprehensive review of heavy industrial

[2:28:26] uses for the cities industrial zones as part of the

[2:28:28] zoning bylaw update project. That would be a great public

[2:28:31] process to go through and having a very close look

[2:28:34] at our heavy industrial uses and what we want to

[2:28:37] prohibit and ensure goes to public hearing or one that

[2:28:40] we can allow in a permissive use. And so I

[2:28:42] think going forward tonight with Option one and option three

[2:28:46] would one, do the no - brainers, um, that we

[2:28:50] don't really need to go out for continued engagement on.

[2:28:55] And then allow for a public process engagement on reviewing

[2:28:59] the other industrial uses and the definitions through a review

[2:29:03] of our heavy industrial uses. That would be making a

[2:29:06] decision on this item as opposed to prolonging inevitable because

[2:29:09] I know where the community stands on these issues. And

[2:29:12] if some proposal was put forward, that was heavy industrial

[2:29:15] use and proven emission. There would be a human cry

[2:29:18] and we'd have to fill up gallery and spend, uh,

[2:29:22] nights and nights and nights of hearing why the public

[2:29:24] wants greater public oversight on, uh, heavy industrial uses and

[2:29:28] heavy emitting industries. So I'm definitely not in support of

[2:29:32] deferral. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Armstrong. Thank you. My

[2:29:36] purpose for going to SFN first is I want to

[2:29:39] do it before it goes to public hearing. I think

[2:29:41] it's important that they be given as a government to

[2:29:44] government that we speak with them first. The reason I

[2:29:46] included NPC, because that was part of the original motion.

[2:29:50] That Councillor Hemmons was told that would happen, that didn't

[2:29:52] happen. So we're not getting a report that was requested

[2:29:55] by Council at the time. I agree. Like my other

[2:29:59] concern, which I've shared before, and it's been talked about

[2:30:02] at the regional district with, with, I can't remember Ben's

[2:30:05] last name. They are looking at gasification because we don't

[2:30:07] have the land. So that is being looked at. Many

[2:30:10] First Nations are being involved on you slave with tooth

[2:30:13] who have just struck a partnership with, uh, I can't

[2:30:16] remember the name of the group in Vancouver to do

[2:30:18] huge gasification because it's renewal. And they consider it green

[2:30:22] fuel. So that's my concern, the difference between gasification. And

[2:30:26] incineration. They're quite different. And I think it's important because

[2:30:30] in exactly what you said, Mr. Councillor Manley. SFN may

[2:30:34] come back and say, yes, we support site - specific

[2:30:36] zoning. I want to hear that from them. And we're

[2:30:38] okay to go to public hearing on every one of

[2:30:40] these. Or they may come back and say, you know

[2:30:42] what. We don't want to say specific on these. We

[2:30:45] want them gone, period. You know, so I would like

[2:30:48] to have that information before we get to a bylaw

[2:30:51] or whatever. And my other concern is, and I don't

[2:30:53] know how this will play with the government when we

[2:30:54] have a minister telling us to stay in our own

[2:30:56] lane. When we do this previously, which is concerning, because

[2:31:00] these bylaws have to go to them for approval, right?

[2:31:02] So I just believe it's better to engage with SFN

[2:31:07] from the start instead of waiting until we're already at

[2:31:10] a motion where we're going to rezone or we're going

[2:31:12] to do this. And they haven't even had a chance

[2:31:14] to weigh in yet. That's just my personal viewpoint. I

[2:31:17] prefer to consult first and then do it after. Thank

[2:31:20] you. Thank you Councillor Prino. Thank you. You worship. I

[2:31:25] will be voting in favor of deferral. And the reason

[2:31:27] for me is I think there's no one at this

[2:31:30] table. In fact, no one in this region who wants

[2:31:34] to see unhealthy emissions. Nobody does. But the important part

[2:31:38] is, is that this is about industry. And we do

[2:31:41] need to speak to SFN. We do need to speak

[2:31:44] to the industries. We do need to speak to our

[2:31:47] NPC. We need to have as much information as we

[2:31:50] can to make the best decisions possible before we go

[2:31:53] to rezoning. That would be my preference always. So I'll

[2:31:56] be voting in favor of this. I wish that the

[2:31:58] motion said speak to industries as well as SFN. I

[2:32:03] wish we could put that in as a friendly amendment.

[2:32:05] I'll just put that out there. I think that it

[2:32:08] would be smarter to include those that are the most

[2:32:10] affected by this. And to get their expertise on what

[2:32:13] we are or are not doing. So that would be

[2:32:15] my preference and definitely for deferral. Thank you. I'm reminded

[2:32:21] of the saying in Judicial Community, nothing about us without

[2:32:25] us. Council received a letter July 22nd sent on Sunday

[2:32:30] night, the 26th from the Port of the Nanaimo, assigned

[2:32:34] by Donna Hayes. Uh, and from a joint letter from

[2:32:39] CENAMIC First Nation signed by Chief Mike Wise, uh, long

[2:32:43] request for the city of Nanaimo along with others to

[2:32:46] participate in a strategic economic round table, uh, involving numerous

[2:32:51] partners, uh, including, as they said, uh, transport Canada, industry

[2:32:56] Canada, housing infrastructure candidate, crowned induced relations candidate, National Defence

[2:33:00] candidates, the name. And then I'm a board authority DP

[2:33:04] world, British Lumber Ministry of Transportation. Infrastructure jobs economic growth

[2:33:07] relevant shippers, et cetera, et cetera. Councillor Manley, be the

[2:33:14] first to acknowledge that he then wrote in response to

[2:33:18] that. A short letter, uh, asking, pardon me. It was

[2:33:23] then followed up today, tonight, by a letter from Councillor

[2:33:28] Joseph, designated under the terms of the letter from Sanemach

[2:33:31] and the port. Saying it's come to the same exact

[2:33:34] tension that on July 27, 2026, Mayor and Councillor, considering

[2:33:37] options to amend the city of Bylaw, Navala 204500 related

[2:33:42] to emissions intensive industrial industrial uses, et cetera. We are

[2:33:47] mount Aaron Counsel. We address the issue of munitional governance

[2:33:49] related to missions intensive industry and our letters of April

[2:33:52] 7th. In that letter, we explained how every industrial activity's

[2:33:55] particular concern, et cetera. Since that letter, we have not

[2:33:59] been engaged in specific proposed zoning bylaw amendments or more

[2:34:03] generally unablishing a framework for missions, et cetera. Uh, so.

[2:34:08] Asking us essentially to not deal with this without further

[2:34:12] consultation. I think that is fairly clear. Um, we know

[2:34:16] that the port authority, a major economic driver and employer

[2:34:20] through the industries that are located there, uh, has not

[2:34:23] been consulted with respect. I won't be quite as harsh

[2:34:27] perhaps as Councillor Henns. But we fund the Nanaimo Prosperity

[2:34:34] Corporation for obvious reasons. I have to ask, what's the

[2:34:40] hurry here. I don't think anyone's going to build a

[2:34:44] liquid natural gas plant in the next few months or

[2:34:47] propose. I don't think we're going to see any of

[2:34:48] those things. What I do here is that the csanamic

[2:34:51] First Nation, who we've just taken enormous step down, the

[2:34:54] road, as I reminded everyone tonight, towards reconciliation, by ensuring

[2:34:58] they'll actually have the right to vote for mayor and

[2:35:00] counsel of this city with whom they have been working

[2:35:02] diligently in the last several years with a protocol agreement

[2:35:05] working group have basically said, hold your horses folks. Could

[2:35:09] you please consult with us not do anything further for

[2:35:12] the time being? Uh, that would be enough for me,

[2:35:15] let alone that need to consult with the port authority

[2:35:19] and the Community generally. We also have finally, and this

[2:35:22] will not please some folks because they seem to have

[2:35:24] become the whipping boy in the community around heavy industry.

[2:35:27] But a letter from Mr. Sadler on behalf of the

[2:35:30] Namo Forest Product saying, as did everybody else in the

[2:35:33] community, just saw the report that was prepared by staff,

[2:35:36] which we received just last week in accordance with the

[2:35:39] agenda, like everybody else, saying thank you for the opportunity

[2:35:42] to review and provide plum or any comments on this

[2:35:44] evening. I will planning a department emissions intensive heavy industry

[2:35:47] uses report to Council in advance of the July 27,

[2:35:52] 2026 Special Counsel meeting. That stated July 24th. That's when

[2:35:55] it's public for everybody. We ask that counts prior to

[2:35:59] Council adopting any of the options presented in the report

[2:36:01] that staff and council invite all I for landowners to

[2:36:05] participate in a thorough consultation to review the current uses

[2:36:08] and the impacts of proposed restrictions on existing businesses and

[2:36:11] future plans for those businesses. Because this isn't just about

[2:36:14] today about existing industry. This is about what the Community's

[2:36:18] Future might look like. And with respect, it's becoming pretty

[2:36:22] obvious. I would hope in this community, given the protests

[2:36:25] around taxation levels, that if you don't have an industrial

[2:36:28] base, then you have to tax residential owners more to

[2:36:30] pay for what everyone wants and seems to regard as

[2:36:33] important. I was much moved by the honest response around

[2:36:38] poverty and isolation being significant contributors to the health of

[2:36:41] the community and its citizens. So unless someone can convince

[2:36:44] me, and I doubt very much they're going to, for

[2:36:47] you can tell from the tone of my voice. That

[2:36:49] there is no necessity to do this tonight. Deferl is

[2:36:53] the appropriate thing. Process is important. It is the ways

[2:36:56] our society operates. I'm going to support the motion to

[2:36:59] defer until the Community Consultation. I am not about to

[2:37:03] participate in creating a controversy tonight by trying to pass

[2:37:07] a motion. It'll simply further divide this community. We've already

[2:37:10] had enough submissions in the last few months about various

[2:37:13] attitudes about heavy industry and employment and the economy. I

[2:37:17] think it's time for us to take a step back.

[2:37:19] Defer this, discuss it, get staff to do their work,

[2:37:23] listen to the public, give the public a full opportunity

[2:37:25] to be heard. Strikes me as logical. Never hurts to

[2:37:30] listen. It does not always pay, however, just to talk.

[2:37:34] So motions on the floor to defer all those in

[2:37:37] favor, councillors Armstrong, East Bear, Hemmons, Mayor Crowg, Councillor Thorpe,

[2:37:42] Count Soprino, and those opposed. Councillors Gesselbrock, Brown, and Manley.

[2:37:47] This matter is deferred. Thank you very much. I appreciate

[2:37:50] it. Now we can have an evening break and staff

[2:37:53] can get a bit of a rest. We'll reconvene in

[2:37:55] 10 minutes. Thank you.

[2:38:22] The other business item to be next. Oh yes, pardon

[2:38:25] me, yes. Sorry about that. Can we bring forward please

[2:38:28] Councillor East Mears motion read the lost intersections public art

[2:38:31] installations? We do have a delegation. I don't think the

[2:38:34] poor person should have to sit here all night very

[2:38:36] wisely, thank you. Unless someone objects mightily. So Councillor Eastmer,

[2:38:41] it's your motion. 17B. Thank you. So the motion that

[2:38:49] Council Direct staff to prepare a report identifying the process

[2:38:53] and estimated costs to acquire the three lost intersections temporary

[2:38:59] public art installations by Jackie Wong for inclusion in the

[2:39:03] city's permanent public art collection as a lasting recognition of

[2:39:06] Nanaimo's Chinese Canadian Heritage, including the purchase of the artwork

[2:39:11] from the artist permanent installation requirements at all three installation

[2:39:15] sites and ongoing operating and capital costs for inspection, maintenance

[2:39:20] repair replacement and long - term stewardship. Ms. Gurry, do

[2:39:23] we have to have it seconded first before I invite

[2:39:26] the delegation? No, actually, so we would have the delegation

[2:39:31] speak before you debate the lansu. My pronouncing it correctly,

[2:39:39] I hope. Very good. Come to the mic, please, if

[2:39:43] you could just introduce yourself formally for the record. You'll

[2:39:46] have five minutes, man. There's a minute left. I'll let

[2:39:47] you know. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening Mayor and

[2:39:51] Council. Thank you for giving me this opportunity today. My

[2:39:54] name is Gulan Su, and I also go by Emily.

[2:39:59] I hold master degree in media and culture studies in

[2:40:03] Lancaster University from the UK. And I'm a relatively new

[2:40:07] immigrant from China. And NIMO has become my new home.

[2:40:13] When I first arrived here, I noted that Nanaima's public

[2:40:17] spaces reflected the history of European settlement alongside the rich

[2:40:23] and visible history and culture of the Sunaina Nanaemoks'first nation.

[2:40:28] What surprised me was how later I saw the Chinese

[2:40:33] Community that also helped build an AMO. That changed when

[2:40:38] I visited the Chinatown exhibition and learned about the cities

[2:40:43] Chinese history. As I learned more about in the name

[2:40:47] of history, I realised that Chinese people were not a

[2:40:52] small note in the cities past. They helped build its

[2:40:57] economy foundations. They worked in the Coal Mines helped build

[2:41:02] the railway supporting the harbour economy operated laundries and small

[2:41:08] businesses and supplies food through market gardens. Their labour helps

[2:41:14] shape the enamel we know today. I also learned about

[2:41:19] the tragic 1887 My Explosion where 150 miners lost their

[2:41:26] lives more than one third of them who died, which

[2:41:29] is 53 minors, what Chinese. What struck me most was

[2:41:35] that many of the Chinese victims were recorded only by

[2:41:40] payroll numbers instead of their names. That details stay with

[2:41:46] me. It reminded me that why Chinese workers helped build

[2:41:52] these cities. They were not always recognised as equal member

[2:41:56] of it. I also learned about decades of discrimination from

[2:42:02] the head tags to the Chinese exclusion Act and how

[2:42:06] Chinese Communities faced exclusion, isolation and reputative display mes. I

[2:42:16] don't share these history to assign blame. We cannot change

[2:42:20] what happened, but we can choose how we acknowledge it

[2:42:24] today. To me, preserving lost intersections is one meaningful way

[2:42:30] of giving greater visibility to people whose contributions helped build

[2:42:36] an ammo. But whose stories have not always been sane.

[2:42:42] Canada has taken importance steps towards acknowledging difficult parts of

[2:42:48] its history and working towards reconciliation. I believe recognising the

[2:42:54] history of Chinese Canadian is part of the same commitment

[2:42:59] to remember those whose contributions were overlooked and to ensure

[2:43:04] that our public spaces reflect the full story of our

[2:43:09] community. I respectfully encourage counsel to support exploring the accusation

[2:43:16] of these artworks as a permanent part of the Naimos

[2:43:20] Public Landscapes. I also hope that this is only the

[2:43:25] beginning. I hope we continue to see more public art

[2:43:30] that tells the story of Chinese Canadians as well as

[2:43:34] other communities whose contributions have helped shape the name of.

[2:43:40] Thank you very much for your time and considerations. Thank

[2:43:44] you very much. Any questions of the delegation. I don't

[2:43:48] have a question, but I just want to say thank

[2:43:50] you very much for coming to share your perspective on

[2:43:52] this. Thank you so much, Mayor Time. Thank you. Councillor

[2:43:57] Eastmare. You're moving your motion? I am moving my motion.

[2:44:00] And we have a secondary encounter Armstrong. You want to

[2:44:07] speak to Councillor? I would love to. Yes, thank you.

[2:44:10] So Lost Intersections by Artist Jackie Wong is a public

[2:44:15] art project that highlights an often overlooked part of our

[2:44:18] history. And I'm not sure if everyone has had a

[2:44:22] chance to see these installations yet, but they are three

[2:44:25] neon installations that are placed at historical intersections. And they

[2:44:29] mark the former sites of Nanaimo's three Chinatowns, which were

[2:44:34] once vibrant centres of Community Culture and Resilience for Chinese

[2:44:38] immigrants. The first one was at Esplanade in Victoria from

[2:44:45] the 1860s to 1884. The second was at View Street

[2:44:50] and Bing Key Street from 1884 to 1908. And the

[2:44:55] third at Pine Street and Hecket from 1908 to the

[2:45:00] 1960s was said to have a population of about 1200

[2:45:02] people at the height of its existence before it was

[2:45:06] also destroyed by a fire. And in speaking with members

[2:45:09] of the Chinese Community here in Nanaimo, the obviously an

[2:45:13] understandably, a very strong desire to better recognise the history

[2:45:16] and the many contributions of the Chinese immigrants and Chinese

[2:45:20] Community here in Nanaimo since the 1860s. And I wasn't

[2:45:23] time to Nanaimo had the third largest Chinatown in all

[2:45:26] of BC. And in addition to refurbishing the town site

[2:45:31] Chinese cemetery, which is a priority, I'm hearing a shared

[2:45:35] desire from amongst many Chinese Community Groups in Nanaimo, including

[2:45:39] the Nanaimo Chinese cultural Society and Nanaimo Chinese Freemasons and

[2:45:44] Historical Experts, including Dr. Imogene Lim and Community Advocates to

[2:45:48] make the lost intersections pieces permanent. And as chair of

[2:45:53] the city's advisory committee on accessibility and inclusiveness, I see

[2:45:56] a recognition of the contributions of Chinese immigrants as part

[2:46:01] of the inclusiveness aspect of my commitment to this work.

[2:46:05] And these installations are small, but they're bright, they're beautiful.

[2:46:08] And I think they're really important markers where there has

[2:46:12] been no recognition before. And I don't want to lose

[2:46:15] these formerly lost intersections when the temporary art contract expires.

[2:46:20] And I think they really present an excellent jumping off

[2:46:23] point to build from. I would love to lock these

[2:46:26] in sooner rather than later so that we have something

[2:46:28] permanent. And these can act as anchors in these locations

[2:46:32] so we can add to these areas with more placemaking

[2:46:34] elements, including informational plaques or educational installations to better recognise

[2:46:40] and celebrate the vital contributions of the Chinese Community here

[2:46:43] in Animo. Thank you very much. Councillor Armstrong and Council

[2:46:48] Preno. Thank you. Just I wanted to thank Councillor Eastmire

[2:46:51] on behalf of the Chinese Cultural Society who reached out

[2:46:53] to say they were very thankful for making this motion.

[2:46:56] And they're very appreciative and hope it passes. So on

[2:46:59] behalf of them, thank you. Thank you and Council Prenons.

[2:47:03] Thank you. You worship just a very quick question. So

[2:47:05] I understand that we are asking staff to prepare a

[2:47:08] report about the three different art installations and the costs

[2:47:15] with them. Any idea when we'll get that report back.

[2:47:20] Ms. Popelsinger. Through your worship to Councillo Prino, we'll do

[2:47:23] our best to get it back to you as soon

[2:47:25] as possible. Obviously we have a big break before. Right,

[2:47:29] I know. But our aim will be to get back

[2:47:31] to as soon as we can with the numbers. So

[2:47:33] you have an understanding of the cost. Great. Thank you.

[2:47:36] I'm thinking too of the budget. So yeah, thank you

[2:47:38] very much. Thank you Councillor Hemmons. Thank you, worship. When,

[2:47:45] if this motion does not pass or this motion did

[2:47:48] not exist, when would the art Installation be coming down.

[2:47:53] Through your worship to Councillor Hemmons, I would have to

[2:47:55] check. It looks like maybe Council East Fair might have

[2:47:59] been answer for us. Councillor Ishmir. They are. Initially it

[2:48:09] was a five - year contract. And with art pieces

[2:48:13] like this after that contract is upped and the opportunity

[2:48:16] for the city to explore with the artist's potentially acquiring

[2:48:18] the artwork if the artist is interested. I've spoken to

[2:48:21] the artist. They're actually very interested in the city acquiring

[2:48:24] it sooner than that. And in terms of ongoing maintenance,

[2:48:29] these pieces are built in a pretty robust way and

[2:48:32] they are powered with solar panels. And so they are

[2:48:36] built to last and have good potential to become permanent

[2:48:40] pieces. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the answer there. When

[2:48:45] are they expecting five years from. Ah, so they were

[2:48:50] installed in February of this year. Typically after five years,

[2:48:52] we have the opportunity to purchase, but we're looking to

[2:48:54] purchase now. Okay. I want to - To your worship

[2:48:59] to Council, we can come back with options on that.

[2:49:03] Have we ever purchased any of the public art installations

[2:49:06] before? Maybe the reportship to Council we have. And I'm

[2:49:10] trying to think of. - It's okay. I think it's

[2:49:15] included in the report. I just want the whole content.

[2:49:17] Yes. It hasn't been frequent, but we have acquired some

[2:49:20] of the pieces over the years. Okay, thank you. I

[2:49:26] love this installation. Um, I think it's a really beautiful,

[2:49:33] simple mark. Um, to our complex history. My questions, however,

[2:49:39] are based upon just the process here and understanding, you

[2:49:44] know, should we wait for years and then purchase it.

[2:49:46] Like, so I'm happy together to report. I support it.

[2:49:50] I love the installation. And I'm looking forward to getting

[2:49:54] the report so I can weigh it out a little

[2:49:56] bit more. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further motions on

[2:50:03] the table, all those in favor and any opposed, none

[2:50:07] motion carries. Thank you very much. Excuse me, back to

[2:50:12] development reports, pardon me, back to. The quarterly purchasing report,

[2:50:18] Singlan Solster's purchase, quarterly perching reports, and socialist purchase and

[2:50:22] access of 2250, 000, and then Ms. Mercer, you're going

[2:50:27] to do it all at once, right? Bless you. Yeah,

[2:50:29] thank you, your worship. Yeah, I will, um, as all

[2:50:32] the reports are the same just for three different quarters.

[2:50:35] Um, so per the city's procurement policy, this report provides

[2:50:39] the committee with information on those sole source, single submission

[2:50:42] purchases and policy compliance for October to December, 2025, January

[2:50:48] to March, 2026, and April to June, 2026. Uh, in

[2:50:52] each report, attachment one outlines the soul and single source

[2:50:55] purchases attachment to outlines purchases over 250, 000. And there

[2:51:00] were no instances of noncompliant with the procurement policy in

[2:51:04] any of those reporting periods. So staff are here to

[2:51:07] answer questions if you have any. Thank you very much.

[2:51:11] Any questions for Ms. Mercer. Not seeing any, we're driving

[2:51:15] staff too hard. Uh, thank you very much. And it's

[2:51:23] the quarterly purchasing report signals for success of 200. Well,

[2:51:26] hang on. And instances of exceptions to trade, we know

[2:51:30] you've covered that as well. Sorry. We're cutting out more

[2:51:33] Mr. Holm. I just felt badly. Sorry. Uh, next is

[2:51:38] 13 development reports. First is Development Variance, Primit Application, number

[2:51:41] DVP495 - 1451 Belford Avenue. Is there anyone present who

[2:51:48] wishes to speak to development variance, pyramid application number DVP495

[2:51:52] - 145 when Belfort Avenue. I'm not seeing any, motion.

[2:51:59] Move Councillor Thorpe, Secretary Council Perino, all those in favor,

[2:52:03] any opposed, none motion carries. Thank you very much. Uh,

[2:52:07] the next is rezoning application number RA509 - 2080 and

[2:52:12] 2160 East Wellington Road. We do have a presentation. Mr.

[2:52:19] Holland. Looks like you've been left alone tonight. Your cohorts

[2:52:23] of WYSE Gone Home to bed. Which is where I'd

[2:52:26] like to be. I think we have one online, your

[2:52:29] worship. Oh goodness. Yes. You still might be eating heart.

[2:52:33] And who have we got online. Uh, we have the

[2:52:36] Glenn Pro from Highland Properties. Uh, very good. Thanks to

[2:52:40] here from you. Uh, the floor is yours. Thank you.

[2:52:45] Your worship council. It's a pleasure to be here this

[2:52:46] evening. My name is Mark Holland. I'm with West Plan

[2:52:49] for planners that are supporting the landowner through this process.

[2:52:52] Uh, it's a real pleasure to be here this evening.

[2:52:53] We've been working on this project for many years. Uh,

[2:52:56] this has been quite a process. Uh, the environment has

[2:52:59] figured very, very strongly and prominently in this process. Uh,

[2:53:03] that brings us here today for first and second reading.

[2:53:06] Um, we've done quite a few technical studies and we've

[2:53:08] had community engagement and a good focus of what I

[2:53:11] want to speak about are the things that the community

[2:53:13] spoke about that they were concerned about, not dissimilar from

[2:53:16] what we've heard earlier today. The site is a 25

[2:53:20] hectare site that we're all familiar with in terms of

[2:53:23] its trees. This is between East Wellington, the overpass over

[2:53:26] the parkway and Northfield or the tourist centre is, uh,

[2:53:32] minus one small property around the tourist centre. So it's

[2:53:34] that large area of trees back there. Your OCP has

[2:53:38] the whole area designated for light industrial. And at this

[2:53:41] point, I'd just like to go on the record since

[2:53:43] we're using the word industry after tonight. This is specifically

[2:53:47] not the type of industry that we've spent quite a

[2:53:49] bit of this evening speaking about. In fact, all of

[2:53:52] the heavy industry, all of the emitting uses are outright

[2:53:56] completely prohibited in this area. This is a light industry

[2:53:59] conversation. Very, very similar to what you find in Boxwood.

[2:54:03] So in some ways you can imagine this as twinning

[2:54:05] boxwood on the other side of the parkway. The site

[2:54:08] is entirely undeveloped right now. Um, two of the key

[2:54:11] issues that were raised by the community when we met

[2:54:13] with them and really the two primary ones, environmental protection

[2:54:17] and transportation mobility. So I'd like to speak to both

[2:54:20] of those. The environment figured prominently it was the first

[2:54:23] studies we did. In fact, we had about a six

[2:54:25] month delay on the project because we needed to wait

[2:54:28] for precisely the right weather. It wasn't just the season

[2:54:31] we had to wait for the right weather before we

[2:54:33] did the environmental and riparian study. So it was, it

[2:54:36] was, um, the qualified environmental professionals. We waited till they

[2:54:39] said we could go out and do this. Uh, I'm

[2:54:42] pleased to note of the outset that over 50 percent

[2:54:44] of this site. Will be protected as environmental or park

[2:54:49] or open space. It's very rare that I've ever been

[2:54:51] at a microphone being able to talk about industrial project

[2:54:53] and say half of it will be protected as Parker

[2:54:55] Open Space. Uh, furthermore. Were the rezoning level here. So

[2:55:00] the state many steps ahead before anything could be built.

[2:55:04] Next step would be subdivisione to begin to create some

[2:55:06] specific parcels. And then development permits further environmental work will

[2:55:11] be done on every parcel before this thing moves forward.

[2:55:14] So there are many checks and balances ahead to look

[2:55:16] after the community's commitments to environment while we pursue the

[2:55:20] economic and employment goals that are in the OCP. Finally

[2:55:24] on that point, the 15 metre buffer, uh, along the

[2:55:27] highway will be protected because we all love that sort

[2:55:29] of rural feel through that strip. And in fact, most

[2:55:32] of the riparian and environmental protection areas are also in

[2:55:35] that area. So when you're on the highway, even though

[2:55:38] the employment area will have gone in, there's going to

[2:55:40] be a very, very deep, dense area there of the

[2:55:43] environment that will continue to maintain that beautiful view that

[2:55:45] you see when you look west. The project is structured

[2:55:49] from the second point of view around mobility. This project

[2:55:52] contributes a major step to a future important link between

[2:55:57] East Wellington Road and Northfield Road. There's one piece of

[2:56:00] land that is not owned by this landowner and is

[2:56:03] therefore not part of this that would be the final

[2:56:05] missing link right now where the tourist centre is. But

[2:56:08] this road will be constructed to be part of that

[2:56:10] future length that provides a lot more mobility on that

[2:56:13] side of the highway, which right now has sort of

[2:56:15] few north - south linkages in it. The project is

[2:56:20] also going to contribute very significantly to upgrades along East

[2:56:24] Wellington. Intersection upgrades, a major amount of money frontages, et

[2:56:28] cetera will all be part of this process. The project

[2:56:32] is obviously focused on employment. And this is one of

[2:56:34] the conversations you had earlier this evening. And the trade

[2:56:37] - off between environment and economy under certain circumstances. Working

[2:56:42] with staff here, we've been pleased that they are quite

[2:56:44] supportive of two, even three stories in this area since

[2:56:48] your OCP capacity and vision this all for industry, but

[2:56:51] we're protecting half of it for the environment. So staff

[2:56:54] have been working with us in this zone to allow

[2:56:57] more density and more things on the upper level floors.

[2:57:01] A little more flexibility in the accessory uses. There will

[2:57:03] be no sacrifice of the industrial at the ground plane.

[2:57:07] This preserves the integrity of your commitment to light industry

[2:57:09] here, that they'll allow a higher level of office uses

[2:57:13] or food services or things on upper floors. So as

[2:57:16] not to compromise the industrial foundation of the project, but

[2:57:19] in order to achieve your employment goals of higher intensity

[2:57:22] employment in the area. Finally, the landowner has agreed to

[2:57:27] contribute very significant amount of money in community amenity charges.

[2:57:30] It could be as high. We don't know until the

[2:57:32] actual specific developments happen because that happens at building permit.

[2:57:36] But it could be as high as well over a

[2:57:38] million dollars. And I'm pleased to say the agreement is

[2:57:40] to commit that equally between the two primary concerns of

[2:57:44] the community. Mobility and Parks and Open Space. So this

[2:57:47] will bring additional funds and money there. So in closing,

[2:57:50] I'm pleased to be able to bring this forward to

[2:57:52] you for first and second reading. Um, an area here

[2:57:55] that will provide significant employment, protect over 50 percent of

[2:57:59] the site for the environment, contribute to major important mobility

[2:58:03] infrastructure for you in the future, uh, enhancement of public

[2:58:06] walkways protection of key public views and significant financial contributions

[2:58:11] to the community. The request in front of you here

[2:58:14] with the motions is to allow this to take its

[2:58:17] next step along its pathway. And that is to be

[2:58:19] referred to a public hearing. Thank you for the opportunity

[2:58:22] to speak. I can answer questions and we do have

[2:58:24] the landowner rep as well if there are questions that

[2:58:26] I can't answer. Thank you, worship. Thank you very much,

[2:58:29] Mr. Holland. Councillo and then Councillor Hemmons. Thank you and

[2:58:32] thank you Mr. Holland. Great presentation and very pleased to

[2:58:35] hear the language that you use. We like that. Two

[2:58:40] very quick questions. The pathway that goes both, um, well,

[2:58:46] you know what I'm talking about. That'll be maintained. No

[2:58:48] problem there. Walked at a thousand times. That's great. Thank

[2:58:50] you so much. That's the first one. Um, under the

[2:58:53] permitted uses, the zoning regulation. So permitted accessory uses daycare,

[2:59:01] one dwelling unit per lot. Um, are you thinking of

[2:59:04] putting any residential dwelling on top of, um, is that

[2:59:10] in your plan at all. Thank you through your worship

[2:59:14] residential is not a primary use. This is a, this

[2:59:17] is a typical placeholder we find in zoning, uh, in

[2:59:21] this case it would be like a caretaker's building or

[2:59:22] something like that. In some cases, um, some industries would

[2:59:26] like to have someone living on site. And so they

[2:59:28] will allow a caretaker on that. This is really a

[2:59:30] placeholder of that use. It's not a primary use. This

[2:59:33] is not a residential project. You did use boxwood as

[2:59:35] a similar setup. Okay. Good. Thank you very much. Thank

[2:59:39] you. Thank you Councillor Hevins and then Councillor Manley. Thank

[2:59:42] you, worship. Um. Random question. Are you aware that there

[2:59:48] are large informal settlements in there? Okay. That's something that

[2:59:51] your project team has considered. Thank you for your worship.

[2:59:54] Yeah. The, the ownership group is in an ongoing continuous

[2:59:58] state of stewardship of this area. So they have a

[3:00:00] security firm that monitors that, but doesn't intervene if intervention

[3:00:04] is required. It goes through the RCMP. And then they

[3:00:07] come in with the security team and the owner comes

[3:00:11] in and removes the garbage that piles up over time.

[3:00:14] Um, it's, this is a, this is a situation you

[3:00:17] all know well in the city here. It's a chronic

[3:00:19] problem. A spin off of the housing crisis and other

[3:00:21] crises that you deal with daily. So it's a stewardship

[3:00:24] approach. They're just constantly maintaining that keeping the garbage from

[3:00:27] piling up and following appropriate protocols and dealing with folks

[3:00:31] who choose to live there. Thank you. I appreciate just

[3:00:33] knowing that you're aware of it. Yeah. Thank you. Thank

[3:00:36] you, Councillor Manley and the Council Spear. Thank you for

[3:00:39] the presentation. Um, I really appreciate the amount of land

[3:00:43] you're setting aside for environmental considerations. Um, a couple of

[3:00:48] things. Just there's some degraded Gary Oak ecosystem in there.

[3:00:54] And I'm curious whether your plan includes rehabilitating some of

[3:00:58] that area to try to bring, bring back some of

[3:01:01] that. Gary Oak system. Thank you through your worship. The

[3:01:06] response to the specific sub areas in the environment there

[3:01:10] will happen over two ways at the next right now.

[3:01:13] This is a land use question when we get to

[3:01:15] those areas. The biophysical examination that we'll be required of

[3:01:19] that parcel or the parcels in that area, um, would

[3:01:22] then begin to address what should be done there. And

[3:01:25] the second point is that half of the CAC money

[3:01:27] that would go that is intended for environmental and parks

[3:01:30] uses. So there would be a budget there to begin

[3:01:32] to take that on if that was the city's desire

[3:01:34] in the discussions at that point. And just reading the

[3:01:37] environmental assessment, are there going to be, an additional assessment

[3:01:43] of the land? Yes. Okay. I know, I know that

[3:01:46] there's some vernal pools in there that people have brought

[3:01:49] to our attention. And, um, that there may be some

[3:01:54] species at risk or rare species in there like we

[3:01:57] have another spots. And then I'm on, um, and potentially

[3:02:00] red legged frog, which is the use of fernal pools

[3:02:04] because they, uh, they don't have to compete with the

[3:02:06] bullfrogs in the swamps or frogs, the bulk frogs survive

[3:02:09] in the throat. And the can't survive in the vernal

[3:02:11] pools, but they. They outcompete the indigenous frogs in the,

[3:02:18] um, in the other, uh, swamp areas in a deeper

[3:02:22] pools. Yeah. So I just want to say, I appreciate

[3:02:26] the work that's been done on protecting the environment on

[3:02:30] this one. I think it's an important area to consider.

[3:02:34] Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you Council Reesemeer. Thank

[3:02:39] you through you. I'm not, I'm not sure if that

[3:02:41] question addressed what I'm asking. But, um, in the environmental

[3:02:47] assessment, it mentions that under the recommendations that a construction

[3:02:51] environmental management plan should be prepared for each phase of

[3:02:54] development, one's detailed designs are complete and prior to commencing

[3:02:58] any site preparation works. Would that recommendation. Be followed? Absolutely.

[3:03:03] Three worship. Yes. Each stage, um, when we're doing urban

[3:03:08] projects, we kind of do a rezoning and a development

[3:03:10] permit. And it all gets stacked on top of each

[3:03:12] other. A project of this scale has many, those projects

[3:03:16] are accordioned out. So this is a land use conversation.

[3:03:19] And if Council, depending on community feedback and other things

[3:03:23] you wish of Councillor Wisdom supports the land use, we

[3:03:27] then need to go through a subdivision process. And that

[3:03:29] would be phased. And then we have to come back

[3:03:31] to the city for development permits for any individual building

[3:03:34] within any one of those parcels. So we're, we're, the

[3:03:38] horse has barely gotten out of the container. It has

[3:03:42] multiple barns and stables and gates. It has to get

[3:03:45] out of here and council has many, many points of

[3:03:48] review over that. There will be environmental studies for each

[3:03:51] of these projects here that have to be the environmental

[3:03:54] issues have to be reviewed for each one of those.

[3:03:56] Cause it's in an environmental DP area. Thank you. Yes.

[3:04:00] It's a, it's a complicated and constrained site because of

[3:04:03] the number of water courses and renal pools. And, um,

[3:04:09] I, I see the, you know, high level perspective of

[3:04:14] it'd be nice to have light industry here, but, um,

[3:04:18] the environmental constraints make it challenging. And I look forward

[3:04:22] to the further assessments that will be completed to give

[3:04:25] us a closer picture of the area. I have another

[3:04:28] question through to staff afterwards. Sir Armstrong. Sorry. Councillor Armstrong?

[3:04:35] For staff. For staff. Do you want to ask a

[3:04:37] question of staff? Well, if you don't mind. We know

[3:04:39] that the sewer connection issues out in that area. Is

[3:04:43] there any reason why the community can't go to contribution,

[3:04:46] go towards the sewer. To help build a new sewer

[3:04:49] connection? Like, I mean, that's critical. I mean, especially sandstone

[3:04:54] as well going on board, like instead of, I know

[3:04:56] what's nice to have, you know, your paths and all

[3:04:58] that. But we need the sewer. I'd much rather see

[3:05:01] money go to that. So we don't have to borrow

[3:05:03] as much. Thank you through your worship council. I'm sorry.

[3:05:07] So you're speaking to the, um, probably the millstone trunk

[3:05:11] and some of the, uh, your report it says sewer

[3:05:14] is going to be an issue. Some of the constraints.

[3:05:17] Well, the project will address the, um, uh, sanitary issues

[3:05:22] that are needed to support the project. Um, and there

[3:05:26] are, uh, as Mr. Rosen and, uh, his staff presented,

[3:05:31] uh, fairly recently to counsel, uh, identified sewer constraints, uh,

[3:05:37] that, uh, the cities, the councils were aware of how

[3:05:40] we'll be reporting back on options to fund to address.

[3:05:45] If that's, I think that's what council Armstrong speaking to.

[3:05:48] No, my question is, can we take the community amenity

[3:05:50] contribution and put it towards the sewer upgrades. So the

[3:05:55] sewer upgrades to address the project, the project will build.

[3:06:00] No, I mean, our big issue. Yeah. Yeah. Well, the

[3:06:02] timing, I think is, I was just kind of getting

[3:06:04] to, I think the point I'm getting to, um, there

[3:06:08] were a number of, um, uh, sewer constraint issues identified

[3:06:12] that were brought to Council. So I think it's a

[3:06:13] timing issue as well. Some of those are more critical.

[3:06:16] Um, the funding from like the Community Manage Contribution that

[3:06:19] we'd received through the project. It won't be coming, um,

[3:06:23] in time. Okay. And, and in, in quantity, I would

[3:06:27] say to really address the issues that, um, I appreciate

[3:06:31] that. I was just wondering because it's going to be

[3:06:33] expensive. Thanks. Thank you Councillor Eastmear. Thank you. My question

[3:06:39] through to staff is whether the future development permits or

[3:06:46] subdivision applications would for sure come back to council or

[3:06:51] would they be delegated authority. Too early to determine, but

[3:06:55] likely they would not come back to Council. So in,

[3:07:01] uh, if I could maybe expand on that, um, so

[3:07:03] some of what, um, what Mr. Holland has spoken to

[3:07:07] and is identified in the report. You can see that

[3:07:10] a number of conditions are identified as to be secured

[3:07:14] through a master development agreement. So that's in Council's control,

[3:07:17] including the construction environmental management plan that was, uh, the

[3:07:23] question related to earlier. Uh, so those are items that

[3:07:26] are secured through the rezoning to be addressed later, um,

[3:07:31] and as well. So subdivision approval, obviously that's, um, outside

[3:07:35] of, uh, councils authority, council sets the stage, the bylaws,

[3:07:40] the requirements that apply the standards and the development perimeter

[3:07:43] area requirements that apply. Uh, in the case of subdivision.

[3:07:48] So council plays the role in setting the biola requirements

[3:07:51] and the guidelines that apply, um, and development permit again

[3:07:57] is follow the guidelines, development is permitted. Um, is, is

[3:08:03] the pathway. That's the, that's the way that process works.

[3:08:06] So council has played a role in second and will

[3:08:10] continue to. The bylaw requirements and the guidelines that apply

[3:08:13] to future subdivision and development permit. If the developer meets

[3:08:18] the requirements follows the guidelines, complies with the guidelines, the

[3:08:22] development is approved. So the permit is approved. Okay. And,

[3:08:29] um. Pardon me, there's, I have another question. Sorry, and

[3:08:35] I should have, I should have clarified that would be

[3:08:37] whether or not that the permit is delegated or council

[3:08:40] approved. If it complies with the guidelines, then it must

[3:08:43] be approved. Just because of the complexity of this site,

[3:08:49] is there a way to put a condition on the

[3:08:51] rezoning that the development permit or future decisions would come

[3:08:56] back to Council and not be delegated authority? No, that's

[3:08:59] not possible. And I think again, if it complies with

[3:09:02] the guidelines, then it must be approved. Okay. And one

[3:09:08] more question from the environmental report, it mentioned that prior

[3:09:11] to any plan development of the properties, the recommendation regarding

[3:09:16] confirming whether any new policy or guidance documents have been

[3:09:18] provided by the province of BC regarding wetland boundary identification

[3:09:23] under the water sustainability Act or any future legislation that

[3:09:27] applies to wetlands in BC because the wetland ecosystem boundaries

[3:09:33] identified particularly in figure two were based on methods that

[3:09:37] are not officially tied to the water sustainability Act and

[3:09:40] it's understood that an official methodology or policy may be

[3:09:43] developed sometime in the near future. Yes, I can speak

[3:09:46] to that too. And, um, uh, through your worship to

[3:09:49] Councillor Smire. So that's identifying that, um, so legislation is

[3:09:55] changing regularly. It's a dynamic world in that regard. That's

[3:09:59] just flagging, identifying that, um, we understand. And the qualified

[3:10:04] environmental professional working for the, uh, the property owner understands

[3:10:09] that the province is considering, uh, changes. Um, there's been

[3:10:14] recently information released. Identifying that changes are pending. So we

[3:10:20] need to be live to, uh, what the implications of

[3:10:23] those changes are. And they may have, um, bearing, they

[3:10:27] may have an impact on the proposed development. So we

[3:10:30] will review, um, of course, the, uh, the development, um,

[3:10:34] based on the, uh, requirements that apply at that time.

[3:10:38] For instance, if they came forward next year, uh, with

[3:10:42] say the rezoning was successful and they came forward next

[3:10:44] year for subdivision. Uh, we would apply the guidelines, the

[3:10:48] provincial requirements in place at the time. If they don't

[3:10:51] come forward for five years, again, we apply the provincial

[3:10:54] requirements in place at the time. And we update our

[3:10:58] bylaws and our guidelines accordingly. Um, so that's just identifying

[3:11:03] that in this case, we actually anticipate some changes. Um,

[3:11:07] they can't be reflected in the assessments that have been

[3:11:10] done at this point. Because, uh, they haven't been made

[3:11:12] clear. They're not actually provincial policy at this point or

[3:11:18] provincial requirements at this time. But we understand that there

[3:11:21] are changes in the works. Thank you. And just to

[3:11:26] confirm, so there is an additional environmental assessment that would

[3:11:30] take place as a condition of this rezoning. There will

[3:11:34] be three year worship. So there will be, yes, subsequent

[3:11:39] approvals, depending on when they come forward. Will be evaluated

[3:11:43] based on the requirements in place at the time that

[3:11:46] they come forward. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Geselbrock.

[3:11:52] You have a question. Great. Yeah. I think Councillor Eastmyr

[3:11:56] raised, there was that section just about the water sustainability

[3:11:59] act and that, um, in some cases, if it was

[3:12:02] applied that it may be larger, uh, boundary. And I

[3:12:05] just thought related at all to the conditions of rezoning.

[3:12:08] And it says completed and updated biophysical assessment of the

[3:12:12] properties by QEP in accordance with the environmental assessment recommendations

[3:12:15] determined whether additional protections are necessary, including but not limited

[3:12:19] to wetland alienation assessments under the applicable guidelines. Blah, blah,

[3:12:23] blah. Is that what that point in the conditions of

[3:12:26] rezoning that pertains to? Yes. Uh, yeah, through your worship

[3:12:29] to Council, I guess for yes. So it's just, that's,

[3:12:32] um, that's explicitly flagging that those reviews will take place.

[3:12:37] So basically legislation that's in place at the time, um,

[3:12:41] that the development moves forward through different stages. Dr. Thank

[3:12:44] you for that clarification. Thank you very much. Thank you

[3:12:47] for being so patient, Mr. Holland, Mr. Faye. And Mr.

[3:12:51] Holm for your Folsom answers to this Councillor Eastern. Would

[3:12:54] you care to move the motions? I'm a delegation. You

[3:12:57] can have a seat now. Yes. Sorry.

[3:13:09] Move that zoning amendment bylaw 2026 number 4, 500. 258

[3:13:15] to rezone 2080 East Wellington Road and 2160 East Wellington

[3:13:19] Road from single dwelling residential R1 and Light Industrial. To

[3:13:25] light industrial with site - specific accessory industrial office use

[3:13:29] to facilitate a Lite Industrial Subdivision Pass First reading. Second

[3:13:34] and Councillor Hemmons. All those in favor, any opposed, none

[3:13:38] motion carries. Move that zoning amendment bylaw 2026 number 4500.

[3:13:44] 258 past second reading. I'd like to speak to it.

[3:13:47] Second accident Councillor Thorpe. Councillor Brown. You've got a question

[3:13:52] comment. Just a comment your ship. I think it was

[3:13:56] like 15 years ago. I remember talking to Keith Brown.

[3:14:00] His property was owned by Henry Remple at length about

[3:14:02] it. Uh, that time it was the transfer of the

[3:14:07] South Wellington Park there and making that come together. This

[3:14:10] is a longtime vision, long time in the OCP. I

[3:14:14] think it's well suited for, uh, and I appreciate the

[3:14:17] efforts that have been made. So a long time coming.

[3:14:20] A lot of effort over many years. Um, so just

[3:14:23] want to say it has my support. Thanks. Thank you

[3:14:25] very much. Councillor Manley and the Council Review. Thank you,

[3:14:29] your worship. Yeah, I'm, uh, ready to support this. I'm

[3:14:32] looking forward to the public hearing. I'm sure that we'll

[3:14:34] hear a lot of different things about, about this area.

[3:14:37] But this is the kind of, uh, light industry land

[3:14:41] that we need in the NIMO. And, um, so you

[3:14:45] know what. Thank you. Councillor Eashmir. Thank

[3:14:55] you. I really appreciate the level of detail and information

[3:14:58] provided in this application and the fact that the developer

[3:15:02] reached out beforehand to give us an opportunity to ask

[3:15:06] questions. Um. I really enjoyed reading the environmental report from

[3:15:13] the QEP on this, the level of detail was excellent.

[3:15:17] Um, it does seem like a tricky site to redevelop.

[3:15:22] And when wetlands are something that the province is really

[3:15:24] interested in protecting, it becomes hard for me to envision

[3:15:29] how we can develop these areas. But I think potentially

[3:15:35] the way that it can be done in a mindful

[3:15:37] way. And, um. The mayor spoke earlier about nothing about

[3:15:43] us without us. So I look forward to the community

[3:15:46] having a chance to weigh in on this at the

[3:15:49] public hearing that will take place as a result of

[3:15:52] this passing tonight. Thank you. Motion is second reading. All

[3:15:57] those in favor. Any opposed non motion carries, Councillor Eastmear.

[3:16:01] Move the Council Direct staff to hold a public hearing

[3:16:03] for zoning amendment bylaw 2026 number 4, 500. 258. Secondary

[3:16:09] Councillor Brown. All those in favor. Any opposed on motion

[3:16:13] carry, Scout. Move that council direct staff to secure the

[3:16:16] conditions related to zoning amendment bylaw 2026 number 4, 500.

[3:16:20] 258 as outlined in attachment D of the staff report

[3:16:24] titled Rezoning Application number, RA509 2080 and 2160 East Wellington

[3:16:30] Road dated 2026, July 27th prior to final adoption. Second

[3:16:35] and Councillor Henns. All those in favor, any opposed on

[3:16:38] motion carries. Thank you. Uh, on to Cvelopment Permit Application

[3:16:43] number DP1397 - 3679 Shenton Road. Jackson Lowe. Your worship

[3:16:53] only if there's questions? Yeah. If there's questions for the

[3:16:57] architect, they are in attendance via Zoom. Any questions for

[3:17:01] Mr. Lowe, assuming we're still there. Councillor Armstrong. Good evening,

[3:17:05] Mr. Lowe. Nice to see you. Thank you. I think

[3:17:09] Councillor Armstrong, then Council, pardon me, Councillor. Perino and then

[3:17:14] Armstrong. Have questions. Okay. Thank you. Your worship. And just

[3:17:17] a very quick question to Mr. Lowe. My understanding is

[3:17:19] that you're going to construct a three - story mixed

[3:17:23] use development. That's great. Containing 17 multiple family - dwelling

[3:17:29] units. Is that correct? I just wanted to verify. Correct.

[3:17:33] Very pleased to see it. We need to more homes

[3:17:36] and that's a great area. And please to see that

[3:17:38] come. I hope it goes through. Thank you. Thank you.

[3:17:43] Thank you very much. Councillor Armstrong. Just a question on

[3:17:47] what width you're using for small vehicle. Parking. My vehicle

[3:17:54] is trying to remember. It's just whatever the zone bylaw

[3:17:57] is required of us. Okay. Good sport point. 4. 570.

[3:18:03] I'm not sure. We deal with a lot of municipalities.

[3:18:05] So forgive me if I can't remember the exact number.

[3:18:08] No, that's fine. I was just wondering because I know

[3:18:10] the buildings that have small parking and they actually are

[3:18:13] going over into it because their cars don't fit. Thanks.

[3:18:17] Thank you Councillor Easmir. Uh, thank you. I had a

[3:18:21] question. The design panel had made a recommendation about, um,

[3:18:25] considering bird - friendly glazing. And I see that there

[3:18:28] was a revised plan which includes reduced glazing on the

[3:18:32] south Lakeside Facade. Is that a direct response to the

[3:18:36] bird - friendly glazing consideration? Correct. Correct. Yeah. It's sort

[3:18:40] of the options of looking at bird - friendly glazing

[3:18:44] and or reducing the amount of glazing on that self

[3:18:47] - side. And the client had chosen to reduce the

[3:18:50] molecules. Okay. Thank you. Um, yes, I appreciate that a

[3:18:59] couple of changes were made in response to the design

[3:19:02] panels recommendations, including that reduced glazing. More bike parking, a

[3:19:08] ramp between Shenton Road and the main building entrances, uh,

[3:19:12] retaining or replacing trees that couldn't be retained and switching

[3:19:18] out the indoor amenity space for a viewing pavilion, given

[3:19:22] it's right on the lake. Uh, and, uh, some stepped

[3:19:28] walls to allow for more plantings and also some patterned

[3:19:33] concrete. So appreciate those responses to the design panels recommendations.

[3:19:40] Thank you worship. Um, I'm curious about the viewing platform.

[3:19:44] Is that a public amend of the or is that

[3:19:46] just for the, um, the residents and the workers in

[3:19:51] the building. It's primarily for the residents and the employees

[3:19:55] of the, uh, major floor. The pavilion is, I mean,

[3:20:02] the public walkway accessing that pavilion. And there's no real

[3:20:08] room to create such a public walkway to that pavilion.

[3:20:13] Um, so when we were asked to create a public

[3:20:16] amenity for the residents of the building, um, that was

[3:20:20] our solution to doing that. And the form of that,

[3:20:24] uh, pavilion actually emulates the, what historically was mining. And

[3:20:31] so the shaft and cover. So that's what came out

[3:20:35] of that. Okay. Thank you. And the, um, there's, I

[3:20:40] can see there's a blanket statutory right away for featured

[3:20:43] i relic loop trail across the property. And I assume

[3:20:46] that that would be in front of the pavilion that

[3:20:49] they're space in front of the pavilion for that trail.

[3:20:52] Correct. There's lots of room in front of that. There's

[3:20:55] a whole, um, sort of protected speed area and water

[3:21:00] waste back. So we're a fair ways up land on

[3:21:03] that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Someone cared to move

[3:21:07] the recommended motion. Move Councillor Eastmere, second account, sir Armstrong.

[3:21:12] All those in favor and any opposed on motion carries.

[3:21:16] Thank you very much, Mr. Lowe. You've had a long

[3:21:17] evening waiting for us. Thank you very much. Have a

[3:21:20] good evening. The next is liquor license amendment application number

[3:21:24] LA 168 - number 105 - 1825 Bone Road. Mr.

[3:21:33] Den. You're here to respond to questions. Are the questions

[3:21:37] for Mr. Din. Poor Mr. Dennis had to wait all

[3:21:43] night, no questions. Oh, well moved the recommended motion Councillor

[3:21:47] Eastman, your secondary councillor Hemings, all those in favor. Any

[3:21:50] opposed, none motion carries. Thank you very much. You've done

[3:21:55] your advocacy. Well done. Ron to bylaws, Councillor Eastmyr. Ready?

[3:22:02] Move that. The first is the cursed is A zoning

[3:22:06] amendment bylaw 2026 number four five zero zero decimal two

[3:22:10] five. Move that zoning amendment bylaw 2026. Number 4, 500.

[3:22:15] 255 past third reading. Second and Councillor Himmons. All those

[3:22:19] in favor. Any opposed none motion carries. The next is

[3:22:23] zoning amendment bylaw 2026 number 4500 decimal 256. Move that

[3:22:30] zoning amendment bylaw 2026 number 4, 500. 256 past third

[3:22:34] reading. Second and councillor. Perino, all those in favor. Any

[3:22:39] opposed on motion carries. Next is zoning amendment bylaw 2026

[3:22:45] number 4500 decimal 257. Move that zoning amendment bylaw 2026

[3:22:51] number 4, 500. 257 past third reading. Second of Councillor

[3:22:57] Henns. All those in favor. Any opposed non carries. The

[3:23:01] next is council procedure bylaw. Amendment bylaw 2026 number 7272

[3:23:06] decimal 06. Councillor Easmir. Move that zoning amendment bylaw 2026

[3:23:14] number 7272. 06B adopted. Your worship. Sorry. I'm sorry. Okay.

[3:23:22] Move that council procedure bylaw amendment. Bylaw 2026 number 7272.

[3:23:29] 06 be adopted. Section Councillor Thorpe. All those in favor.

[3:23:35] Any opposed? None. I am opposed. Sorry? I'm opposed. Card

[3:23:39] me Councillor East Music. Motion carries. The next is Off

[3:23:44] Street Parking byla Parseat Parking Regulations bylaw 2026 number 7453.

[3:23:51] Move that Off Street Parking Regulations bylaw 2026. Number 7453

[3:23:55] be adopted. Sectored Councillor Hemmons. All those in favor. Any

[3:24:01] opposed none motion carries. Sorry, your opposed. Oh, and Councillor

[3:24:06] Thorpe. My goodness. We're getting controversial late at night. Well

[3:24:10] done. Next is subdivision development servicing bylaw 2026 number 7454.

[3:24:18] Councillor Easmeyer. Move that subdivision and development servicing bylaw 2026

[3:24:23] number 7454 be adopted. Executive Council Perino. All those in.

[3:24:32] Councillor Brown. Thanks. Um, I'll be very quick. I know

[3:24:38] it's late. Um, and I voted in favor the first

[3:24:41] two readings. I've had some time to reflect on it.

[3:24:45] I've actually had some people kind of comments about it.

[3:24:48] And I thought Councillor Prune asked a very good question.

[3:24:51] What sort of little lack of engagement by people that

[3:24:53] this would impact. And my understanding was there was very

[3:25:00] little engagement and I appreciate that probably the people that

[3:25:03] worked on the project aren't here. But I'm just curious.

[3:25:09] When we didn't get response did we dig deeper and

[3:25:12] see why. Folk. Three of our ship to Councillor Brown.

[3:25:21] I know, um, staff spoke to it when the bylaw

[3:25:24] was introduced. Yeah. And, uh, my understanding is yes, there

[3:25:27] was follow up with, uh, with some, uh, and. Um,

[3:25:32] yeah, the outreach was to. I can't remember off the

[3:25:36] top of my head, but it was substantial number of,

[3:25:39] um. Consultants that are involved in this work. And, uh,

[3:25:46] limited, um, response. It could be due to capacity. I

[3:25:53] don't. Know. Okay. Um, so okay. I'm going to vote

[3:25:56] in favor. I won't be around. When a lot of

[3:26:00] these sidewalks get built on council. But if anyone is,

[3:26:04] I'm very concerned that the cost of some of this

[3:26:06] stuff is going to be very, very high and will

[3:26:09] be realised in the affordability equation. And I think it

[3:26:14] should be not going to make any motions, but I

[3:26:16] think people should put it in their calendar to have

[3:26:18] a little bit of review on that. Thanks. Thank you

[3:26:21] very much Councilprino. Thank you. Your worship. And it did

[3:26:26] concern me. We sent out a whole bunch of questionnaires

[3:26:29] to the development community to respond it. What staff then

[3:26:34] did was go back out, get in touch with a

[3:26:36] bunch of other people. And they heard very much the

[3:26:39] same thing. There was definitely a capacity issue, but also

[3:26:43] some of the development community was saying, listen, let's, let's

[3:26:45] try this out, see how it goes. We'll come back

[3:26:48] and make changes as the need comes forward. So I

[3:26:52] appreciate Councillor Brown asking the question because I was very

[3:26:55] concerned about that. So I got the answer that I

[3:26:59] wanted. And we'll be voting favor of the adoption. Thank

[3:27:02] you very much. All those in favor. And any opposed.

[3:27:08] None motion carries. The next is housing agreement bylaw 2026

[3:27:13] number 7458. Councillor Eastmear moved that housing agreement. Bylaw 2026

[3:27:20] number 7458 be adopted. Secret Councillor Thorpe. All those in

[3:27:27] favor, any opposed on motion carries. The next is residential

[3:27:32] tenant assistance bylaw 2026 number 7459. Move that residential tenant

[3:27:38] assistance bylaw 2026 number 7459 be adopted. Seconded Count Soprino.

[3:27:46] All those in favor and any opposed on motion carries.

[3:27:51] The next is bylaw notice enforcement amendment bylaw 2026 number

[3:27:55] 7159 decimal 27. Move that bylaw. Sorry. Thank you. Move

[3:28:02] that bylaw notice enforcement. Amendment bylaw 2026 number 7159. 27

[3:28:09] be adopted. Secretary Council Prino, all those in favor. Any

[3:28:14] opposed on motion carries. We have no notices of motion.

[3:28:17] We have no correspondence. Uh, other business Councillor Eastern year

[3:28:22] motion read the interim use of number six commercial street.

[3:28:27] Yes. My motion is that Council Direct staff to provide

[3:28:30] a report on options for the interim use of six

[3:28:33] commercial street. The former Jean Burnsin site. And if it's

[3:28:38] second, it'll. Councillor Brown. Thank you. So I'm really interested

[3:28:43] in bringing the central part of our downtown back to

[3:28:46] life. And right now it is a fenced off whole

[3:28:49] and has been ever since a fire destroyed the old

[3:28:52] ANB sound building at the corner of commercial and terminal

[3:28:54] in 2016. And the city bought this property for an

[3:28:58] undisclosed price in 2021 in an effort to ensure that

[3:29:00] it didn't sit idle for many more years. When we

[3:29:04] were elected, we all spoke about a shared desire to

[3:29:08] get something in that hole by 2026. For me, I'd

[3:29:11] love to see affordable apartments and attainable housing so people

[3:29:14] can enjoy living in our amazing downtown, including the workers

[3:29:18] who are vital to our local businesses, students, seniors, families,

[3:29:22] and like the old ANV sound building affordable artist studio

[3:29:25] space, like what the A and B sound building used

[3:29:27] to feature. We have tried. There was an RFP put

[3:29:31] out by the city and a proponent selected to develop

[3:29:34] that site. And while I didn't personally support that proposal,

[3:29:37] there was hope that something would materialize. And it didn't.

[3:29:41] Then we put it into BC builds pretty recently, hoping

[3:29:44] that a developer and nonprofit partner would be interested in

[3:29:48] developing the site with support from BC housing to build

[3:29:50] affordable rental housing with commercial on the ground floor. The

[3:29:54] city was and is seeking a developer to transform the

[3:29:57] site into a landmark mixed use rental housing project. And

[3:30:00] we were offering a 60 year lease at no cost

[3:30:03] for the land to any developer that meets the criteria

[3:30:06] consistent with BC builds. But again, nothing materialized. So right

[3:30:10] now the cost of redeveloping the site into a building

[3:30:12] is evidently not feasible for many reasons. And unlikely to

[3:30:16] happen anytime soon, the cost of building in today's economy,

[3:30:19] the site constraints geotechnical issues and seismic requirements, et cetera,

[3:30:23] et cetera. So there's nothing in that whole except some

[3:30:26] cool street art. And I'm not okay with letting it

[3:30:29] sit idle for another decade with no action until conditions

[3:30:33] improve, which they may or may not. So I think

[3:30:36] it's time to get creative. And I'm really curious to

[3:30:39] see what options for interim uses our staff could come

[3:30:41] up with. I think there's amazing potential for a mini

[3:30:45] temporary amphitheater or performance space, food truck parking, or a

[3:30:49] mini container pop - up shop area, a pop -

[3:30:52] up community garden using raised beds or a temporary skate

[3:30:55] park using portable or modular escape park elements. These are

[3:30:59] just ideas, many of which I've heard while speaking to

[3:31:01] the community. And people are really interested in temporary uses

[3:31:05] for this underused piece of prime real estate. And I

[3:31:07] think they would all work in their own way. It

[3:31:10] might require a little poured concrete to make this area

[3:31:12] more accessible. But I really see the potential to open

[3:31:15] up and enliven this space in a way that creates

[3:31:17] more usable, enjoyable, and vibrant community space in our downtown

[3:31:21] core. Thank you, Councillor Armstrong. Thank you. And I'm assuming

[3:31:26] that the cost of remediation will be in there because

[3:31:28] we can't do anything unless remediation is done, correct? We

[3:31:32] can't put anything on there due to fire risk, safety

[3:31:35] risks, health risks, environmental risks, all of that. Through the

[3:31:41] chair, I think between me and Mr. Holm, we can

[3:31:44] answer. I would say there are some temporary uses that

[3:31:47] we could do that don't involve digging into any potential

[3:31:53] contamination, which I do are do not know whether we've

[3:31:57] looked into that on the same. Mr. Holm, do you

[3:31:58] have any more? I'm back. Uh, no, I don't imagine

[3:32:01] it's been evaluated for temporary uses such as, I'm just

[3:32:06] thinking to the, um. For example, there's a gas station

[3:32:10] site turnaroad and the island highway that was, um, temporarily

[3:32:15] used as a food garden. Um, so there are options

[3:32:19] raised beds again. So there's different options that could, um.

[3:32:24] You know, that could be undertaken. Uh, we'd have to

[3:32:26] investigate obviously, but, uh, that'll be part of the report.

[3:32:29] That's all I'm asking. Yeah. Exactly. Did it have to

[3:32:32] be? And there are some, you know, there are some

[3:32:34] other, um, issues with that site that would have to

[3:32:36] be looked at as far as, um, the access and

[3:32:40] stability of, uh, and ball protection and different things like

[3:32:43] that given some of the, um, the site condition. But

[3:32:47] I think the, um, site contamination issues. Probably aren't significant

[3:32:53] for a temporary use for building the geotechnical and contamination

[3:32:57] issues are definitely more substantial. Um, that's where the, um,

[3:33:01] the building code and also the provincial contaminated sites regulations

[3:33:05] apply. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Manley and then Councillor

[3:33:09] Gusselbrook. Uh, thank you. I'm in support of this. I've

[3:33:12] heard from residents as well. I'd like to see maybe

[3:33:16] the area filled in or used as an amphitheater. I've

[3:33:20] seen amphitheaters that are below ground level where you can

[3:33:22] walk around the amphitheater and the seats are all aligned

[3:33:27] to watch a show. And, you know, potentially have containers.

[3:33:33] Shops or small portable shops surrounding it that provide avenues

[3:33:39] for small micro businesses. Uh, I think there's lots of

[3:33:44] opportunities here. And they could. You know, potentially be permanent.

[3:33:48] Not necessarily interim. I think the geotechnical problems with this

[3:33:52] site are going to make it very difficult for, um,

[3:33:56] uh, developing in a cost - effective way. But, you

[3:34:00] know, I would have loved to have seen commercial on

[3:34:03] the ground for and residents above. But that hasn't worked

[3:34:06] out in the years that we've been working on this.

[3:34:09] Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Gelser Brock. Thank you, Mayor. I

[3:34:16] think it's high time to find a temporary use for

[3:34:20] the site. I'm getting tired of walking by the hole

[3:34:23] in the middle of the downtown. I think that there

[3:34:26] could be some creative ways that we can enliven that

[3:34:28] space. And I think, uh, everybody's tired of walking by

[3:34:31] the hole, um, and I think it's holding back the

[3:34:33] progression of, you know, redeveloping and enlivening. The downtown. Um,

[3:34:40] one question or just thought. I know some people brought

[3:34:44] up the constraints for building in the site. Um, and

[3:34:47] that one of the barriers is just the unknown around

[3:34:50] the geotechnical, um, and that we did a geotechnical up

[3:34:53] to six stories, um, but, uh, the economics of building

[3:34:59] a six stories just doesn't make it feasible given all

[3:35:01] the constraints, but there hasn't been a geotechnical study that

[3:35:05] looks at going above six stories. Um, say to 12.

[3:35:08] And that, that might could change the economics a little

[3:35:10] bit. And so I'm curious in that report, you know,

[3:35:13] even at a cursory level, um, if any constraints could

[3:35:18] be identified of like a longer term solution be put

[3:35:21] in there and that maybe, you know, if we did

[3:35:23] a little bit more work that we could open up

[3:35:25] a greater breadth of opportunity to actually have, um, the

[3:35:28] housing that everybody hopes to see there and the commercial

[3:35:31] space that ultimately would probably make the highest best use

[3:35:33] of that spot. Thank you. Mr. Holm. Thank you. Sorry.

[3:35:40] Um, three worship council guests of Rechi looking for a

[3:35:43] response. Yeah, just is it possible to add that into

[3:35:46] a report? It's hard to tell sometimes. Yeah. Well, I'm

[3:35:50] kind of throwing it out there because I do think

[3:35:51] that, um, we've been trying hard to get development there.

[3:35:56] And it's been capped. And it's like we've been unsuccessful

[3:35:58] with what we've done so far. But maybe a little

[3:36:01] bit more push. So yeah, I think Miss Gil's will

[3:36:05] probably be best to speak to the information that we

[3:36:07] have on hand, uh, but, um, yeah, there may be

[3:36:11] other barriers to, um, and we see through market development,

[3:36:16] um. Uh, constructing above six stories. And depending on site

[3:36:21] conditions, the building code requirements do change depending on building

[3:36:27] height as well. So it's probably not just, uh, like

[3:36:31] the economics of it's probably not just geotechnical. Related issue.

[3:36:35] But, um, we can probably speak to the consultant that,

[3:36:39] uh, that did the work for us. And, um, see

[3:36:42] if, um, what would be required to look at expanding

[3:36:47] the investigation. But I think the economics are probably related

[3:36:51] to the, um, would be related to the height of

[3:36:53] building. I think there'd be a limitation or sort of

[3:36:57] a cost barrier there as well. Great. Thanks. Through the

[3:37:02] chair, if I might jump in on this one, if

[3:37:05] I understand the motion as it is, it's for the

[3:37:07] interim or temper use. And so if Council wanted us

[3:37:12] to look at something longer term, which through your worship

[3:37:15] to Council Gasterpart, I think that would be a separate

[3:37:18] motion. Um, so through the chair, the interim use allows

[3:37:22] a lot more flexibility, creativity, or perhaps deviation from the

[3:37:28] Santa. So it would be required to have geotechnical for

[3:37:31] permanent use. Absolutely. I was just kind of lobbing an

[3:37:35] idea out there and we can follow up on it.

[3:37:37] When the temporary usage report comes if it's something of

[3:37:41] interest. Thank you. I would remind Council we have an

[3:37:44] in - camera meeting after this. All those in favor.

[3:37:49] Any opposed on motion carries. Thank you very much. Question

[3:37:53] period, Ms. Gurie.

[3:38:11] All right. The Mr. Arnett 12A. Please welcome. Nice to

[3:38:21] see you. You too, mayor council. First, let me apologise

[3:38:26] for the writing. I am very able to write. Um,

[3:38:31] I appear before you on behalf of Grace Elliot Nielsen,

[3:38:35] executive director. And the management team fertility. Aboriginal friendship centre

[3:38:41] in the board of directors. My name is Steve Arnett.

[3:38:44] I'm a Maytee Nation BC citizen. A firekeeper and an

[3:38:49] old one. On my way to being an elder and

[3:38:52] can do's at 75. Um, I'm here to ask a

[3:38:57] question in release to 12A, which email the decision on

[3:39:02] with respect to, uh, the recommendation from staff. That our,

[3:39:08] uh. Permissive tax exemption. For our young mom's expansion. Uh,

[3:39:15] be denied. So my question is, um, based on that,

[3:39:21] um, through, uh, through you mayors, your worship is chair.

[3:39:27] Can staff tell me what the total amount of the

[3:39:29] tax exemptions were, uh, for the six PTs that were

[3:39:37] removed along with, I heard, I think the figure 27,

[3:39:43] 000 per the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board. In terms

[3:39:47] of total of the, um, permissive tax attemptions that represents.

[3:39:52] Against the 6, 000 dollars that doesn't seem like a

[3:39:55] lot, but is a real hardship for, uh, TLAFC in

[3:40:01] terms of the housing that we, uh, went ahead and

[3:40:04] provided despite what Councillor Manning said, uh, that BC housing

[3:40:11] did too many, many nonprofits across the province. In our

[3:40:15] case, we asked, uh, we've spent a lot of money.

[3:40:19] I raised a lot of money with TLAFC. Yes. I

[3:40:23] guess it's a question. So I'll answer questions. You of

[3:40:27] all people, Mr. experienced. Yeah. Well, I'm kind of like

[3:40:31] you mayor, you know, put me in front of a

[3:40:33] microphone. I know, I know. Ms. Mercer, can you answer

[3:40:39] the question? There was a question in there. Yeah. Thank

[3:40:42] you, your worship. Um, I don't have the total off

[3:40:44] the top of my head, but if I, I can

[3:40:47] get back to, um, the group. Thank you, council Armstrong.

[3:40:51] I just want to say, I don't know if you

[3:40:52] heard when Councillor Manley asked that. The staff said that

[3:40:54] if the entered into a housing agreement, you'll be way

[3:40:57] less than even getting permissive tax exemption. I'm aware of

[3:41:01] that. In terms of process, all of that was sort

[3:41:06] of put honest just the very last minute. And that's

[3:41:08] no reflection on staff. I don't do that as a

[3:41:11] former 10 year councillor myself. Um, I will follow up

[3:41:16] with them. And you will be hearing back from us.

[3:41:19] Um, certainly before they pulled the pen on the, on

[3:41:22] the rip. Around this. Thank you very much. Thank you,

[3:41:26] safe drive home. Thank you. The next is 13b. So

[3:41:35] your worship? Mr. Chant. I think Mr. Chapman had a

[3:41:38] question about the attachment to 13b. However, um, after reviewing

[3:41:42] it and discussing it, this matter is going to public

[3:41:45] hearing. So issues that are, even though Mr. Chapman was

[3:41:48] saying that attachment doesn't specifically relate to the public hearing

[3:41:53] matter, um, then that, that's not the matter that was

[3:41:57] on the agenda. So it's kind of splitting hairs and

[3:41:59] opening it up to others. So unfortunately that question isn't

[3:42:02] available. And he can speak to, um, at the public

[3:42:05] hearing, he can speak to Mayor and Council about the

[3:42:08] attachment and or to staff. And I followed up with

[3:42:11] an email to him on that. Mr. Chapman, nothing wrong

[3:42:14] with trying to get your in the water first. But

[3:42:16] you'll have to attend the public hearing. Sorry. Uh, and

[3:42:19] the final one is 12 D. Jeff Ansley. Mr. Anisoley.

[3:42:35] You know the drill introduce yourself for the record and

[3:42:38] ask your questions, please. Jeff Hansley. The question is about.

[3:42:45] The 3rd Street upgrades, which are part of the quarterly

[3:42:47] report. First question is, is the, um, is the 5.

[3:42:54] 1 million, um, does that encompass the entire project. Is

[3:43:00] that. Um. Part of the project. Ms. Mercer.

[3:43:12] What project were you referring to? The 3rd Street upgrades,

[3:43:15] NAP at the 5. 1 72 million. Right. I see

[3:43:21] it now. Um. That probably wouldn't be for the entire

[3:43:26] project. But probably the most of the work. There could

[3:43:29] be other costs included in there. But I would say

[3:43:32] that's probably the bulk of the project. But I'm not

[3:43:37] an expert on this particular project. But for that company,

[3:43:41] are they just doing the, um, sewer infrastructure or are

[3:43:44] they doing the Road infrastructure as well. We would have

[3:43:49] to get back to. You with details, Mr. Amson. Okay.

[3:43:54] And just, uh, okay. Eliminates my second question then, too.

[3:43:58] And just, um, just for my knowledge, are we replacing

[3:44:01] that infrastructure with smart infrastructure? Do we know. Is the

[3:44:05] piping beam that's being taken out? Because it says we

[3:44:08] need to upgrade that. And I'm just wondering if that

[3:44:10] was the main part of the upgrade. Mr. Through the

[3:44:15] chair to the speaker, Visansley. Could you clarify when you

[3:44:19] say smart infrastructure, what your definition of that is? Oh,

[3:44:23] I just like, you know, um, like when the councillors

[3:44:25] went to Calgary, they talked about the piping that went

[3:44:28] in was they're taking the old stuff when they were

[3:44:30] putting new stuff that has more, they can control the

[3:44:33] flow control, that sort of thing. Is that. What we've

[3:44:39] done here on Third Street and just, just more broadly

[3:44:41] in general. Through the chair to Council to the speaker,

[3:44:45] what I will say is our engineering and public works

[3:44:47] department use the best technology. And when we have the

[3:44:50] ability to upgrade through. Our road systems, we do replace

[3:44:56] to more resilient standards. And in times that includes seismic

[3:45:01] at times, that includes future proofing for water flows or

[3:45:06] materials that are more durable. So we can get back

[3:45:10] to you with the specifics if you're interested through Mr.

[3:45:14] Rosen, who's currently wisely not here. Yeah. It was an

[3:45:18] anti - speaking this question. So I think we have

[3:45:21] your email. Yes. And so we can provide counsel with

[3:45:24] that information as well as yourself. That'd be great. Thank

[3:45:26] you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Special Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript