Good evening everyone, welcome to the July 27th Special Meeting
of Council. I'd like to first recognise we are gathered
on the traditional territory, the CNEMIC First Nation. Our clip
today is Mishila Gurrie. We have all of Council and
Attendants. Tonight's Special Meeting of Council is being held in
accordance with the Community Charter and Council Procedure bylaw 208
- 208. Pardon me, number 7272. If during the meeting
any member of the gallery has a question regarding an
agenda item, please write down your name and the agenda
item on the question period sign - up sheet, which
is on the table to the double doors to my
left. Please note that the Council Procedure bylaw states questions
will only be taken on staff reports consent items or
other business items. Recognising that most of you in attendance
night have been a previous Council meetings. I'm not going
to go through the long statement about public decorum and
no clapping, jeering, or cheering or other demonstrations of emotion
from the audience, please. And I trust everyone will be
respectful of those basic considerations. First item on the agenda
is the introduction of late items, Ms. Gurry. Please, we
have some. Yes, thank you, worship, and good evening, council.
For late items tonight, we have agenda item 8A Mayor's
leaders table. We are replacing the NIMO Accord document with
the revised version. For agenda item 12C emissions intensive heavy
industry uses. We're adding the following delegations. Number one, Paul
Chapman. Number two, Erica Frank. Number three, Andrew, and Alex
Hudson Degen, Cheryl Bancroft. Number five, Bethany Ricker, and number
six, Carrie Park. For agenda item 3, 13b rezoning application
for 2, 2080 and 2160 East Wellington Road. We're adding
a presentation from Mark Holland, West Plan Consulting Group. Carl
Taes, Highland Properties, and Glen Froze Highland Properties. For agenda
item 13C, Development Permit Application for DP1397 - 3679 Shenton
Road. We're adding a delegation from Jackson Bo Hammend Roe
Architects. For agenda item 13D, we are adding a delegation
from David Din. And agenda item 17B Councillor Eastmere Motion
regarding the last Lost Intersections Public Art installation. We're adding
a delegation from Amelia Jelensoo, and that state - your
worship. Thank you very much. Motion for DOPS of the
agenda is amended. Move Councillor Thorpe, Secretary Council Perino, all
those in favor, any opposed, none. Motion for adoption. The
minutes is circulated. Move Councillor Eastmere, Secretary Councillor Hemmons, all
those in favor. You oppose none. Mayor's report, I only
have two items tonight. The first is very good news.
It's to confirm that the Municipal Boundary Extension has received
provincial approval, which means that tsunamic First Nation Reserve lands
are now included for voting purposes within the municipal boundary.
It arose out of a joint request from CENEMIC First
Nation and the City of the Nile to expand in
album's municipal boundary to include tsunamic reserve lands. Because otherwise
they had the right to vote, of course, in all
elections, including for school board, but had to vote for
regional director. And in particular, this was a bit silly
when you consider that IR number one, for instance, is
completely surrounded by the jurisdiction of the city of Nanaimo.
It is a positive move for this city and a
positive move on the Road to Reconciliation and Recognises a
long - stranding irritant is the kindest term I can
use between the larger community and the snamic First Nation.
That is a very good news story. However, it is
with great sadness, as I've, knowing him for. 55 years
that Nanamo City Councillor, formerly Bill Holden has passed. I
first met him as a student at what was then
Malespina College. His wife, Willie, and I contested a nomination
for a certain political party some years ago. She became
my constituency assistant. And I can say that on behalf
of Nanaimo City Council and the residents of our community,
we extend to Bill's family are sincerest condolences. Many people
had the privilege of knowing and working with them. He
had very long roots in this community. He was one
of that almost the first year, but not quite. The
first faculty of Melespina College. He was a professor of
English and First Nation Studies at Malspina College University, now
VIU from 1970 to 2001. He was an IMO school
trustee from 1976 to 1980. And again from 1982 to
86, and during that time he served as chair for
five years. He was an Nimble City Councillor and regional
board director from 1986 to 96, and again from 1999
to 2011. Only our much beloved Lloyd Sherry probably exceeded
the length of service to this community. He was in
addition in Nanaima Co - op board member from 1998
to 99, and he was the Vancouver Regional Library Chair,
a position that Councillor Hemmons has held from 2008 to
2010. He devoted years of his life to public service
and helping shape the future of this community. He brought
dedication in a genuine commitment to that community. He brought
those qualities to his role and his contributions helped advance
important conversations and decisions that continue to influence our city
today. Those who serve uncounsel, we all hope, and I
think I can say this of the current council, because
they care deeply about the place they call home. Bill
Holden was no exception. He believed in animal, and he
worked to make our community stronger and better prepared for
the future. Public surface often demands long hours, difficult decisions.
Incredible personal sacrifice. Particularly in terms of your relationship with
your family. And Bill meant those responsibilities with the sincere
desire to serve the public interest. And he did it
with a smile on his face. He never bore anchor.
He was not one of those people who easily criticized
anyone around him or criticized those who took a country
position. The loss of former Councillor hold him his felt
not only by those who knew him, and a personal
way, but by the broader community served. As we reflect
in his life and legacy, we recognise the lasting value
of his contribution and the role he played in an
almost civic life. You would be hard - pressed, as
I've mentioned by way of service, to find someone who
served as long on both the school board and on
council. And it is, of course, a mark of our
respect. And thanks to him that the Nible City flag
at City Hall has been lowered into half - mast
in honour of his passing. This gesture reflects our community's
gratitude for his years of service and acknowledges the impact
he had in an eye when its residents. I might
say that when I think of Bill Holden, he reminds
me of what the late Hubert Horatio Humphrey said of
himself and his life in politics. He was a happy
warrior. Bill was our happy warrior. On behalf of the
residents, the city of Nanaimo, again, and all members of
our council past and present, I offer our heartfelt sympathies
and thanks for Bill Hold'em's years of dedication to all
of us and to the city he so loved. We
have nothing to rise and report on, Ms. Gurrie. The
mayor's leaders table, the non - war chord, delighted to
welcome Donna Hayes, who's a member of the Mayor's Leaders
Table in Colin Stansfield, the chief executive officer of the
Nanaima Prosperity Corporation. Is with us tonight is Colin. Not
yet, not seen, all right. Ms. Hayes. Welcome, you're no
stranger to this podium, and to service the community. Thank
you for all you do. Your worship and Council, thank
you very much for entertaining our conversation today. Colin sends
his regrets. He is on vacation with his family. On
the beautiful sunshine coast. So it was about a year
ago today that I came before this council on behalf
of the mayor's leaders team and asked for your support
in working on a strategic planning session with various organisations,
institutions, and community leaders within our community. And I am
very proud today to come and give you an update
of what has happened during the course of the last
12 months. Hopefully all of you had an opportunity to
read through the documents that we previously submitted, and I
want to start the presentation with the opening line of
our preamble, and it's that Nanaimo stands at a moment
of consequence and possibility. And I have to say that
everyone that came to the table to have these conversations
about what the future of the Naimo and what is
impact to Vancouver Island could be. None of us came
to the table thinking that there was possibility and consequence.
We came to the table knowing that there was. And
we came with the intent of putting it on paper
to come together to share tonight and with our various
organisations about what we think we can bring to the
future growth and prosperity of NaNimo and Central Vancouver Island
as a region. Quickly, I want to share with you
who was at the table. The city of Nanaimo, The
Mayor Representative, the city of the Nanaimo along with many
of your staff members. SFN and Petroglyph Developments was at
the table. The port authority, the airport, Vancouver Island University,
the school district, the Chamber of Commerce, the Nanaimo Foundation,
the Nanamo District Hospital Foundation, and Ireland Health all came
together in five sessions to talk about what the future
of our community means to the people who live, work,
and play here. So what we came away with wasn't
what we thought we were going to come away with
at the first meeting. We've come away with a document
that we're introducing you tonight as the Nanaimo Accord. It's
a shared commitment to move with purpose, coordinated action, and
build lasting prosperity across Nanaimo, and I would say the
region, because as I share what's in the document and
how we intend to move forward with the document you're
going to see, it's not just the people in Animal
we're talking about. It is definitely the people on Vancouver
Island and the impact that we will have to those
not only here, but in British Columbia and in Canada
as we move forward. So why did this process matter?
And why does it need to happen now? And it's
because we strongly feel that we are entering a decade,
we're isolated effort will no longer be enough. We're acting
independently on independent projects will not get us the results
that we need. We need to act with one voice
as one community. We are no longer speaking as individuals
or individual organisations. We are truly speaking as a community
moving forward. Growth is accelerating the demand for housing. Every
one of you here knows these pieces. Healthcare, major infrastructure,
we're all searching globally for talent and services to relocate
here and to provide those services to our community. Major
public and indigenous led investments are moving at the same
time. Senior governments and investors need to see one coherent
Nanaimo story. The opportunity is real, and so is the
need for alignment between our organisations. So where the Accord
came from, the concept was bred at the mayor's leaders
table where we identified the need for a shared civic
vision and framework for moving forward. We came to you,
we shared that with your blessing. We went forward to
the Community Partners that I mentioned, and we had our
five meetings over the course of this last year with
the last one happening this past Thursday. At those meetings,
each of the partners was asked to share their visions,
their strategic plans, and the impact that they thought they
could bring to the community. And what change could happen
if they were actually to partner on some of those
opportunities. And I can tell you that from that table,
major conversations are already happening before we ratify the Accord.
Things like Workforce Housing in the health care sector to
enlarge our next project, whether it's our cardiovascular intervention centre
at the hospital or our tower, which will mean We're
already working on a joint project at that table on
what daycare and what workforce housing would look like just
by actually having meetings and talking about what our shared
visions could be. We put forward a portfolio where we
institutions put together their high impact projects, and we created
a document. And then we've put together the Nanaimo Accord.
The process was designed to coordinate without control partners to
remain owners of their own plans while aligning around shared
purposes. So here's what the Accord is, and I want
it to be clear you were given two documents in
your package. You were given a short documents about five
pages long. It has a preamble. And then you were
given an accord. And then you were given a second
document which speaks to transformational projects where partnerships can be
realised. The transformational projects page will grow and change. It's
a living document. So it is not a stagnant piece.
It will continue to be developing and growing with the
partners at the table and new partners who see the
vision for what Nanaimo can be who want to invest
here, what they can bring to the table. So what
the Accord is, is a statement of our shared values
and ambitions. It's a compass for aligned action and investment.
And it's an invitation to work together under a common
banner. But here's what it is not. It's not a
bylaw, a formal policy or a legal agreement. It is
not a replacement for the city plan or partner strategies.
It is not a financial commitment or new bureaucracy. This
is not new red tape. This is not new government
restrictions. This is about moving forward, not moving backwards. And
endorsement signals alignment. It does not create legal or financial
obligations in any ways to any of the people signing
the Accord. So when you look through the Accord, you
read our preamble. I read our first statement from that.
What the CORD specifically does is it defines our guiding
principles. And our values. Who are we? And we've defined
them as a group. It also talks about what our
collective ambitions are and what our success looks like. So
in essence, it says who we are, how we're going
to act together, and what is the definition of success.
And then the portfolio is the transformational projects I talked
about. And it's an invitation for others to join us.
It's an invitation for those that are already in community
to invest in strategic projects and guidelines. And it's an
invitation for those who aren't here to come here and
join us and be part of the prosperity. We believe
that we're bringing to Vancouver Island. So in essence, it's
one document with two jobs. It holds the shared civic
community study and translates that commitment into visible, coordinated actions
without comes. The core promise. We align policy capital infrastructure
and talent so that success is one area unlocked success
in other areas. So I have recently seen this in
Ottawa. This is how tangible this piece and how important
this piece is. I had the opportunity to have an
invitation to the Minister of Infrastructure's Office to meet with
staff. And I did that. I did that wearing two
hats. I did that with the port authority to share
the nation building project that the port is working on.
And I've shared that nation building project at this table.
I also went as the chair of the fair care
alliance to discuss what fair and equitable access to health
care looks like for those of us that live on
Vancouver Island. And what a cardiovascular centre could look like.
And I could see the eyes in the room glaze
over and see people say, well, you're here asking for
one project. So I started talking about, well, no, we're
talking about workforce housing and health care. We're talking about
veteran and senior's housing. We're talking about daycare to attract
workers. We're talking about reimplementation of rail on Vancouver Island.
And I started seeing that spark in the staff's eyes.
So I left that meeting. And if you've been to
Ottawa, you know, you go to your next meeting and
your next meeting. And about three meetings in, we get
a call that says, I know you're flying out today
at 550. And there's a major ice storm in Ottawa.
It's going to be a bit of a trial to
get to the airport. The minister would like you to
stay till question period, which I happened to know ends
at 3. 30. He's not going to make it till
4. My flight's at 550. He needs to talk to
you about what's happening in Nanaimo. The federal government is
very interested in communities that can show a stacked infrastructure
plan, how you are leveraging what you are building to
provide prosperity and opportunities in other areas. That got myself
and my port CEO who's here with me this evening.
That got us directly into a meeting with the Minister
to talk about what's happening in Nanaimo and very much
an excited minister saying these are the kind of projects
we can support. I did not have the accord. We
need to have this document so we can be sharing
it with those levels of government about how we are
aligning on our values, our principles, our ambitions. Because in
essence, we are aligning our culture, our conduct and tying
them into outcomes. So this is just a brief example
of what you'll find in the transformational project documents that
is attached. We have highlighted to start with three major
projects from three organisations. Now here's the reason why. These
projects actually all overlap each other in a lot of
ways. Taytuxon was a project introduced by SFN. I know
everybody at this table is familiar with what's happening there
and what a visionary project that is. How exciting that
is for our community. It involves housing. It involves recreation.
It involves economic growth and development. If I have to
explain about the NRGH expansion, I have not been doing
my job as the chair of fair care alliance. And
I will apologise, but I'm pretty sure you're all up
to date with what's happening with health care and how
critical it is. If you also don't know about what's
happening with port expansion, I've also let you down there.
But, um, as I mentioned, we have a nation building
project which ties rail into our deep sea port, which
ties directly into some of the mandates coming out of
Ottawa. I can tell you that ministers are pointing to
Nanaimo as their biggest opportunity in Canada for growth. And
how we can affect Canada as a whole. So why
are these projects important? Well, they all mean that we
need training programs. I had the privilege along with the
mayor being up at VIU this past week to speak
with the minister who was announcing 64 more seats in
our apprenticeship programs. And to talk about the importance of
VIU to us as community. They are part of this
Accord. They will need to provide training for every single
one of these projects that's listed here. The school district
is involved in every one of these projects. As is
are not - for - profits who will benefit from
these projects and opportunity. So these are the first three
projects to appear in our transformational project list. And I'm
pushing the button, but this is not doing anything else.
Uh, there it goes. So how the Accord is going
to be used. We're going to use it to align
our partners. We're going to use it for investment attraction.
We're going to use it at senior levels of government
to show how we are actually truly partnering with each
other as community to be impactful and bring prosperity to
our community. And we're going to use it for public
communication. And what does endorsement mean. We're here this evening
for a specific purpose. And just so we're clear, every
organisation I list it is going through this exact same
process. So as an example, the port authority board will
be bringing back this back to our port board in
September for them to endorse this document. All of the
organisations I list will be signatories to this document signing
on that they are actively participating in this process. So
we are here tonight as our next step in the
Accord to ask Council to endorse the Accord as it's
been put forward. We recognise and for you to recognise
the Accord as a shared civic touchstone to support partners
using it to align advocacy in action. And a state
that you are ready to work with others under a
common banner. So next steps was this meeting. As I
mentioned, every other partner group who has been part of
this process is meeting with their boards because we all
have boards that we answer to, um, to get sign
off with the plan to get sign off, um, early
this fall. It seemed like everybody's having their board meeting
in the same week in September. So, uh, we will
work our way through that. We will then be meeting
with our provincial and our federal local leaders to be
sharing the Accord and what impact we believe that it
can have on community. And then we'll be sharing that
further with groups like through VAEA and other organisations, um,
moving forward to show as a leadership role what Nanaimo
is doing. And I truly believe as we talk about
these projects and we look at this process, this isn't
just about an animal. This is about everybody who lives
on Vancouver Island. I set it to the minister last
week at VIU. How many cities that are not urban
centres can boast a port authority can boast a university
can boast a tertiary hospital can boast an airport. We
have them all. That means we have all of the
opportunity. And we are strongly aligned with our First Nations
leaders. And so tonight I am here on behalf of
the mayor's leaders table to ask the city of Nanaimo
to sign on to the Accord and work with our
group as we move forward in partnership with the other
organisations in the city of the Nymal to truly bring
prosperity to our community. Thank you. Thank you very much,
Ms. Hayes. Much appreciated. We have a couple of questioners.
Council Armstrong and Council Eastmear, please. Thank you, through your
worship. Um, when you talk about public communication, how are
you going to get that out to the public. Um,
so there will be multiple faucets. We will all, um,
how we've talked about it, but still to be determined
by boards is we will all share it through our
websites, through our social media pieces. Um, and that would
include the city of the Nanaimo posting that you signed
on to your pieces. Um, we have not planned any
community meetings around sharing this, but we will do it
that way and through our social media. So the big
consistent messaging through all the partners. Correct. Thank you. Thank
you, Council Read. Thank you through you. Thank you for
this. I found it very interesting document to read and
it was nice to see what I think is a
shared vision that I think we've all sort of understood
for a while, but to have it concisely written in
this way is helpful. Um, I think my feedback in
reading it, they're like page four and five, the items
with the bolded text and then the item underneath. It
wasn't clear to me like how to read those necessarily
because there's equal spacing. So I think the bold text
and then the, you know, the non - bold underneath
kind of putting them together would make it clear that
those are like little headings. Just from like an accessibility
perspective, um, because you're touching on some pretty different issues
there. I just wonder, do you think that it might
make sense for council to wait on endorsing it until
the other partners have given their feedback just because the
cities, the convener of the committee and if changes need
to be made that that, that, that could be something
that council would then, um, have a chance to review
how it went over with everyone else and endorse it.
So I have two comments. My first is you have
an election in October. And the boards to sign off.
So I would, I don't know what your process is
getting near the end before the election starts. Would hate
the opportunity because this council really brought this group together
to form this process. So my personal feeling is you
should own this process. Um, the other piece is every
single person who sat at the table was either a
CEO, a CAO or a board chair of an organisation.
So this wasn't, um, our staff populating, um, these meetings.
And we've already all reviewed the documents at that level
and already done our feedback for changes. So to your
point about, you know, highlighting this are not high, some
of those things may change. Um, my recommendation would be
to, uh, for this council to support the Accord and
principle. And if there were any major changes to be
brought back to your attention after we've all had the
chance to go back to our boards. Okay. That's, that's
helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hemmons and Councillor Prinum.
Thank you, worship. And thank you, Ms. Hayes, for being
here and all of your work on this. Um, I
had, uh, I had the opportunity to attend a couple
of these meetings and they were very interesting. And, um,
I just want to comment on the point you just
made. These are the powerhouses in an animal that are
sitting around this table. We have all of the major
economic players. It's been fascinating. My question for you, um,
it's been, it's wild to know that so many CAOs
can coalesce upon three ideas for Nanaimo. Were there any
others that were left off that there was a lot
of interest in or was it a solid buy -
in for these three. For the transformational projects? Yes. Yeah.
So I want to say that every single organisation brought
a minimum of one project to the table. And everyone
agreed that these were the top three. Now, I do
want to say that at previous renderings of the mayor's
leaders table where we concentrated on infrastructure, we brought four
23 projects. The hospital and the port projects were the
top of that group in that last whole process that
we went through as well. And the reason is, is
because the huge amount of overlap. So, um, you know,
the airport brought forward projects. They need some of the
pieces, the ports working on to support their projects. So
if the pieces, the ports working on happen, then their
pieces will fall in as well. As an example. Um,
VIU will have some upcoming projects, but they want to
be more recognised as being the education piece as they're
transforming right now into the powerhouse that they will be
to support these industries going forward. And so one thing
that will be attached, in addition to the transformational projects,
is a profile of each of the part of each
of the partners. To highlight. But as I said, that
document is to be living and to be changing. So
it was brought up specifically, huge emphasis right now on
rail, even though that's part of the port strategic plan.
And if you delve into that, you get more information
about what the recommendations on rail are. But that's a
strategic piece that will become to the head as some
of these other pieces get accomplished. Thank you very much.
Uh, this has my full support. Thank you. Thank you.
Councillor Prino. Thank you. Your worship and absolutely has my
soul, my full support. Question for you. As you go
through projects and you reach success, will you continue on
with thee. And I'm a court as a group meeting
how often. So I believe the right to talk right
now is that we're probably going to meet twice a
year. Okay. Um, but the intent is to continue to
meet. We understand players at that table will change as
people retire or new people come in. But to keep
that core group, um, together. Yes. We will continue to
meet these projects are going to be done in a
year. No. Right. We know a hospital tower. Yeah. I
like to say eight years could be 10 years. Um,
our port strategy is a 20 year strategy. And so
we will continue to meet to push these projects forward.
Yes. So you've only got three projects that you're really
concentrating on. How many, what's kind of the, is it
only ever going to be three or are you just
going? No, we're going to add to it as a
group as priorities emerge. I think we all know this.
Our federal government, for instance, has been fairly clear on
what their priorities are. We need to be flexible and
nimble to be able to respond to opportunities for funding
from them. Yes. The province has made a couple of
things clear. I particularly look at health care. Um, well,
the budget was not, uh, was not really positive overall.
Let's be quite honest in terms of healthcare for Nanaimo,
it was positive. Our long - term care beds and
we're digging there right now. So we need to concept
plan. And the concept plan that's getting started and island
health is committed to the 12th. That's why island health
is also at this table. Um, so it is important
for this group to remain together, but to remain nimble.
And that's why the transformational project piece is a living
document. Good. Because if we need to pivot because our
federal government, uh, make something else a priority. And one
of us has that in our strategic plan. We need
to be able to pull that forward, go together for
the funding and implement that right away. Excellent. So good
to have you here. Always, always want to see you
here. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councillor Brown and
Councillor Guesslebrook. Thanks. You worship and thanks for the presentation.
I'm just curious on the process in which new projects
get added or subtracted from the transformational projects portfolio. So
some will get deleted as they get accomplished. Um, which
I think is a given. Projects will get added as
I previously mentioned as different levels of government bring forward.
Emerging concepts or stress other things like defence right now
is fairly important to our federal government. Um, we at
the port, for instance, know that there are lots of
projects around ship building and whatnot. So that might be
a transformational piece that has to be added or changed.
And the document. The other thing is, is the reason
that we want the, so I can be quite honest.
This accord could be very quiet between the groups that
are at the table. We could just go off and
do our thing in private. We are very intentionally making
it public and inviting other organisations to come forward and
share their concepts or ideas that they think should be
added or part of the process. Because there will be
other opportunities that arise out of these projects that, that
can't maybe be implemented by the people at the table.
And we'll involve other people. We also want to be
able to use the document for other people who want
to invest in this community to come forward and bring
forward their pieces and projects. And so that, those pieces,
that's why we need to remain nimble to be able
to take those away that maybe become redundant or have
been completed, but to add those which rise in importance.
If I may just thank you for that. And I'm
just curious. So if the new project that gets added,
does it require signatures again by everybody? No, because the
signatures, um, I would say that it would require the
group to come together and say, yes, it merits the
importance. So whatever group would have to come and do,
we all did presentations to the whole group with visual
strategic plans and all of that to talk about how,
and then we had sessions where we talked about how
we could leverage each other's assets to maybe make the
project more impactful. Um, and so whoever that group is
would have to come and talk to the group about
that. Um, but they will not be, the court is
signed by the people that are at the table. There
won't be new signatories to it, but new projects from
outside groups could be added with the support of the
group. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you, Councillor Gesselbrook.
Great. Uh, thank you, Mayor, through you. Um, yeah, I
really appreciate the work that, uh, went into this and
you're reading through the values and the, um, principals and
the ambitions. I'm like, Oh man, I can use some
of this for my campaign platform. And I just reading
some of the things like, uh, guiding values rooted and
regenerative, restoring ecosystems, circulating wealth locally and creating lasting generational
opportunities. Um, also, uh, principle of rewarding coordination, putting shared
priorities first and recognising that collaboration achieves more than working
in silos. For some of these ambitions like making housing
childcare and essential needs more attainable, protecting forest rivers and
shorelines as vital community infrastructure and building an entrepreneurial city
hall that matches private sector energy with public purpose. And
I guess my question is, is that these are all
very beautiful things. And then you look at the projects
like expanding the hospital and expanding the port, which will
bring significant growth. And I think we've kind of moved
past growth for growth sake. And these principles and values
are really wonderful things. And spoken. I'm just curious, how
do you foresee this according accountability between all the appart
that we're going to experience? We're doing it in a
way, in a good way. That is protecting, you know,
these, these shared assets that we have environmentally, you know,
funding and supporting the people that live here in the
workers and keeping that wealth circulating locally. I'm just curious
around how you foresee the accountability and how this accord
could support that. So one of the things that I
think is critical about the court is it is about
accountability. So currently there are other than, and I'll speak
as the chair of the port authority board. So currently
as the port authority, when we do a project, we
have to meet all sorts of standards, both federally and
provincially, whether that's Department of Fisheries, whether that's transport ministry,
whatever those things are. But I can do that project
or we can do that project in isolation on our
own without actually going back to those in community that
would be impacted and saying, Hey, what are your opinions
of what can you bring to the table? How should
we do this in partnership? There is the, a cord
is about creating that accountability. And going back to those
partners and having those conversations and creating those relationships. Now
the last year, all of those relationships have just been
strengthened. I'm not saying they didn't exist before, but they
didn't exist like they exist now. And so I think
the perfect example is, and I'm going to use your
self - end community centre as the perfect example. When
the mayor's leaders table previously convened and did our infrastructure
list, we talked about projects that were not about a
single purpose. But that encompassed other purposes. And they included
things like, how does it affect health care? How do
they play into transportation? Where does policing play a role?
What's going on with daycare? Don't just look at it
as a single project, but put all of those pieces
into it. And so as we move forward, we're looking
to move forward as community as opposed to individuals. And
when we think about projects, how does that impact or
how do you work with other organisations moving forward? That's
what the Accords about. That's its intent and its purpose
is to create that accountability on the things we agree
on. Not me picking, well, we're, you know, we care
about number one, number four, number five. It's about, we
care about all six items on those page as a
community. And so we are all going to work together
to achieve all six items on that page. Great. Thank
you. Yeah. I think working in silos always, uh, leads
to poor outcomes. So I think this greater integration in
open dialogue on what we want to pursue and how
we do it is great stuff. So thank you. In
order Councillor Storpe and then Menley. Thank you very much.
Your worship through you. If I may. Thank you, Miss
Hayes, for being here tonight and for all the work
you do in our community. It's much appreciated. I enjoyed
reading this report. And I found very interesting. Um, I
suspect Council will be, uh, quite willing to support it.
I was especially interested in your comments regarding global supply
chains and the dangers that we're seeing there of fragmentation.
Uh, the scarcity of industrial land and the systems required
to move goods, uh, and you mentioned rail. And I'm,
I'm curious in looking forward to reading more detail about
that because it's something that we keep mentioning, but we
don't seem to be making progress on it. Um, my
question to you is this. As I said, I think
I suspect Council will be highly supportive. But in terms
of governance, there is a saying first heard deferred. And
my question is, would it be satisfactory to you for
Council to wait and vote on accepting, uh, or endorsing
this accord in September. As opposed to immediately tonight so
that we have a chance if we wish to hear
staff comments on it first. I kind of shared my
comments a little earlier on my thought about this. And
my thought about this is that. I would like to
see this council take a leadership role. On signing the
Accord. I feel strongly that the mayor convened the mayor's
leaders table. And it started way back in COVID to
find out how our community could survive a pandemic when
nobody knew the answer to that question. And then it
came together to identify things like what are the major
infrastructure pieces? What's the donut economy? How do we keep
youth engaged in our community. And it has evolved to
where we are now to where we actually have this
engagement from all these other organisations. And really that seed
started at the mayor's leaders table started through the mayor
in this council, putting together that group to say, we
need to have a voice and do something different than
other communities are doing. Now I want to say that
Victoria has done something similar. But in our view, not
as impactful or as directed as this is with the
specific partners that our group has. I think it would
send a very strong signal to the other partners that
this council believes that they started the conversation at the
Mayor's Leaders table, and they are endorsing this process going
forward and are taking a leadership stand on that piece.
I think that would speak volumes that this council took
that leadership stand. All right. Thank you. I appreciate your
candor and I'll be happy to support it myself. But
I'll wait to see the will of council. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Manley. Uh, thank you your worship and
through you. Thank you for the presentation. Um, this, this
is a very, uh, important document I think. And I
really appreciate the process of bringing things to the table.
Um, when, uh, the different organisations are speaking with ministers.
Is there kind of an expectation that they're going to
be promoting some of these core projects. When they're speaking
with ministers from provincial or federal government? You'll find that
those of us that are part of this process are
already doing that. And we are co - hosting ministers
as they come to community. So you will have seen
Minister Fahrenworth, our provincial transport minister was here a couple
of weeks ago. He was hosted by the port authority
by the city of the Dynamo Unsugnamo working jointly together
to bring ministers here. We have another invitation to federal
ministers happening in November. It's the same piece. We're all
inviting them to come together. Yeah. All of these things
are very connected. What would you say before that, uh,
if we're going to do a port expansion, we need
hospital and health care. Yes. We're going to need workforce
housing. Yes. So all of those things are, are integrated.
I really appreciate the fact that when you go to
Ottawa that you're pitching multiple projects, because I think it's
pretty important. And it shows that we have it. That
we have it together. And also, um, maybe just comment
on the RDN, our commitment at the hospital board to
increase taxes. I know people don't really like tax increases,
but it's really important for getting these kind of projects
done. Yeah. Well, I'll put on my fair care hat
for a minute here then. I can't speak highly enough
of the work that the RDM board has done particularly
over the last four years. Um, we would be in,
we would not be in the provincial budget with the
long - term care beds. And we would not be
on page 69 with a commitment of this provincial government
to invest in acute care services at NRGH. If the
RDN had not stood up and taken a leadership role
in the conversation. There's not a chance. You didn't see
any other municipality in this province stand up in a
leadership role that way and do that. And therefore you
saw no other region in this province granted their health
care projects. Burnaby lost face two of their hospital. Seven
Communities in BC lost their long - term care bets.
The leadership rule that the RDN has taken, and I
pay taxes like everybody else. So I don't like saying
that we need to pay more taxes, but I was
there with MSA, with the hospital foundation board, encouraging the
RDN to increase what they're putting away for health care.
Because we can't expect our children to have to pay
for it all. We need to participate in it now.
And taking the leadership role and the stance that you
did, um, with respect to the cardiovascular intervention centre has
given fair care of the ability to have this argument
for special funding to come to our community at the
federal government level. And that has never happened. So yes,
this community, and that's why I'm encouraging this council tonight
to once again, take a leadership role in a project
like this because the RDN has done it. This council
did it informing the mayor's leaders table. I know that
this council, our leaders and are doing things that other
communities are just or not doing. I appreciate that. I'm
fully ready to support this. I think it's a great
document. And I think we're, we're going in a very
positive direction. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hemmons. Thank you.
Worship. If you're open to it, I would like to
move that Nanaimo City Council endorsed an IMO Accord. Secretary
Pantheon. Just speak to it. No, thank you. Councillor Geselbrock.
Thanks, actually another question for the delegation, if that's okay.
Uh, thank you. Um, just in terms of, uh, The
Hospital Expansion and the port expansion, um, it's going to
require a lot of people to work there. And, uh,
housing affordability has been, uh, major issue in the community.
I think, you know, when we were writing the numbers,
like 80 percent of people, you know, pay the rent
here or purchase a house, you know, if they're going
to spend more than 30 percent of their income And
that availability to, to how those people that will be
doing the work is a major, uh, choke point in
being able to provide the services that we need here.
Was that discussed much as a gap and something that
in need of being able to be addressed as a
core project in the community and to text and project
address that a little bit. I guess curious how to,
how is addressing affordability to actually like be able to
provide the workers for this growth. So we've actually talked
about this at length. Um, I want to say that
we are taking a unique perspective on it. And so
we already have a project that's going to come forward.
Um, you'll probably see some announcements about it over the
next six months or so as we get into a
little bit more. But I will use the hospital as
the example. They're 3, 200 employees who work their currently.
The hospital foundation has done a survey about how many
of those employees feel that they need access to workforce
housing. Um, it was in the realm of 1400 employees
felt that they would, if they could access workforce housing,
that would help them with affordability. Um, and so, uh,
the hospital foundation. And they're not the only foundation of
their type. Colonna, I believe has done something similar on
a much smaller scale. Um, we have created a strategic
partnership working with the school district around two things. One
is daycare. Now our project did not get approved in
the budget to add 100 seat daycare at the Hospital
campus. Um, but that doesn't mean we're not moving forward,
uh, with it working on strategic plans for it outside
of the box. So the one thing that we found,
and you all know this, because you hear me talk
about healthcare is we have to get outside of the
box on how we fund projects. And so that means
employer engagement in what workforce housing looks like. And so
the hospital foundation currently, I said on their board as
well, we are working on a hundred unit workforce housing
as a start and a hundred seat daycare that will
go a long ways to supporting currently what's happening with
hospital workers. Other large employers in town are going to
have to have similar conversations, but now the plan is
to move forward in those conversations in partnerships with other
groups. So as opposed to taking it on just on
your own as an organisation, it's about strategically partnering with
other groups about what that looks like. Great. Thank you.
And so it sounds like that conversation is happening within
the partners of the Accord. Is that something or a
bubbling project that could allow greater collaboration at that accord
level as a, as a potential project, um, to help
with that coordination amongst the different groups? Yeah. It is.
And actually I will say this, that partnership I just
referenced is actually ahead of this accord being signed because
both of our boards have already agreed in principle and
signed off on us moving forward on projects. So it's
the idea germinated during this last year. It's just we're
working faster than the Accord process took us to all
come to the same place. So yes, I think you're
going to find this because we're all talking about it
that this housing will be tied to part of this
discussion. Great. Thank you. Thank you. And Councillor Brown. You
worship. I just have comments for when council debates. I
have no, no questions for the delegation. Uh, the motion's
on the floor. Okay. Okay. So we're to be Ms.
Hayes. Thank you very much. Much appreciated. Thanks, your worship.
Um, I remember when this came forward, I was skeptical
at the time. Uh, I can appreciate a lot of
energy. And intention has gone behind it. And I do
believe probably the intentions are very good. A lot of
other communities have done similar. And I get it. Alignment
and frustrations with lack of alignment within the community. However,
I will not be supporting it. I'm fairly skeptical of
anything that, uh, even if it seems minor at first
shifts, uh, conversations to the board room, which I think
are more appropriate in the public realm. And if Nanaimo
tonight signs on to this, uh, projects can be added
and they will be decided upon by folks who are
largely have not been elected representatives for the community as
a whole. Um, and I can imagine a scenario. I
don't think anytime soon, but I could imagine a scenario
where an incinerator on lands gets proposed without public debate
as part of the portfolio. And I don't, I think
had this table, uh, if there is to be projects
added or to remove, they should come forward and be
known by the community. If Nanaimo is a signatory on
the Accord. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I'll
respond really if you did that. If the taxpayers are
being asked to provide all the funding and all the
members will be asked being provided the funding. And it
wasn't in a public place. That would be a different
situation. But as Ms. Hayes is outlined in terms of
how the Accord will work and what is proposed, I
think it's perfectly reasonable. I'm also noting that we're now
at 10 to eight. We have a long agenda. All
those in favor. I can appreciate the, uh, length of
debate on this, but it is quite a significant support
by the community behind these three major projects. And I
think that, uh, one of which has had quite numerous
public debate around the hospital expansion. I think that's something
that everybody has agreed on. Some of the other projects
I think are new to the public awareness. Um, the
Texton Development up beside VIU is a significant. Um, and
I think that it's got very strong merits and can
have major positive support in the community. And they also
is the Duke Point expansion. And I think the idea
of strengthening supply chains and being able to have an
Inamo as a hub is very important. Um, for the
movement of goods. Uh, I don't know how much sort
of public awareness and input, you know, for the city
supporting this type of development has in the public awareness.
I definitely support the expansion of the port. Um, but
I do share similar concerns to Councillor Brown in terms
of the process of the city coming to the table.
Now we started up the prosperity corporation that's done an
amazing job bringing the players together around the chord and
the mayor's leaders table. But this is the first time
that it has come to the Council table. And as,
um, Councillor Thorpe has brought up, you know, we always
do first come to, you know, her deferred. And it
is a delegation bringing a motion forward. And we might
even actually have a bylaw around our procedural bylaw on
being able to, um, make a motion on a delegation.
And I'm just kind of curious, does our procedural come
into effect on this. Ms. Gary. Yes, thank you, worship.
So the procedure by law is, um, on your agenda
for adoption tonight. So the changes haven't been adopted yet.
Um, this matter was on your last Council agenda under
consent items because it came from the Mayor's leaders table.
So the recommendation to bring this presentation and motion to
this table was on your last agenda. So just procedurally
there was a forewarning to it coming. Um, as well
as any other minutes and or discussion that happened at
the Mayor's Leaders table is available on your agendas as
well. Um, if they've, if they've been approved. So I
just wanted to note that. And as to the making
a motion on, on their was debate whether to put
this motion on here because it did come from the
Mayor's leaders table to have this. But, um, my bad,
I knew it was going to be on the presentation
screen. So, um, this came from the Mayor's leaders table
was under consent at your last meeting that this recommendation
would be before you tonight. So it's slightly different than,
um, approving a delegations motion on the fly just to
give you that background. Though it's at Council's discretion, whatever
you choose to do. Maria, thank you. Um, I do
think Councillor Bound does raise some concerns on just process.
Having read the Accord and been, you know, privy to
the discussions that have led to it. And I think
the values that are outlined in it are very sound.
Um, and I think that it is for the benefit
of the community and the processes in place around the
principles really do lead to a collaborative dialogue on how
we go forward and the projects that we choose. And
so that I am supportive and I can understand the
timing challenges with the, uh, break in August and the
election coming up. But it's something that I do stand
behind and support. And so I'll be voting in favor.
Thank you. Thank you. Motions on the floor, all those
in favor. Looks like it's unanimous except for Council Brown.
Thank you very much. Much appreciated, Ms. Hayes. Thank you
as always for your attendance. Uh, the committee meetings for
the Governance and Paris Committee Meeting held on May the
11th, June 15th. And at Finance Aut at June 17th,
are just for receipt. No motion required. We have no
consent items. Uh, delegations unrelated to agenda items. Uh, Andrea
CO2 review of school zone speed limits, Ms. Katub. Good
evening. Just introduce yourself for the record. You have five
minutes. And when the minute left, I'll let you know.
Thank you. Thank you. Good evening Mayor and Council. I'm
Andrea Coutube, and I live in Nanaimo. Before I start,
I just want to acknowledge that Bill Holden was my
instructor. And I just received that news. Um, and he
was very patient with me and answered all my questions
about becoming a city council when I was a young
person. So that may affect my delivery just a little
bit. But I'm here to you talk to you tonight
about some school zone changes. I'm not new to pedestrian
safety. I was a school patrol guard for three years.
And when I was 18, I got my trades ticket
at VIU for being a flagger. Um, I've done some
advocacy in the past for traffic safety changes at Colh
Harbour Playground in Vancouver, as well as working to change
some rollout of the first all ages and abilities protected
by claim beside a school in Vancouver. I've also done
some advocacy with BCEED access society around elopement at school
yards. I know the city is working to. Sorry.
What I wanted to bring forward is that I know
the school zones are something the city is working on
right now. But I noticed when I was dropping off
my son that Nanaimo school zones aren't currently marked for
all year or balanced calendar or summer school sites, many
cities have specific signs now. Um, such as Burnaby and
Coquilla, there was a BC Supreme Court case in 2010
that established that the school day is more than just
the regular school year. It can count Pro D days,
for example. The regular calendar is the definition. So whether
that includes summer school or not might be a little
bit up for debate, but I believe that because our
aim is safety, we should be putting up signage for
summer schools. The school day is to find under the
School Calendar Regulation. Is any day in session and a
day in session means the principal and teachers are scheduled
to be there for instructional activities, non - instructional activities,
administrative activities, but not voluntary times if they come in
early to start for September. It also applies to students.
The city's current plan, uh, and I really appreciate that
the transportation manager took the time to speak with me.
Um, via email. The city is working on a project
to establish permanent speed reduced areas. There's a focus on
the areas surrounding schools and they'll be using these authority
to regulate speed limits through municipal bylaws. But that phased
approach is still a year away. And the governance and
priorities meeting in September, but I think we could make
some changes now just around the school zones for summer
school and year round sites. By putting up the signage
for year round and summer school sites, we could have
drivers reduce their speed now. It just needs a couple
of signs to transportation managers already looking into what it
would take to order science. Another piece I think that
could be improved is a communication plan with the school
district because it's the school district that decides when school
is in session, but is the city that's responsible for
the school zones. Um, so I reached out to the
school district. I haven't heard back from them yet, but
I think that if the city and the district work
together, there could be a communication plan just so that
you know that, for example, the learning alternative site or
island connect or running year round. Another thing would be
to review whether admin sites such as deferen and the
board office, which are both within school zones also need
year - round signage. Going further, I would suggest reviewing
whether secondary schools need consistent zones. I found some of
the high schools had them and some don't. I would
consider whether playground zoning or extending hours might better fit
our changing communities because we have out of school care
and child care, sports and extracurriculars, playground use and rentals
by groups serving the same populations. Burnaby actually extended their
hours till 10 p. m. while I'm not suggesting that.
It's just a thought. Another thing would be to review
frontage strategies for where the school district doesn't front right
on to a major road that may still be a
challenge. Such as Pleasant Valley. In closing, I'd just like
to thank the city staff and councillors who took the
time to respond and provide information and who are patient
with me and learning about this as a parent who
has to drop my child off at one of the
sites. And I'm here for questions if you have any.
Thank you. Thank you very much Councillor Perino. Thank you.
You were very quick question. I just wanted to confirm
you have not talked to the school board about this
as yet. Is that right? I emailed the school board,
but no response. I understand that someone was on vacation.
Okay. And did you talk to our Sam Piatal. I
haven't talked to the RCM. Okay. I just, I just
wondered if you'd had any feedback from them and where
they were coming from because it has certainly been a
discussion at this table. And I know Councillor Armstrong has
brought it up, particularly, you know, when do you have
these signs? Where are they effective? What type of signs
you have in your schools and around? So good discussion.
Thank you for coming and speaking with us. Thank you.
Thank you. Not seeing any further questions. Thank you for
the presentation tonight taking the time. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Uh, the next item or administer reports. The first is
consideration of new permissive tax exemptions for 2027, Ms. Mercer.
Please. Thank you, your worship. So the city has six
organisations requesting to be put on the premise of tax
exemption bylaw for 2027. However, only three of the six
applicants have met the criteria outlined in the grant policy
and guidelines. So the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board and
they're applying for the first time for their property. They
occupy at 6374 Metro Drive. Then I'm a youth services
and they're applying their property they lease at 290 Bastion
Street. And the fraternal order of eagles are a number
15. And they're applying for the first time for their
property that they occupy at 245 Fraser Street. A small
targeted review was done on 89 properties previously listed on
the 2026 PTE bylaw. As there were some outdated records
in the cities files. Uh, as well, six properties are
being recommended for removal from the PTE bylaw for 2027.
Despite attempts at CONTACT, no applications were received from the
following. So the Bethlehem Investors Group 42393 Arbor Road and
2371 Arbit Road. The Hope Lutheran Church at 2174 departure
Bay Road and St. Andrews, United Church at 315 Fitzwillian
Street. So as these are places of worship, proportion of
the property, uh, predominantly used for worship will continue to
receive a statutory exemption. The remaining land around the church
up to five acres. Can be exempted by council. So
this is the portion of property that would become taxable
as their application wasn't received. So having said that staff
are going to reach out one more time to these
four properties. To ask these organisations to encourage them to
get their application in because they're a significant, um, property
values. So should we receive applications for these properties before
we come back to you in September? We will include
those on the bylaw for Council's consideration. Um, the, and
there were also three properties that we'll be removed as
they're no longer occupying at the site. So we have
Mid Island Abilities and Independent Living Society, uh, and an
animal systems planning organisation society and the Society of Equity
Inclusion and Advocacy. So staff are here to seek council's
direction on these recommendations as well as answer any questions
that you have. Thank you very much, Councillor Thorpe. Thank
you very much. Your worship through you, if I may.
Appreciate the report, a number of years ago when this
was, uh, under the Bailey week of Council members, I
sat on the committee, uh, overseeing permissive text exemptions. And
I know the value they ring to our community, uh,
what I have forgotten, Ms. Mercer. And maybe you can
give me just a ballpark figure is the total value
dollar amount. That the city gives out in terms of
tax exemptions. Sorry to put you on the spot. Just
give me a rough estimate. I'm going to hand it
over to, uh, Anna, cause she will have those numbers
right at her fingertips. Ms. Francisco, good evening. Welcome. Good
evening Councillor and Mayor. The estimated value is about 2.
4 million dollars for about 1770 properties. That are currently
exempt. Thank you very much. 2. 4 million dollars that
the city has providing primarily to nonprofit organisations that provide
services that benefit our community. And I think that deserves
to be noted. And I think they are extremely valuable
to our community and very worthwhile to the organisations that
receive them. So, uh, I also know that there are
strict guidelines and criteria that have to be followed and
appreciate staff's diligence and making sure that that happens. Thank
you. Thank you very much Councillor Gesselbrock. Thanks. Um, I
guess I was just a little surprised to see, um,
the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board as an applicant for
permissive tax exemption. And my understanding, it's an association of,
um, realtors and, you know, and they've lobbied council and
they provide professional oversight and guidance. But, um, I just
curious our criteria for selecting. I was just surprised one
the need for public subsidy for the association and the
building and just looking at the membership dues and what
it would cost, you know, consideration of financial need and
also just the eligibility, um, because I'm, yeah, I'm surprised
and that there is a need from the association for
a permissive tax exemption. Thank you. Ms. Francisco, please. Mr.
Your Worship. We don't look specifically of financial need. And
one of the reasons for that is because it's really
hard to compare apples to apples. Sometimes we've got a
large national organisation. Sometimes we just have local charities. Uh,
so the guideline includes registered nonprofit status and charity status.
Adherence to city policies. And of course, overall community benefit.
So within the guideline in the policy, the real estate
aboard does meet the criteria. Okay. Yeah. I think that,
um, I think there's, it looks like there's quite a
broad, you know, what community benefit is and no doubt
the great work that's done there. And I think just
look in the need and also the amount of subsidy
that we do provide. I'm struggling a little bit with
that, but I guess we'll, I'll, I'll save that for
the debate. Thank you. Thank you. If there's no Council
Manley. Yeah. I'm just, uh, I have some concerns around,
um, telecom lamb Aboriginal friendship centre not being included in
this list. And I, I would note that in their
application, they identify that they have applied for funding BC
housing has abandoned a whole bunch of organisations. They've abandoned
a whole bunch of people. This is a really important
agency that the looks out for people on the, you
know, looks out for indigenous youth. In this case, you
know, indigenous young women between the ages of 17 and
29. Who've experienced violence and they're trying to read, you
know, some of whom are trying to regain and retain
legal custody of their children. Um, I understand we have
rules. That they have to have active funding or operating
agreement with PC housing or another government agency. But I
just feel like the BC government is abandoning organisations at
this time. And I'd hate to see an organisation like
this, uh, be punished because of it. And, um, you
know, in their application, they do identify that this is
the case. Um, so I, I would like to see
us make, make, uh, an exception to the rule, uh,
in this particular case. I know telecom laylum has a
youth safe house. They have youth and elder housing. They've
got great projects. Uh, they've got, um, housing for young
moms. And now this housing, I think should be included
in this tax exemption process. So if we're going to
have a motion, or, you know, maybe a staff can
weigh in on this, but I might ask for an
exemption and emotion. Thank you. Is through your worship Councillor
Manley if we might let Miss Mercer speak to some
of the unintended consequences. You do have the discretion to
amend anything like within your policy. And staff did evaluate
telecom laylimbs based on the policy, but maybe Ms. Mercilite
might like a few moments to outline some of the
implications. And then you can go from there. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Mercer, please. Thank you your worship through
to Councillor Manley. So I think it was two years
ago we had the criteria up in front of council.
And that was the decision at that time was to
make the policy the way it is. So since that
time we have turned down other organisations, um, because they
didn't meet this criteria. And I can't comment whether they
are more worthy or less worthy than this organisation. But
kind of the unintended consequences is if you do it
for this one, I'm going to guess that you're going
to have a lineup at the podium for other ones.
But that is ultimately council's decision to do that. Um.
Staff can add some additional comments to that. Ms. Bagan
through the mayor to Councillor Manley. So I did speak
with the applicant today. And as you confirmed, uh, they
were not successful receiving the funding from BC housing. We
did look at when we amended the policy to include
non - market housing, the implications, um, financially for the
city, uh, to include a broader range of non -
market housing. And there was significant financial implications. Um, however,
uh, having spoken with the applicant, this is, you know,
considerable hardship for them. However, just like I mentioned in
the report, there is the option that he did discuss
with the applicant that if they are willing to enter
into a housing agreement, uh, with a city, um, regarding,
uh, their, uh, program that they offer, which will then,
you know, confirm for the city that they are providing
affordable housing for young women, uh, we can then work
with BC assessment, uh, to reduce the assessed value of
their property as they would be classified supportive housing, as
long as you need BC assessments great to hear. And
they were open to that, uh, option when I spoke
with them. Thank you for that. Would they be able
to then come back to us for tax exemption. I
believe that tax assumption would go directly to BCSSment. And
they would be valued at two dollars for the land,
which is actually, for understanding better than what we could
offer through the Permissive Tax Exemption policy. Okay. I appreciate
that. I appreciate the explanation to you. I remember the
discussion that there are a lot of, uh, housing units
around the community. I just really understand the work that
they're doing at telecom lay them. I appreciate what they
do. And I'm, I'm happy to hear that staff are
working with them. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor
Armstrong. Thanks to Councillor Manley for doing that. And if
the speakers, I'd like to move the recommendation. And a
secondaire. Councillor Eastmer. Any discussion. Councillor Geselbrock. Thanks. Yeah. I
mean, I think our, our policies just, um, seeing the
Vancouver Island Real Estate Board, looking for a tax exemption
of, you know, for 27, 000 dollars and revenues these
association. I'm not entirely clear sort of the scope of
public benefit. I do understand some work that they do.
But I also understand that it is an advocacy and
work for a professional group. And I'm curious, like we're
so broad that, you know, the lawyers association and the
different groups, you know, coming that do provide some professional
guidance, um, but also, uh, just leads it open to
a whole lot of other people applying. That may not
necessarily meet what I originally thought with, you know, community
service, uh, nonprofits. And so I can't support the permissive
tax exemption at this time for BYUREP. So I'll be
voting, not in favor. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Councillor Armstrong. Ciri Adam then so that he can vote
for the other two. We want to vote on everyone
separately. Is that the will of Council. What are the
ones. You want to see everyone's in. Three. All right.
So in terms of the awarding or the exclusions or
both. Of the whole motion is on the floor your
worship as far as I understand. So we could go
through them, Sirri Adam. All right. So, uh, the motion
someone cares to make it with, well, with Notion's been
made. Yeah. So you can just download respect to the
bank crown and real estate board. All those in favor.
Councillor Armstrong Eastmere Hemmons. Bear Crow, Councillor Thorpe, Council Perino.
Those opposed. Councillor Geselbrock, Councillor. Vancouver Real Estate Board, that
exception. Here at Sir Adam, yes. Opposed or in favor.
Opposed and Councillor Manley motion carries. Thank you. The next
is the name we use services. Well, it's, it's on
the floor. Those in favor. Any opposed, none motion carries.
And the fraternal order of eagles. Those in favor. Any
opposed motion carries. You don't have to move the rest,
Seriotum, if council is in favor of just moving the
entirety or voting on the entirety has already been moved.
Are we okay? Is a group with B? Yes. All
those in favor of the exclusion. Thank you. Those opposed.
None motion carries. Thank you very much, staff. Appreciate this.
The next is the British Columbia Local Government Climate Action
Program Future Funding, Mr. Holm, please. Thank you, Worship. This
is just an update. And I guess opportunity for Council
to become aware of and potentially take some advocacy on
potential changes to the climate action funding that local governments
have received. And I'm going to turn over to Ting
Pan, manager of Sustainability to give a brief overview of
this. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome. Please, the floor is
yours. Thank you. Good evening. So, um, the staff has
learned that the local government climate action program has not
been renewed. And, uh, we would like to, you know,
recommend Council to advocate to the provincial government to maintain
this important funding beyond 2027. And Mr. Stewart and Ms.
Brinkman has done an excellent job summarizing. And the background
of this funding. And so I just want to briefly
provide a little bit more context that these local government
climate action program since its inception over the last five
years has provided about, um, six million dollars in funding
our climate action. And under its previous, um, program, uh,
The Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program or CAREP. It provided
the city around 1. 4 million dollars. So altogether, um,
with the combined total is around a 3 million dollars
for cities climate actions. And so what really set this
program apart is one, there is no upfront investment to
secure the grant. It's accodable, um, distribution. And that means,
um, this is about the only grant that TEM staff
doesn't have to invest a lot of time to prepare
applications, um, and, um, it is not a competitive a
process. Um, so this saves a huge amount of investment
on staff resources. Um, and the second of all is
extremely flexible. It doesn't restrict on your spending whether it's
on capital or on operational expenses. And you can also,
uh, use it to leverage other external funding. And the
local governments are free to spend it as they see
fit for their own purposes. So I think to summarize
this is really without it continue. It will be, um,
placing more burden on city resources to complete future climate
action. Thank you very much. Question, if I may. Thank
you. You worship a very quick question. Appreciate the support.
So if I understand this correctly, then all of the
funding will be cut. Is that correct? Or am I
misreading it. Tell me I'm misreading it because I want
to make sure we still get some funding, especially for
the programs that we're doing. So your worship. So as
of now, we don't really know beyond 2027 if there
will be any funding coming from this program. So your
idea then is to do, um, advocacy at this stage
to have it continue on past 2027. Okay. That's correct.
Thank you so much. Councillor Armstrong. Thank you. I'd like
to move the recommendation as I think this is highly
needed. Second Councillor Hemings. Any discussion? Not surprising. Seeing none,
all those in favor. Any opposed. I've never seen a
controversial ask the province for money. Uh, the next is
C emissions intensive heavy industry uses. Mr. Holm, please. Thank
you, your worship. So November, um, of 2025, uh, Council
provided direction to staff to report back on options to
exclude heavy, um, sorry, emissions intensive, heavy industry within the
city, specifically identified in the motion where waste energy incinerators.
Uh, chemical plants, thermal electrical generators, petroleum refineries and LNG
export facilities. Um, uh, staff was undertaken a review of,
um, a number of different factors, including jurisdiction with respect
to air quality. So looking at, uh, what the cities
jurisdictional authority is, uh, and that of senior levels of
government. Looking at a city plan policy related city plan
being the official community plan. Zoning bylaw as it applies
to the identified uses in the motion. Also review of
business license records to identify whether or not any existing
businesses. Were operating under business license as a principle use.
One of the listed uses. So not necessarily that wouldn't
necessarily, um, get at whether or not there were accessory
uses that could fit within the definitions. Uh, but, uh,
specifically whether or not, um, any businesses were operating as
a principal permitted use, uh, also undertook jurisdictional scan. So
looking at other local governments, uh, and, um, identifying how,
uh, some of those comparable communities were addressing similar uses
through their land use regulatory provisions. Um, so with respect,
I'll just quickly highlight some of the findings. So city
plan and just a bit of a context city plan,
the official community plan has two designations for industry. Light
industrial lands. And then, uh, industrial lands, um, there's a
map attached to the report that identifies the designated industrial
lands, which are the lands on which the types of
uses identified in the motion could be supported. Um, as
well, uh, we looked at staff looked at 2020 land
inventory and capacity analysis that was, uh, supporting background work
to city plan and supported the land use designations. Uh,
within city plan, um, that were intended to support the
city's future industrial land needs also looked at, um, recognising
this is a bit of a data document, but 2013
regional district of Nanaimo Industrial Land Supply and demand study
also understanding currently that, uh, the Regional District of Naimo
board is considering, um, uh, potentially, um, uh, terms of
reference for undertaken and updated study along the lines to
replace or update the 2013 study looking at industrial and
commercial and employment lands more broadly. Understand that's for consideration
tomorrow at the, um, the RDN board table as well.
We looked at staff, looked at the zoning bylaw, identifying
that, um, the I4, the heavy industrial and, uh, W4
waterfront for zone would support those types of uses. Uh,
could support those types of uses. Looking at the definition
of industry that the city has. It's quite a broad
definition. Uh, that does allow for, uh, some of these,
some of the, um, what we're identified as emissions intensive
heavy industry uses by council in the November 2025 motion.
Uh, and the jurisdictional scan looked at 11 different jurisdictions,
uh, how they regulated these types of uses. And, uh,
can go into details, Christine Mays, the author of the
report, um, did the researchers here. We can talk about
specifics if you'd like, but, um, general trend amongst the
jurisdictions was for broader, more permissive rather than more specific
regulations. So actually going sort of in the other direction
to more broadly allow for, uh, industrial uses, uh, we
can touch on, um, some of the details if you'd
like. A number of options are presented in the report.
I'll just kind of quickly highlight what they are. So,
uh, option number one. We'll look at prohibiting some of
the number of the uses petroleum refinery LNG export facility
and waste to energy facilities as principal uses within, uh,
within the city. Uh, those are identified as, um, I
guess they were identified as clearly likely heavy emissions uses
that are emissions intensive uses. Uh, very, I guess less
potential for if council were to take this route for
unintended consequences. Um, with respect to some of the other
uses. So, uh, number one is sort of a limited,
limiting prohibiting a limited set of the uses identified. Option
number two is to bring forward amendments that would prohibit
the list of uses identified. So that's waste energy incinerators
chemical plants. Thermal electrical generators, petroleum refineries and LNG export
facilities. So to prohibit those as principal permitted uses, uh,
there could still be opportunity for, um, accessory use. Some
of the industries do have accessory supportive uses. That rely
on that are critical to their operation. Uh, number three,
option number three is to look at a comprehensive review
of heavy industrial uses through the zoning boylaw update. And
that would look at, um, potentially a focused review of
industrial uses through the zoning vial update. Timing could be,
um, good with, if there is more information coming out
of the regional district doing additional studies on, on regional
needs as well, um, opportunity to engage more fully with
or fully, uh, stakeholders and interested parties. Um, of course
number four is as council as always, um, able to
do is to provide alternative direction. So. Happy to take
questions. Hopefully this provides some information and helps Council consider
different options. Thanks. Thank you very much. Questions for the
staff before we get to the delegations Councillor Armstrong. Thank
you. I'm going to refer to, um, you have table
one and then two paragraphs down. It says the city's
currently in the process of reviewing the zoning bylaw. As
part of their update. And as part of the update,
staff will complete a comprehensive review of heavy industrial uses
for cities industrial zones, which provide an opportunity to rebus
practices. So why are we doing this now if this
review hasn't been completed yet? Because, you know, my concern
is there's been no engagement with SFN or industry or
anomal prosperity corporation. Like I don't have enough information yet
to make an informed decision. And then I'll ask a
second question after. I can speak to that through your
worship to Council Armstrong. So, uh, specific direction from Council
on emissions intensive, uh, heavy industry. Is what, um, what
was requested options to prohibit certain uses. That were considered
emissions intensive heavy industry. The zoning bylaw would have not
necessarily focused on those uses. But as part of the
zoning bylaw update, we would look at alignment of, um,
of industrial uses with city plan with the OCP. In
follow up, please. And then my second question's on gasification,
which is different than incineration. Uh, these conversations are happening
with, uh, the RDN waste because we know our landfill's
going to die out shortly. So how would that impact
that would gasification fall under incineration since they're two separate
things. I think, um, that would depend on how, um,
it would depend on how ways to energy incineration is
defined. Would be my answer. But, um, it's at this
point, uh, there's not been, um, is not a definition
hasn't been developed. And that's something that could be considered.
Through, uh, engagement with, um, stakeholders like you're suggesting. I'll
wait till after the delegations for Council discussion. Thanks. Thank
you, Councillor Manley. Thank you, worship. This, if there was
a bylaw change, it wouldn't permanently prohibit any of these
uses. It would only require site - specific zoning, which
would be staff reports, public hearings, and a vote by
council. Is that correct? Three - year worship. Yes. I
mean, Council would have the ability to consider zoning amendments
to allow uses site specifically. If they were not permitted
within, uh, within the zoning. Right. So just adds a
democratic process to these kind of proposals. Um, this bylaw
change, it won't affect HRMAC Pacific's current operations. Would. Maybe,
Ms. Mays can speak to that, um, as far as
I understand, uh, with respect to principal permitted uses, uh,
no, obviously if there were, um, and I'll let Miss
Mees expand on that. But, um, obviously if there were,
um, zoning, uh, amendment considered there'd be opportunity for, uh,
CORMAC and they can provide, um, commentary at any time
through council, two council. But if there is a zoning
bylaw amendment considered, we'd expect public hearing process. And there'll
be opportunity through that process to get further input on
that as well. But Ms. Mays can provide some, um,
additional details. What I'm asking is it's an existing use.
In my understanding is that an existing use cannot be,
cannot be changed through bylawds. It's grandfathered in. Thank you.
Thanks for the clarity and through your worship to Councillor
Manley. So I think you're speaking to protected lawful nonconforming
in the event that the bylaw created a lawful nonconforming
situation. There are provisions within the local government act to
protect those uses continuing. So there are implications there, of
course, but there are provisions in the local government Act.
Okay. So it wouldn't affect their current uses. And, um,
I assume that that would also include, uh, the biomass
cogeneration facility. They use hog fuel would waste byproducts. And
that would still be considered an accessory use, even if
they expanded, um, their biomass cogeneration facility.
Through the chair to Councillor Manley. With respect to HARMAC,
we have a specific use that's permitted in the I4
zone. That's wood and paper processing. Um, which is what
HRMAC would fall under currently. Um, with cogeneration, that is
one thing that we identified in the staff report is
the challenge with, um, uh, removing it outright as a
permitted use is that it wouldn't cover accessory uses. So,
uh, in the case of HERMAC generating power for, for
other uses, they're biomass side. So it is accessory to
their wood and paper processing use. And it's already, um,
in operation. So it wouldn't be affected. Would an expansion
of that be affected. Mr. Holm, uh, three worship
provided, it wasn't a principal use. And it remained an
accessory use. Then I would say no. A lot of
it's going to come down to the details and what
their longer term plans are. But, uh, if it's an
accessory operation to the, uh, what was the definition again,
Christine. Um, thank you, Ms. Mays. Wood and paper processing.
If it's accessory to that, then no, then it wouldn't
be impacted if we were thoughtful and careful in the
way we defined waste energy. And we were sure not
to exclude that use as a co - generation as
an accessory use. Than it could be, could continue as
accessory to the wooden wooden paper processing use. But it
would not be able to, uh, exist as a, um,
principal permitted use. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you.
No further questions for staff at this present time. We
do have, uh, six delegations. Uh, they'll each have five
minutes when you're introduced yourself for the record when you
come to the podium, uh, when the one minute left,
I'll advise you a few minutes left. And the first
delegation is Paul Chapman. Please. Uh, hello. My name is
Paul Chapman. I live in the old city neighbourhood in
St. Naok territory. Thank you for this opportunity to speak
with you tonight. I'm going to be speaking about the
virtues of site - specific zoning. For certain industrial uses
that are currently allowed under our zoning bylaw. I think
there will be people after me, delegations after me that
will be speaking to some of the real world impacts
and implications of being permissive. In what you include in
your industrial zoning. So I'm going to just speak about
the opportunities that, um, site specific zoning offers. And I
think the primary one is that it allows the voice
of community concern through council to be considered. For these
impactful industries. And when I'm saying impactful, I'm talking about
heavy polluting industries. We don't have to reach back that
far. Do you remember the concerns around the data centre
at Wellington? We don't have to reach back that far
to remember the community concerns expressed around the possible expansion
of industrial zoning cable bay. We don't even have to
reach back that far to remember the community concern around
the waste energy facility that was proposed to import waste
from Vancouver for power generation. And, you know, how close,
how near that was to becoming part of our airshed
and a permanent way. Site - specific zoning isn't a
blanket ban on industry. It looks at the costs and
benefits. It can require rather than suggest best practices. And
it strengthens a social license between the industry and the
community. It can be, but it need not necessarily be
an opportunity for Council to say no. For proponents that
don't meet that social license. It doesn't mean you can't
consider the industry. It means you must consider the industry.
As Councillor Brown and others have previously pointed out, land
use is a purview of city council. And the Community
Voices heard at the incinerator protest and during the data
centre debate. And at the cable bay rezoning, public hearing
support the thoughtful consideration of site - specific zoning. I
think that Option 4 from the staff report is the
best one. And really it's about bringing in elements of
the other options to give you a way forward here.
So there's the options kind of in one and two
around the removal of certain industries from being permitted that
automatic permission under industrial zoning. And that's really the cautionary
principle as the other element of Option 3 where there's
a comprehensive review. And through that comprehensive review, you figure
out which ones are permanently removed and then become part
of site - specific zoning. And if there are ones
that are deemed to be not harmful to our airshed
to our watership, they can go back into the industrial
zoning. Um. So I thank you for your thoughtful consideration
of this. Thank you, Mr. Chapman. That was very brief.
Any questions for the delegation, Councillor Thorpe? Yes, I do
your worship. Thank you very much through you, FAM's Mr.
Chapman. Thank you. I just want to make sure I
heard you correctly because I'm not sure of what I
heard. And that was, you seem to be recommending option
four. An option four, in my agenda, simply says that
Council provides alternate direction. Yes. So that's why I suggested
elements of the other options that would be what you
like. What that direction to staff would be. Right. Thank
you very much. Thank you. Uh, the next is Erica
Frank by Azuma, I understand. Hi, indeed, yes. I presume
I'm audible invisible, yes? A good, good evening, Ms. Frank.
You are visible and we can hear you. You'll have
five minutes. If you can introduce yourself for the record
and I'll let you know where the minute left. Thank
you. Great. Thank you. Hello. I'm Dr. Erica Frank. I'm
a professor and physician at UBC and I'm speaking supportive
item 12C to create better accountability and clearer commitment to
preserving the substantial lures of Nanaimo's healthy ecosystems. I wear
another PET in addition to physician and professor that's useful
here too. As an elected city councillor for six years
at UBC's University neighbourhood association, I appreciate the needs that
you have to balance. I hope to encourage you to
move away from the notion of an anything goes heavy
industry zone with its assorted toxic gases and effluence from
the admissions. Intense heavy industry that's currently allowed in our
bylaws. I came to UBC in 2006 as the Canada
Research Chair and Preventive Medicine and Population Health. Pleased to
be part of BC's extraordinary health promoting ecosystem for both
humans and the environment. And that drew me to live
on the island and to buy land and plan to
settle in cedar. The remarkable ability we have to live
in a well - zoned wilderness at the doorway of
a gateway city like Nanaimo. That's why I wanted to
live here and contribute this to this community. And so
I don't want to stand passively by and allow these
irreplaceable natural health - promoting resources get spoiled by short
- sighted policies. I'm a specialist in preventive medicine and
was the Canadian Medical Association's 2016 nominee for the director
of the World Health Organisation. And it's clear to me
here locally that if Nanaimo wants to retain and enhance
its reputation as a healthy and desirable place to live,
that these recommendations that waste to energy incinerators, chemical plants,
thermal - energy generators, petroleum refineries and LNG export facilities.
Indeed, have little place in such an ecosystem along with
their toxic gases and effluence. In particular, this includes as
a familiar to council, I imagine by this time given
the many discussions you've had on incineration, uh, products of
combustion like VOC's volatile organic compounds like benzene that cause
respiratory and nervous system and renal and hepatic injury injuries
to our lungs, to our livers, to our kidneys and
to our nervous systems and that are also known carcinogens.
The same is true of another product of combustion dioxins,
which are carcinogens as well as endocrine and immune disruptors.
And when something as singingly inert and as innocent as
plastics are combusted, the resultant dioxins, the landscapes.
Landing on the fruits and directly and getting bioconcentrate in
the animals, um, that we eat both the terrestrial ones
and the aquatic ones. So I would submit in closing
that these recommendations form an extraordinary opportunity to maintain this
system, not to discard this chance to keep a truly
wild space, adjoining a substantial city, a space with environmental
health that supports human health. Such preventive medicine opportunities as
these are really rare in the world. It's what brought
me to Nanaimo and what I think makes it special
and attractive and providing extraordinary leadership. And so I encourage
the council to support these wise recommendations. Thank you. Thank
you very much. Questions Councillor Armstrong and then Councillor Manley.
Thank you very much. And I just wondered if you
could comment on the difference between gasification and incineration and
your experience. We see all of Europe and Asia going
towards gasification. Is there a big difference or do you
still share the same concerns about gasification as incineration. Um,
that actually is something that I can speak to having
been, um, on city council at UBC when we allowed
the, uh, bio - research, excuse me, the biofuel research
incineration facility and gasification facility to happen at UBC. Um,
I was responsible actually for making, giving the social license
to make sure that that was, um, properly monitored. Um,
there are, uh, different. And typically fewer issues with gasification
than within incineration. But, uh, it is not, uh, it
does not allow cart blanche. And the, um, the places
where it's been used for things like, um, gasification of
wood pulp like happens, um, at, at UBC and wood
chips and waste wood. That's a really clean stream with
no plastics in it, for example. That really make me
very confident that dioxins, for example, won't be an issue.
Um, if you're talking about gasification of less pure waste
streams, which this would be obviously, they're quite a number
of residual considerations for that as well. Thank you for
your time. Thank you, Councillor Manley. Thank you for your
presentation. And thank you for that information about gasification and
the difference between, um, regular garbage and biomass. I think
that's an important distinction. Um, you're a doctor and preventative
medicine. That's your area of expertise. You would say, would
you say that, uh, health care is more about more
than just, uh, bricks and mortar. It's about the environment
that we all live in. Yeah. At the, um, at
the cable bay hearing, um, in April where I submitted,
uh, written comments, the representative from HRMAC suggested that doctors
like me would want to come to Nanaimo to be
able to take care of a well employed population and
having worked in occupational health and safety. I, I am
a whole lot more interested in social determinants of health
in this extraordinary ecosystem that we've created and preserved. And.
Ability to have, uh, the medicine on social determinants of
health on environmental health. And the NIMO really is at
such a pivotal place and has such an extraordinary opportunity
for leadership, um, that this seems like another place where
we could really be a shining star in terms of
attracting, um, both humans and, um, retaining an ecosystem with
employers that want to provide this health promoting. System. Are
you aware of statistics around people who live close to
heavy arterial routes, uh, the life expectancy of people who
live, you know, perhaps near a freeway as opposed to
those who, uh, live farther away from, uh, sources of
emissions. Yeah. There are, um, I can't, I'm happy to
provide you with explicit data and follow if you'd like,
but, um, find particulates, um, such as happen from, um,
emissions both from transportation and also from stable sources. Those,
uh, those exacerbate worsen, uh, asthma, um, uh, these, uh,
many of these products, uh, create ground level ozone, which
also worsen asthma, um, as well as, uh, worsening other,
um, pulmonary and cardiac conditions too. Thank you for your
presentation. Thank you very much, doctor. And I'm sorry, your
respiratory specialist, fair comment, yes. A respiratory specialist. Am I?
Yes. No, I'm a, I'm a board certified specialist in
preventive medicine. Okay. Um, having said that, thank you for
confirming. Um, my understanding is among the most significant determinants
of health relate to poverty and isolation. Am I wrong
in saying that? Well, it's absolutely true. Yes. Thank you
very much. Any further questions for the delegation. Not seeing
any appreciate your attendance tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Uh,
the next delegation is Andrew and Alex Hodson Degen. Good
evening. Good evening. Reduce yourself for the record. His usual,
please. In five minutes and I'll let you know when
you have a minute left. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Um,
good evening. Mayor Council. My name is Andrew Dagen. I'm
a resident of Gabriela Island. In regards to heavy emitters,
burning the truth heavy air polluting industries. So this is
the Bernaby incinerator. It's currently under investigation for allegedly poisoning
its neighbourhood. Heavy air polluting industries, research has shown that
heavy air polluters, the mid toxic air pollutants, hazardous ash,
greenhouse gas emissions, particulate matter, sulfur, nitrogen, carbon dioxide. Volatile,
organic compounds and heavy metals in spite of modern controls
and industry assurances. Heavy air pollutants, many industries, as many
studies and reports highlight the dangerous related to toxic air
pollutants. I'm not going to read them all for you.
You're all literate here. Um, the synergistic effects of heavy
air pollutants synergism of heavy air pollutants refers to the
phenomenon where the combined simultaneous exposure to multiple pollutants such
as fine particular matter ozone sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
produces adverse health effects. And environmental effects that are greater
than the sum of their individual damage. This interaction occurs
because pollutants can alter atmospheric chemistry and hunts particularly absorption
or trigger shared biological pathways in humans such as systemic
inflammation, oxidative stress, which are more damaging together than an
isolation. Synergistic toxicity amplifies health impact resulting in higher morbidity.
Rates. The sacrifice zone. World health British Society Ecologic Medicine,
ecology Otter One, many other organisations warned that living near
a heavy air polluter like an incinerator is dangerous. The
fallout area dependent on prevalent wind direction is called the
sacrifice zone. The closer you live to the centre, the
greater the health hazard. Eight out of 10 ugly industries
are located in low income or marginalized communities. And I
would like to point out here that Gabriela Island and
Mudge Island are in the immediate sacrifice zone. And there
are many hundreds of homes that collect rainwater for their
potable drinking supply. The health effects. Primary environmental and health
impact of heavier polluting industry contribute to climate change. If
you're looking for funding, the great air quality form photochemical
smog as previously mentioned called severe health issues, including respiratory
diseases, cancers, cardiovascular and reproductive problems. Now I'm not going
to quote Dr. Ricker here and steal her thunder. She's
coming up next. Companies protect shareholders, not public health. The
court's globally recognised that citizens have a right to a
healthy environment. Worldwide heavy air polluting companies are facing investigations
and lawsuits for failing to meet clean air regulations. And
for demonstrating disregard for the health and well - being
of the surrounding residents and the environment. BC government fails
to protect the public. So our local Indigenous maintained that
there are serious questions about due diligence, compliance, respect and
basic decency from our leaders. Systemic failures by the government
and industrial operators that prevent identifying address, longstanding environmental harm
caused by companies at UPOINT dates back more than 40
years, according to Chief Wise, 2021. Provincial Government is responsible
for setting limits, but according to the Canadian Association of
Physicians for the Environment, the permits issued failed to require
continuous testing for heavy metals, dioxin, furons, and common impacts
of pollution from heavy airpluting industries. Ugly industries are a
liability. I'm going to go fast now. We support the
option. Two, to prohibit ways to energy incinerators, chemical plants,
thermal electric generators, petroleum refineries, and LNG export facilities. Thank
you very much. Thank you. Questions for that allegation, Councillor
Manley. Thank you. You referenced the incinerator in Burnaby. And
do you know how that was determined that they found
out about the toxic emissions and the dioxins in France
that were landing in the yards? Do I know what
they have found out? Do you know how they found
out. No, not specifically, no. Oh, they were collecting samples
of roofs of surrounding roofs, which in consideration of Gabriela
Island, where there are many, many hundreds of homes collecting
rainwater. For their drinking water supply. So if those dioxidants
end up on their roofs or the nanoparticular, you don't
even have to drink it. You just have to have
a shower to get its absorbed through your skin. So,
you know, it's heavy air polluting industries are a danger
to our environment and our health. Sorry. If you wish
to speak, please up to the mic. Oh, I am
so sorry. Yes. So two. The mic. It's
a lot worse when you get two in an area
together. Thank you. It was actually an independent investigation that
found it was not the regulator that found that there
was toxic emissions coming from that incinerator in Burnaby. And
so the regulator wasn't doing their job. Thank you for
presentation. Thank you very much. Uh, the next is Cheryl
Bancroft. Miss Vancouffed, I think you've heard the rules. If
you'll introduce yourself for the record, you'll have five minutes
when the minute left, I'll advise you. Thank you. Good
evening Mayor and Council. Pleasure to be here and have
a chance to speak with you. Uh, I'm here actually
to add to what's been already mentioned from previous delegations.
Um, what I find is that, um, options one through
three. Which do address some site - specific requirements. They're
missing some pieces. And it's the missing pieces that I
want to speak to. What I find is that none
of the options first address transparency. We have a particular
proponent with an application before rezoning. And it's never really
been, it's not been exposed due to the public exactly
what they intend to do on that property. So I'm
asking for transparency in any zoning application. Um, of course,
consultation with SNNEMO. At third to review what the proponents,
water uses will be. We know with climate change that
we are, um, going through extraordinary dry spells. Um, proponents
have licences for use of water. But that will be
affecting the rest of the city as it expands and
grows. And so what is there in your policies to
review how much water use each, um, industry uses. Proximity
to residential areas. So then I was boundaries are a
line on a map. Of course, one in particular that
is before you rezoning application does not show the residential
lands on the other side of the line. In cedar.
In RDN area. Now you've identified for industry inappropriate that
industries that are inappropriate and urban and residential areas. But
I don't see that being incorporated into bylaws and policies.
Uh, in rezoning applications. TREECANDOPY implications. That's been a recent
topic for the city. And how does that fit into
rezoning applications. Um, the tree canopy, of course, with climate
changes. This is our source of cooling. But also, um,
in some applications, it could be diversion of streams. And
on a property that streams that feed an adjoining forest.
Of course, you know, I'm talking about the area west
of cable bay. Currently the application is to divert water.
And run it into the ocean. But that will divert
streams away from an existing forest. Well, if this forest
doesn't have water, uh, gravitationally running to it, we won't
have a forest. Another implication is marine ecology. And I
don't see that showing up. And reviews of zoning bylaws.
So where does that factor in. So industrial expansion is
inevitable. I think we understand that. Um, the Nanaimo Accord
speaks to an integrated approach. That includes environmental responsibility. And
the coordinated action for regional prosperity. Yet the minute. There's
nothing in there that recognises, uh, the impressional community. You
worship. Sorry to interrupt, but just, um, the delegation should
be speaking to the report on the agenda and not
any previous rezoning applications. So I'm just asking that in
the resonance. So because the public hearing was, um, was
adjourned, but not over. It's, sorry, it was, um, recessed
or it's not over. So we can't hear any more
talk on that rezoning application. This delegation should be speaking
only to the report on the agenda this evening. Ms.
Gurry is quite correct. I've given you a taken you
back. You have a full minute to complete. My ask
is that, um, like previous candidate had had mentioned option
four. Which would be a blending of option three, which
is to do a comprehensive review. And to include, um,
industries that are being prohibited and integrate in the items
that I've mentioned to you, consultation, transparency, water use. Proximity
to residential areas, tree canopy and marine implications. And that's
my ask. Thank you very much. Are there any questions?
Uh, yes. Um, you had mentioned in your discussion that
it was essential to consult with SFNs and AMICRUS nation
on this. And so the views of the nation should
figure, um, I won't say predominantly, but certainly figure importantly
in any discussion council has around these matters. Would you
agree with that? Yes, I certainly appreciate that. Thank you
very much. Any questions that allegation. Not seeing any. Appreciate
your time tonight. The next delegation is Bethany Ricker. Dr.
Ricker, I think you've heard the drill. Introduce yourself. You'll
have five minutes. And I'll let you know when the
minute left. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you Mayor and Council.
I'm Dr. Bethany Ricker, family physician practicing here in Nanaimo.
Co - chair of the Canadian Association of Physicians for
the Environment of BC. And an executive board director of
the Nanaimo Climate Action Hub. I support a transition to
limiting some emissions intensive heavy industries such as petroleum refineries.
LNG export facilities and ways to energy facilities. Because of
the potential for harmful impacts on health, community and climate.
I want to use the example of CIDAMATS LNG export
facility to demonstrate the potential for unforeseen harms of emissions
intensive industries on a community. Leakage and flaring of methane
produce harmful pollutants like nitrogen and sulfur dioxides, posing particular
risk to vulnerable people such as those with lung disease,
pregnant people, children, and the elderly. A few months ago,
I filled a short - term low composition for a
family doctor in Kitamat. Over my few weeks, working there,
I saw many patients who themselves were concerned that their
health was being harmed by air pollutants from the LNG
expert facility. A father who himself worked within the industry
brought in his young daughter with a long - lasting
cough, saying maybe her daycare being right under the FLIR
stack could have something to do with this. I normally
healthy and active 40 - something - year - old
woman had been to this clinic a dozen times over
the past year with a chronic cough and shortness of
breath, undiagnosed after multiple trials of antibiotics, multiple x -
rays, SCT scan, and lung function testing. And elderly woman
with baseline COPD came in for her puffer refill, much
too soon, telling me that ever since that smoke started,
her breathing had never been easy. These are the lived
experiences of people living close to harmful emissions. These are
the concerns that local health care providers and city decision
makers are dealing with. In fact, frontline communities are so
concerned about these possible health effects that multiple directly affected
municipalities have called for an independent health impacts assessment, including
DOSEN creek, terrorists, and squamish. These air pollutants not only
harm our health directly, but also worsen climate change, which
itself is the greatest health threat of our century. LNG
primarily methane is 80 times as potent at greenhouse gas
warming than CO2. And multiple studies show that LNG is
no better than coal in its total emissions. Some of
you on council are concerned that increased regulation will drive
away investment and industry thereby risking increased poverty and poor
job opportunities here in the Nanaimo. I am in full
agreement that poverty is perhaps the single greatest determinant of
health. We should not be pitting the environmental and financial
determinants of health against one another. But rather these are
two compounding risk factors, which often affect the same vulnerable
population simultaneously. And this is for multiple reasons. It is
more likely for toxic emissions to be created near poorer
neighbourhoods. Or that people with the financial means will move
away. And the voices of people with less financial capital
are more often overlooked, even if they do have health
concerns. Those with minimal savings are more harmed by forced
time away from work if they themselves or a loved
one are sick. And these effects do not only apply
to passive bystanders, but we must strongly consider the health
effects on industry workers themselves, those who are often at
highest risk to ensure that they are adequately informed and
protected from undue harms. One minute. Climate change itself is
also much more harmful to people of lower financial independence.
For example, being unable to install appropriate cooling in their
homes or being unable to afford insurance costs as they
rise due to risks of flooding and fires. The cost
of fresh healthy food is another example of cost increased
by climate change. So yes, both poverty and environmental exposures
must be considered when we build industry in our community.
And we must ensure that the most vulnerable are not
saddled with the harmful consequences of our decisions. I am
not against industry. Safe, healthy, stable, and gainful employment is
critical for our health and wellbeing. Although every industry will
have some effect on the natural environment and human health,
our industrial development can be made more safe through planning
the types of industries, their locations, and their health and
safety regulations carefully. Thank you. Thank you. You're dead on
you, Mr. Practice. Spoke fast. Questions Councillor Armstrong and then
Councillor Manley. Thank you very much, doctor. My question is
going towards LNG. I was doing a lot of research
on the CEDEMAT thing because that's very controversial up there,
obviously. Um, and they show that, um, they have a
74 percent higher rate of asthma. Is that linked directly
to the LNG or could that also be to the,
um, aluminum plant Earth combination? Very many factors. And in
CEDAMOT specifically, they do have a very affected airshed because
they have already had RioTintol Alcancility there for many years.
And they are in a vulnerable airshed with the way
their geography is and maintaining those emissions within the atmosphere.
So as a specific example, CIDAMAT is at very high
risk because of their airshed due to the combination of
alkane, RioTento activities, plus LNG Canada. And now the potential
for expanding to LNG Canada phase two and the floating
LNG test. In the fall, if I may, because, um,
from reading what I've read, I understand a lot of
the issues come at the FLIRUP times. And the government
only keeps the records for 30 days. Then they destroy
them. So would that make it hard for you to,
or any physician or whatever to trace. Back? Because like,
would it not be a good recommendation to have those
records kept for a lot longer than 30 days? Oh,
absolutely. Yeah, it's very difficult to make direct connections between
outcomes and what their causes, because this is the real
world. There are many factors impacting individuals health. Um, but
there have been for sure issues with kind of record
keeping, as you said, but also with actual monitoring and
regulation. There's been many revealing news stories, uh, studies coming
out showing that, um, there have been industrial issues causing
flaring to be much higher than the regulated and permitted
amount. And also evidence that, um, the kind of permitted
amount of flaring is considered on a kind of average
operations basis as opposed to during the startup phase, which
can actually last for multiple years when flaring and emissions
from flaring are actually much higher. And those emissions are
not being monitored or accounted for inregulating. Thank you very
much. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Manley. Thank you. Yeah, it
sounded like you were talking about the synergistic effect of
LKEN and combined with LNG in that situation. Um, I'm
curious about the situation in DOS and Creek. Are you
aware of doctors that have left that community based on
concerns about the air quality for their families? Yeah, absolutely.
And you may remember me referencing this, uh, in the
November meeting, um, DOS and Creek is central centrally located
in an area of a high volume of fracking. So
obtaining gas from underground using very toxic chemicals. Um, so
in that case, yes, potentially air quality because there is
flaring involved in the process of fracking as well. But
additionally, there's huge contamination of the groundwater. There's a little
carcidins getting into the groundwater. And as I spoke to
last time I was here at the November meeting, uh,
one of my colleagues, Dr. Mayer, who has been practicing
in DOS and Creek for the past 30 years has
truly alarming stories that even as a health care professional,
your jaw drops thinking, how could there be this many,
you know, glioblastoma brain tumors in people in their 20s
and 30s. We never see those here in Nanaimo or
how could there be this many childhood leukemias in a
small community in Dawson Creek. So once again, things that
are hard to gather very granular evidence - based data
on, but the, um, you know, the known carcinogens are
there and the cancer diagnoses are there. And so you
referenced DOS and DOSN Creek and Terris, um, for studies.
Are those being done by the regulator or that was
called for by, uh, independent researchers? Yeah. The communities that
have passed these motions are calling on the province to
require an independent body to assess the health impacts of
the natural gas industry. And, and, uh, in the case
of CIDAMOT, it was an independent researcher who discovered that,
uh, the, um, the, uh, emissions were 40 times, I
think, the allowable limit. And what, what did regulator do
you about that. The province. You know, from my understanding,
there was, um, industrial, um, kind of concerns. Like this
was not supposed to be happening. This was due to
malfunctioning of some usual, uh, operations at the facility. I
can't speak further to that. I don't want to give
any false information about what was or was not done.
However, it was revealed that the, the company itself LNG
Canada was aware that their emissions were much higher than
the permissible regulations allowed and that they did not disclose
this to the regulator for months as they tried to.
Get that back under control. Process of self - regulation.
Do you know how many doctors left Austin Creek. I
don't know specifically. And there is a lot of, of
course, difficulty for people to speak out publicly about this
because these are their communities and their loved ones and
their friends. Um, but it's a small community, right? So
from the hearsay reports that I have heard, it's somewhere
a third to a half of the doctors in this
small community over a period of several years moved their
practices and moved away. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I'm not seeing any other questions. Appreciate the presentation.
Armstrong. Oh, sorry pardon me. Currently Park, how could I
forget. Sorry. Don't be hurt. Good evening Mayor and Councillors.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is
Dr. Kierley Park. I'm a respirologist and I practice in
the NIMO. I just wanted to take a brief moment
to speak about the effects of air quality on public
health and to say that I think it's imperative the
decisions about industrial developments in Nanaimo be made not just
based on economic factors, but based on potential consequences in
terms of local public health outcomes. It's well documented that
air pollution, and I know this is an untouched on
quite a few times already, but just briefly to say,
um, especially find particulate matter in the environment poses a
major public health risk. Including increased mortality and hospitalizations for
cardiorespiratory causes. To quote a report published by the Canadian
Government in 2021. In Canada, an internationally health impact assessments
identify air quality is one of the largest risk factors
for premature death and disability. It's estimated that in 2016,
air pollution contributed to more than 15, 000 premature deaths
in Canada and almost 2, 000 in British Columbia. In
that year, the total economic cost of all health impacts
attributable to air pollution was 120 billion dollars. And that
was a decade ago. I'm concerned about industrial developments in
Enymol that could worsen air quality. Because whenever air quality
goes down, it impacts the health of our citizens. And
I see that all the time in our practice. The
lens through which we examine new industrial developments proposals at
a local level needs to include a public health perspective.
I know that there are federal and provincial regulations for
industrial emissions, but we know, and we've heard that they're
not always adhered to. I think that any new proposals
in this regard should be closely scrutinized at the municipal
level with public awareness and with input from local health
officials and providers in order to safeguard the wellbeing of
our citizens in an AIMO. Thank you. Thank you very
much, Councillor Brown. You think so much. Thanks so much
for being here. I'm just curious, I wanted to ask
the same question to other presenters. But is there any
localized data based on the impact of existing industry on
things like respiratory health and things like that? Not that
I'm aware of. There's some BC specific data. And there
are some studies in certain areas in Vancouver about markers
of air quality and health outcomes next to very busy
arterial roots like traffic routes, but I don't know of
any of the nine. Right. And just one other question.
And if you don't have the answer, I know it's
off the cuff here. So is there a research out
there about the impacts of say like automobile use and
the, obviously it's pretty known. The pollution causing in comparison
to industry, especially in some of the other areas reference,
like what's the ratio of damage? And I know that
can be hard, but I'm just curious if that comparative
analysis is out there. Um, I think, um, I don't
know that they've been able to tease out specific in
sort of, um, like traffic versus, um, industry, uh, emissions
from industry. Although again, the study that I was talking
about for Vancouver, the, they were taking samples and trying
to trace back, um, sort of where the different particulate
matter came from. But again, that's sort of somewhere that
was really close to a very busy highway. And so
of course, a lot of it was traffic. So absolutely
pollution from traffic plays a big role. Um, as do
wildfires, um, but yeah, the, the emissions from heavy industry
certainly, Clara. Great. Thanks so much. Thank you. Councillor Armstrong.
Oh, no, what's for after. Sorry. Okay, I know we've
got like four different options on the table. One of
my concerns that, that I would like to see before
we make a decision and I just throw that out.
Is I would like to see engagement with, uh, same
old First Nation before we even look at any determinations
and better definitions. Like I think everybody knows my position.
I think we need to look at gasification as an
option. That's why he's asking the questions. And people, I
think quite often mix up incineration with gasification. And I
think biomass is netting like we said. Like I just
don't have enough information yet. Like I agree. Like I
think LNG is dangerous. Um, you know, like from the
research I've done, I think that in petroleum, another, you
know, concern I do have as well. But I don't
think there's nothing information to make an informed decision right
now. I'd like to hear more from that. You know,
when we talk about community consultation, I think it's very
important that we hear from some of the doctors that
spoke as well so they can provide the, uh, their
perspective for preventive medicine. I think it's important that we
hear the economic benefits versus that. All of that. Because
it is a big decision to make. I do understand
site specific. But my issue is site specific is it's
time consuming cost a lot of money. Um, if we
don't get more information, like I was looking at number
three, but part of me would like to make a
motion to defer the decision until the engagement with, uh,
SFN and Nanamo Prosperity Corporation, which was part of the
original motion put in by, um, Councillor Hammond's be conducted
and then be brought back to us after that conversation
takes place because we have had conversations with SFN around
industrial lands, especially when we're looking at, um, Duke Point
area and all the rezones and stuff. So I just
throw that out for consideration. Sorry, are you moving a
motion to defer. Thank you. And Councillor seconds. All right.
Councillor Hemmons. So your worship with emotion on the floor,
we should deal with the motion first and then, and
then have the break after. I'll ask Councillor's to speak
slowly. So speaking in support of deferral, I think it's
essential that we get the nation's perspective on this as
well as, um, when we have this initial debate, I
did ask staff to get prosperities take on this as
our economic development agency. Um, I would like to hear
from them. So for me, I support the deferral to
listen to those two partners. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor
Brown. Go slow. Yeah. No worries. Um, so just to
be clear, the deferral, I'm not clear on what we're,
what we've actually, like we've deferred it to have conversations
with SFN. And we'll bring. Up that. My mic goes
on. And then bring it back to Council for the
decision as to which options we want to look at.
Because I think it's important that we hear SFN's perspective
on these lands because we do know a lot of
those areas are impacted by some of their hereditary and
cultural stuff. And they haven't been consulted on this yet.
So I would like to hear from them. That's just
my personal viewpoint and also ENPC is to impacts. And
then have another report come back to come back to
us. It's just something I threw out before I make
the big decision on yes or no. Or. So be
a worship just to clarify. Would it be the same
report and these same options coming back before you after
engagement with SNE and then I'm a prosperity. Thank you
for sure. Okay. Uh, I'll speak to that then your
worship, if I may, um, I can definitely support the
first half of that. To me, the NPC makes no
sense. They're an advocacy body that coordinates and convenes meetings
with economic players. Could care less what they have to
say about it. Um, I would rather speak to the
industry itself. Uh, especially those property owners that are actively.
Actively have active industrial operations. Or our planning active industrial
operations on those properties. That's what makes sense to me.
Um, and then I also think that, you know, that's
an economic perspective. Absolutely needs to be balanced by a
health perspective. And I note that you, you mentioned doctors,
uh, and relevant agencies within your comments, but it's not
within the motion. Uh, so to that end, and then
I would just say, I think the third component there
that I think is missing. And that would be, and
I don't know where the appropriate place would be to
receive comment from potentially ministries or whatnot. But, uh, the
environmental component that would be absent as well. Because I
don't think the decision is just economy versus the environment
or economy versus the health. I think, I think what
Council Armstrong, I don't want to speak for you is
trying to get it is that we actually need a
very informed discussion with the balance perspectives at this table
before proceeding with one option or the other. But so
as the motion stands now, I couldn't support it. Thank
you. Thank you Councillor Thorpe and Councillor Hemmons and Council
Manley and then Councillor Genslerbrook. Thank you very much for
worship. I will be supporting the motion, although I guess
I feel I would prefer that it was less restrictive.
I was very concerned when I read in the report
and I highlighted it. That, and I quote, no engagement
has taken place at this time. And I'm not blaming
staff because I know they were hurrying to get this
report back to us as directed. But I think the
more communication and engagement, the better, certainly with SFN. I
want to hear what the prosperity corporation has to say
and absolutely what the industries that are going to be
affected potentially have to say as well. So I think
there's a lot of engagement that needs to happen. And,
uh, I am not comfortable making a decision on this
until that engagement has taken place. Thank you. Thank you.
Councillor Hemings. Thank you worship. I've already spoken, but I
wanted to address Councillor Brown's comments. I actually find it
a little rude to say that we don't care about
prosperity or you don't. That's the organisation that Council has
funded to give us expert advice on the development of
the economy in the NINIMO. And we had a really
great presentation from someone who's working very closely with prosperity.
And I think they're doing really great work. So, um,
I just found that a little out of line and
I wanted to say that. I think prosperity is the
right person or the right organisation because they have VIU
at the table. They have deported the table. They have
the airport at the table. So in terms of bringing
perspectives of industrial players, absolutely they can go and get
specifics. But I think they represent, um, our economic partners
really well. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Manley. Uh, thank
you. Then and I will prosperity corporation has already identified
priority sectors and emissions intents heavy industry is not one
of them. They've, they've, uh, they've identified marine and blue
economy, clean tech and sustainability and advanced manufacturing and industrial
tech. I think the Nanaima Prosperity Corporation is already on
the path to where this community should be going. And
so, um, you know, we had that presentation on foreign
direct investment. I wasn't in attendance that on that day,
but I did meet with Mr. Stansfield and went over
the presentation with him. Uh, in terms of CNAMO, they've
been very clear. They want to be consulted when there
are proposals for rezoning, in particular, anything that's going to
create additional pollution in their territory. And so the only
way that that can happen is by creating site -
specific zoning. Right now, um, a proponent could come in,
an international organisation could come in by land. Let's get
a development permit for building an incinerator. And, um, there's,
there would be no requirement for consultation, not with city
council and not with, um, first nation. And in fact,
we might be bound by international trade agreements. To, uh,
watch that proposal get, get built. And, you know, have
a company like Wheel Braider importing garbage. From Oregon, Washington
state, because we do have a, uh, an international agreement
with the United States on the transfer of hazardous waste.
It's the counter the U. S. Agreement on transboundary movement
of hazardous waste. And, uh, Oregon and Washington are closing
incinerators. So we could become the garbage dump of the
Pacific Northwest without so much as a public hearing. Or
any consultation was the name of. So this is the
root for consultation with NaNamel. This is how they would
have a voice in anything that happens. And they've been
very clear with us. I think that the letter that
they sent on April 7th was very clear that they
want input on industrial activity within their territory that adds
any additional pollution. In our territory. I don't know of
other bylaws where we have gone to consult with Sonema
on changes to our bylaws. Um, but, but maybe somebody
could educate me about that. But I don't, I don't
support a deferral at this time. Uh, so I'll be
voting against it. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Gesselbrock. Thank you,
Mayor, through you. Um, I don't support the deferral. Main
reason I think some of the options provided, from the
community, uh, on certain emission, heavy emitting producing industries, um,
that we can make an easily a decision on a
couple of things. For example, petroleum refineries and LNG export
facilities. That's pretty easy decision to make to prohibit data.
And just in a sense, ask that if something came
for like that, I'd have to go to public hearing.
Uh, I think also the question of municipal waste to
energy. Um, that's one that's even in our regional district,
Solid Waste Management Plan that we don't support that. Um,
that's something that we could easily go ahead with now.
We know in 2014, there is a huge amount of
public protests that shut down a proposal that didn't need
to go to public hearing right into the province and
got the Council involved. So let's just close the door
on that, that they didn't quite close on 2014. Um,
and then, uh, so option one for me is something
that we could easily do tonight. Um, and we don't
need it to refer to later. I think that's a
very balanced approach because, uh, chemical plants immediately going ahead
with prohibiting that and thermal electrical generators. There's a lot
of nuance there. And the things that are very aligned
with what this council wants to do that we would
be closing the door on which we shouldn't. And our
zoning bylaw lacks the, um, nuance and the specificity to
actually, um, have a good process in place of what
should go to public hearing. Um, and that's why, uh,
I agree with having greater, uh, engagement with SFN, um,
and with the community on reviewing our heavy industrial allowable
uses and amending our zoning bylaw. And option three says
direct staff to complete a comprehensive review of heavy industrial
uses for the cities industrial zones as part of the
zoning bylaw update project. That would be a great public
process to go through and having a very close look
at our heavy industrial uses and what we want to
prohibit and ensure goes to public hearing or one that
we can allow in a permissive use. And so I
think going forward tonight with Option one and option three
would one, do the no - brainers, um, that we
don't really need to go out for continued engagement on.
And then allow for a public process engagement on reviewing
the other industrial uses and the definitions through a review
of our heavy industrial uses. That would be making a
decision on this item as opposed to prolonging inevitable because
I know where the community stands on these issues. And
if some proposal was put forward, that was heavy industrial
use and proven emission. There would be a human cry
and we'd have to fill up gallery and spend, uh,
nights and nights and nights of hearing why the public
wants greater public oversight on, uh, heavy industrial uses and
heavy emitting industries. So I'm definitely not in support of
deferral. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Armstrong. Thank you. My
purpose for going to SFN first is I want to
do it before it goes to public hearing. I think
it's important that they be given as a government to
government that we speak with them first. The reason I
included NPC, because that was part of the original motion.
That Councillor Hemmons was told that would happen, that didn't
happen. So we're not getting a report that was requested
by Council at the time. I agree. Like my other
concern, which I've shared before, and it's been talked about
at the regional district with, with, I can't remember Ben's
last name. They are looking at gasification because we don't
have the land. So that is being looked at. Many
First Nations are being involved on you slave with tooth
who have just struck a partnership with, uh, I can't
remember the name of the group in Vancouver to do
huge gasification because it's renewal. And they consider it green
fuel. So that's my concern, the difference between gasification. And
incineration. They're quite different. And I think it's important because
in exactly what you said, Mr. Councillor Manley. SFN may
come back and say, yes, we support site - specific
zoning. I want to hear that from them. And we're
okay to go to public hearing on every one of
these. Or they may come back and say, you know
what. We don't want to say specific on these. We
want them gone, period. You know, so I would like
to have that information before we get to a bylaw
or whatever. And my other concern is, and I don't
know how this will play with the government when we
have a minister telling us to stay in our own
lane. When we do this previously, which is concerning, because
these bylaws have to go to them for approval, right?
So I just believe it's better to engage with SFN
from the start instead of waiting until we're already at
a motion where we're going to rezone or we're going
to do this. And they haven't even had a chance
to weigh in yet. That's just my personal viewpoint. I
prefer to consult first and then do it after. Thank
you. Thank you Councillor Prino. Thank you. You worship. I
will be voting in favor of deferral. And the reason
for me is I think there's no one at this
table. In fact, no one in this region who wants
to see unhealthy emissions. Nobody does. But the important part
is, is that this is about industry. And we do
need to speak to SFN. We do need to speak
to the industries. We do need to speak to our
NPC. We need to have as much information as we
can to make the best decisions possible before we go
to rezoning. That would be my preference always. So I'll
be voting in favor of this. I wish that the
motion said speak to industries as well as SFN. I
wish we could put that in as a friendly amendment.
I'll just put that out there. I think that it
would be smarter to include those that are the most
affected by this. And to get their expertise on what
we are or are not doing. So that would be
my preference and definitely for deferral. Thank you. I'm reminded
of the saying in Judicial Community, nothing about us without
us. Council received a letter July 22nd sent on Sunday
night, the 26th from the Port of the Nanaimo, assigned
by Donna Hayes. Uh, and from a joint letter from
CENAMIC First Nation signed by Chief Mike Wise, uh, long
request for the city of Nanaimo along with others to
participate in a strategic economic round table, uh, involving numerous
partners, uh, including, as they said, uh, transport Canada, industry
Canada, housing infrastructure candidate, crowned induced relations candidate, National Defence
candidates, the name. And then I'm a board authority DP
world, British Lumber Ministry of Transportation. Infrastructure jobs economic growth
relevant shippers, et cetera, et cetera. Councillor Manley, be the
first to acknowledge that he then wrote in response to
that. A short letter, uh, asking, pardon me. It was
then followed up today, tonight, by a letter from Councillor
Joseph, designated under the terms of the letter from Sanemach
and the port. Saying it's come to the same exact
tension that on July 27, 2026, Mayor and Councillor, considering
options to amend the city of Bylaw, Navala 204500 related
to emissions intensive industrial industrial uses, et cetera. We are
mount Aaron Counsel. We address the issue of munitional governance
related to missions intensive industry and our letters of April
7th. In that letter, we explained how every industrial activity's
particular concern, et cetera. Since that letter, we have not
been engaged in specific proposed zoning bylaw amendments or more
generally unablishing a framework for missions, et cetera. Uh, so.
Asking us essentially to not deal with this without further
consultation. I think that is fairly clear. Um, we know
that the port authority, a major economic driver and employer
through the industries that are located there, uh, has not
been consulted with respect. I won't be quite as harsh
perhaps as Councillor Henns. But we fund the Nanaimo Prosperity
Corporation for obvious reasons. I have to ask, what's the
hurry here. I don't think anyone's going to build a
liquid natural gas plant in the next few months or
propose. I don't think we're going to see any of
those things. What I do here is that the csanamic
First Nation, who we've just taken enormous step down, the
road, as I reminded everyone tonight, towards reconciliation, by ensuring
they'll actually have the right to vote for mayor and
counsel of this city with whom they have been working
diligently in the last several years with a protocol agreement
working group have basically said, hold your horses folks. Could
you please consult with us not do anything further for
the time being? Uh, that would be enough for me,
let alone that need to consult with the port authority
and the Community generally. We also have finally, and this
will not please some folks because they seem to have
become the whipping boy in the community around heavy industry.
But a letter from Mr. Sadler on behalf of the
Namo Forest Product saying, as did everybody else in the
community, just saw the report that was prepared by staff,
which we received just last week in accordance with the
agenda, like everybody else, saying thank you for the opportunity
to review and provide plum or any comments on this
evening. I will planning a department emissions intensive heavy industry
uses report to Council in advance of the July 27,
2026 Special Counsel meeting. That stated July 24th. That's when
it's public for everybody. We ask that counts prior to
Council adopting any of the options presented in the report
that staff and council invite all I for landowners to
participate in a thorough consultation to review the current uses
and the impacts of proposed restrictions on existing businesses and
future plans for those businesses. Because this isn't just about
today about existing industry. This is about what the Community's
Future might look like. And with respect, it's becoming pretty
obvious. I would hope in this community, given the protests
around taxation levels, that if you don't have an industrial
base, then you have to tax residential owners more to
pay for what everyone wants and seems to regard as
important. I was much moved by the honest response around
poverty and isolation being significant contributors to the health of
the community and its citizens. So unless someone can convince
me, and I doubt very much they're going to, for
you can tell from the tone of my voice. That
there is no necessity to do this tonight. Deferl is
the appropriate thing. Process is important. It is the ways
our society operates. I'm going to support the motion to
defer until the Community Consultation. I am not about to
participate in creating a controversy tonight by trying to pass
a motion. It'll simply further divide this community. We've already
had enough submissions in the last few months about various
attitudes about heavy industry and employment and the economy. I
think it's time for us to take a step back.
Defer this, discuss it, get staff to do their work,
listen to the public, give the public a full opportunity
to be heard. Strikes me as logical. Never hurts to
listen. It does not always pay, however, just to talk.
So motions on the floor to defer all those in
favor, councillors Armstrong, East Bear, Hemmons, Mayor Crowg, Councillor Thorpe,
Count Soprino, and those opposed. Councillors Gesselbrock, Brown, and Manley.
This matter is deferred. Thank you very much. I appreciate
it. Now we can have an evening break and staff
can get a bit of a rest. We'll reconvene in
10 minutes. Thank you.
The other business item to be next. Oh yes, pardon
me, yes. Sorry about that. Can we bring forward please
Councillor East Mears motion read the lost intersections public art
installations? We do have a delegation. I don't think the
poor person should have to sit here all night very
wisely, thank you. Unless someone objects mightily. So Councillor Eastmer,
it's your motion. 17B. Thank you. So the motion that
Council Direct staff to prepare a report identifying the process
and estimated costs to acquire the three lost intersections temporary
public art installations by Jackie Wong for inclusion in the
city's permanent public art collection as a lasting recognition of
Nanaimo's Chinese Canadian Heritage, including the purchase of the artwork
from the artist permanent installation requirements at all three installation
sites and ongoing operating and capital costs for inspection, maintenance
repair replacement and long - term stewardship. Ms. Gurry, do
we have to have it seconded first before I invite
the delegation? No, actually, so we would have the delegation
speak before you debate the lansu. My pronouncing it correctly,
I hope. Very good. Come to the mic, please, if
you could just introduce yourself formally for the record. You'll
have five minutes, man. There's a minute left. I'll let
you know. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening Mayor and
Council. Thank you for giving me this opportunity today. My
name is Gulan Su, and I also go by Emily.
I hold master degree in media and culture studies in
Lancaster University from the UK. And I'm a relatively new
immigrant from China. And NIMO has become my new home.
When I first arrived here, I noted that Nanaima's public
spaces reflected the history of European settlement alongside the rich
and visible history and culture of the Sunaina Nanaemoks'first nation.
What surprised me was how later I saw the Chinese
Community that also helped build an AMO. That changed when
I visited the Chinatown exhibition and learned about the cities
Chinese history. As I learned more about in the name
of history, I realised that Chinese people were not a
small note in the cities past. They helped build its
economy foundations. They worked in the Coal Mines helped build
the railway supporting the harbour economy operated laundries and small
businesses and supplies food through market gardens. Their labour helps
shape the enamel we know today. I also learned about
the tragic 1887 My Explosion where 150 miners lost their
lives more than one third of them who died, which
is 53 minors, what Chinese. What struck me most was
that many of the Chinese victims were recorded only by
payroll numbers instead of their names. That details stay with
me. It reminded me that why Chinese workers helped build
these cities. They were not always recognised as equal member
of it. I also learned about decades of discrimination from
the head tags to the Chinese exclusion Act and how
Chinese Communities faced exclusion, isolation and reputative display mes. I
don't share these history to assign blame. We cannot change
what happened, but we can choose how we acknowledge it
today. To me, preserving lost intersections is one meaningful way
of giving greater visibility to people whose contributions helped build
an ammo. But whose stories have not always been sane.
Canada has taken importance steps towards acknowledging difficult parts of
its history and working towards reconciliation. I believe recognising the
history of Chinese Canadian is part of the same commitment
to remember those whose contributions were overlooked and to ensure
that our public spaces reflect the full story of our
community. I respectfully encourage counsel to support exploring the accusation
of these artworks as a permanent part of the Naimos
Public Landscapes. I also hope that this is only the
beginning. I hope we continue to see more public art
that tells the story of Chinese Canadians as well as
other communities whose contributions have helped shape the name of.
Thank you very much for your time and considerations. Thank
you very much. Any questions of the delegation. I don't
have a question, but I just want to say thank
you very much for coming to share your perspective on
this. Thank you so much, Mayor Time. Thank you. Councillor
Eastmare. You're moving your motion? I am moving my motion.
And we have a secondary encounter Armstrong. You want to
speak to Councillor? I would love to. Yes, thank you.
So Lost Intersections by Artist Jackie Wong is a public
art project that highlights an often overlooked part of our
history. And I'm not sure if everyone has had a
chance to see these installations yet, but they are three
neon installations that are placed at historical intersections. And they
mark the former sites of Nanaimo's three Chinatowns, which were
once vibrant centres of Community Culture and Resilience for Chinese
immigrants. The first one was at Esplanade in Victoria from
the 1860s to 1884. The second was at View Street
and Bing Key Street from 1884 to 1908. And the
third at Pine Street and Hecket from 1908 to the
1960s was said to have a population of about 1200
people at the height of its existence before it was
also destroyed by a fire. And in speaking with members
of the Chinese Community here in Nanaimo, the obviously an
understandably, a very strong desire to better recognise the history
and the many contributions of the Chinese immigrants and Chinese
Community here in Nanaimo since the 1860s. And I wasn't
time to Nanaimo had the third largest Chinatown in all
of BC. And in addition to refurbishing the town site
Chinese cemetery, which is a priority, I'm hearing a shared
desire from amongst many Chinese Community Groups in Nanaimo, including
the Nanaimo Chinese cultural Society and Nanaimo Chinese Freemasons and
Historical Experts, including Dr. Imogene Lim and Community Advocates to
make the lost intersections pieces permanent. And as chair of
the city's advisory committee on accessibility and inclusiveness, I see
a recognition of the contributions of Chinese immigrants as part
of the inclusiveness aspect of my commitment to this work.
And these installations are small, but they're bright, they're beautiful.
And I think they're really important markers where there has
been no recognition before. And I don't want to lose
these formerly lost intersections when the temporary art contract expires.
And I think they really present an excellent jumping off
point to build from. I would love to lock these
in sooner rather than later so that we have something
permanent. And these can act as anchors in these locations
so we can add to these areas with more placemaking
elements, including informational plaques or educational installations to better recognise
and celebrate the vital contributions of the Chinese Community here
in Animo. Thank you very much. Councillor Armstrong and Council
Preno. Thank you. Just I wanted to thank Councillor Eastmire
on behalf of the Chinese Cultural Society who reached out
to say they were very thankful for making this motion.
And they're very appreciative and hope it passes. So on
behalf of them, thank you. Thank you and Council Prenons.
Thank you. You worship just a very quick question. So
I understand that we are asking staff to prepare a
report about the three different art installations and the costs
with them. Any idea when we'll get that report back.
Ms. Popelsinger. Through your worship to Councillo Prino, we'll do
our best to get it back to you as soon
as possible. Obviously we have a big break before. Right,
I know. But our aim will be to get back
to as soon as we can with the numbers. So
you have an understanding of the cost. Great. Thank you.
I'm thinking too of the budget. So yeah, thank you
very much. Thank you Councillor Hemmons. Thank you, worship. When,
if this motion does not pass or this motion did
not exist, when would the art Installation be coming down.
Through your worship to Councillor Hemmons, I would have to
check. It looks like maybe Council East Fair might have
been answer for us. Councillor Ishmir. They are. Initially it
was a five - year contract. And with art pieces
like this after that contract is upped and the opportunity
for the city to explore with the artist's potentially acquiring
the artwork if the artist is interested. I've spoken to
the artist. They're actually very interested in the city acquiring
it sooner than that. And in terms of ongoing maintenance,
these pieces are built in a pretty robust way and
they are powered with solar panels. And so they are
built to last and have good potential to become permanent
pieces. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the answer there. When
are they expecting five years from. Ah, so they were
installed in February of this year. Typically after five years,
we have the opportunity to purchase, but we're looking to
purchase now. Okay. I want to - To your worship
to Council, we can come back with options on that.
Have we ever purchased any of the public art installations
before? Maybe the reportship to Council we have. And I'm
trying to think of. - It's okay. I think it's
included in the report. I just want the whole content.
Yes. It hasn't been frequent, but we have acquired some
of the pieces over the years. Okay, thank you. I
love this installation. Um, I think it's a really beautiful,
simple mark. Um, to our complex history. My questions, however,
are based upon just the process here and understanding, you
know, should we wait for years and then purchase it.
Like, so I'm happy together to report. I support it.
I love the installation. And I'm looking forward to getting
the report so I can weigh it out a little
bit more. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further motions on
the table, all those in favor and any opposed, none
motion carries. Thank you very much. Excuse me, back to
development reports, pardon me, back to. The quarterly purchasing report,
Singlan Solster's purchase, quarterly perching reports, and socialist purchase and
access of 2250, 000, and then Ms. Mercer, you're going
to do it all at once, right? Bless you. Yeah,
thank you, your worship. Yeah, I will, um, as all
the reports are the same just for three different quarters.
Um, so per the city's procurement policy, this report provides
the committee with information on those sole source, single submission
purchases and policy compliance for October to December, 2025, January
to March, 2026, and April to June, 2026. Uh, in
each report, attachment one outlines the soul and single source
purchases attachment to outlines purchases over 250, 000. And there
were no instances of noncompliant with the procurement policy in
any of those reporting periods. So staff are here to
answer questions if you have any. Thank you very much.
Any questions for Ms. Mercer. Not seeing any, we're driving
staff too hard. Uh, thank you very much. And it's
the quarterly purchasing report signals for success of 200. Well,
hang on. And instances of exceptions to trade, we know
you've covered that as well. Sorry. We're cutting out more
Mr. Holm. I just felt badly. Sorry. Uh, next is
13 development reports. First is Development Variance, Primit Application, number
DVP495 - 1451 Belford Avenue. Is there anyone present who
wishes to speak to development variance, pyramid application number DVP495
- 145 when Belfort Avenue. I'm not seeing any, motion.
Move Councillor Thorpe, Secretary Council Perino, all those in favor,
any opposed, none motion carries. Thank you very much. Uh,
the next is rezoning application number RA509 - 2080 and
2160 East Wellington Road. We do have a presentation. Mr.
Holland. Looks like you've been left alone tonight. Your cohorts
of WYSE Gone Home to bed. Which is where I'd
like to be. I think we have one online, your
worship. Oh goodness. Yes. You still might be eating heart.
And who have we got online. Uh, we have the
Glenn Pro from Highland Properties. Uh, very good. Thanks to
here from you. Uh, the floor is yours. Thank you.
Your worship council. It's a pleasure to be here this
evening. My name is Mark Holland. I'm with West Plan
for planners that are supporting the landowner through this process.
Uh, it's a real pleasure to be here this evening.
We've been working on this project for many years. Uh,
this has been quite a process. Uh, the environment has
figured very, very strongly and prominently in this process. Uh,
that brings us here today for first and second reading.
Um, we've done quite a few technical studies and we've
had community engagement and a good focus of what I
want to speak about are the things that the community
spoke about that they were concerned about, not dissimilar from
what we've heard earlier today. The site is a 25
hectare site that we're all familiar with in terms of
its trees. This is between East Wellington, the overpass over
the parkway and Northfield or the tourist centre is, uh,
minus one small property around the tourist centre. So it's
that large area of trees back there. Your OCP has
the whole area designated for light industrial. And at this
point, I'd just like to go on the record since
we're using the word industry after tonight. This is specifically
not the type of industry that we've spent quite a
bit of this evening speaking about. In fact, all of
the heavy industry, all of the emitting uses are outright
completely prohibited in this area. This is a light industry
conversation. Very, very similar to what you find in Boxwood.
So in some ways you can imagine this as twinning
boxwood on the other side of the parkway. The site
is entirely undeveloped right now. Um, two of the key
issues that were raised by the community when we met
with them and really the two primary ones, environmental protection
and transportation mobility. So I'd like to speak to both
of those. The environment figured prominently it was the first
studies we did. In fact, we had about a six
month delay on the project because we needed to wait
for precisely the right weather. It wasn't just the season
we had to wait for the right weather before we
did the environmental and riparian study. So it was, it
was, um, the qualified environmental professionals. We waited till they
said we could go out and do this. Uh, I'm
pleased to note of the outset that over 50 percent
of this site. Will be protected as environmental or park
or open space. It's very rare that I've ever been
at a microphone being able to talk about industrial project
and say half of it will be protected as Parker
Open Space. Uh, furthermore. Were the rezoning level here. So
the state many steps ahead before anything could be built.
Next step would be subdivisione to begin to create some
specific parcels. And then development permits further environmental work will
be done on every parcel before this thing moves forward.
So there are many checks and balances ahead to look
after the community's commitments to environment while we pursue the
economic and employment goals that are in the OCP. Finally
on that point, the 15 metre buffer, uh, along the
highway will be protected because we all love that sort
of rural feel through that strip. And in fact, most
of the riparian and environmental protection areas are also in
that area. So when you're on the highway, even though
the employment area will have gone in, there's going to
be a very, very deep, dense area there of the
environment that will continue to maintain that beautiful view that
you see when you look west. The project is structured
from the second point of view around mobility. This project
contributes a major step to a future important link between
East Wellington Road and Northfield Road. There's one piece of
land that is not owned by this landowner and is
therefore not part of this that would be the final
missing link right now where the tourist centre is. But
this road will be constructed to be part of that
future length that provides a lot more mobility on that
side of the highway, which right now has sort of
few north - south linkages in it. The project is
also going to contribute very significantly to upgrades along East
Wellington. Intersection upgrades, a major amount of money frontages, et
cetera will all be part of this process. The project
is obviously focused on employment. And this is one of
the conversations you had earlier this evening. And the trade
- off between environment and economy under certain circumstances. Working
with staff here, we've been pleased that they are quite
supportive of two, even three stories in this area since
your OCP capacity and vision this all for industry, but
we're protecting half of it for the environment. So staff
have been working with us in this zone to allow
more density and more things on the upper level floors.
A little more flexibility in the accessory uses. There will
be no sacrifice of the industrial at the ground plane.
This preserves the integrity of your commitment to light industry
here, that they'll allow a higher level of office uses
or food services or things on upper floors. So as
not to compromise the industrial foundation of the project, but
in order to achieve your employment goals of higher intensity
employment in the area. Finally, the landowner has agreed to
contribute very significant amount of money in community amenity charges.
It could be as high. We don't know until the
actual specific developments happen because that happens at building permit.
But it could be as high as well over a
million dollars. And I'm pleased to say the agreement is
to commit that equally between the two primary concerns of
the community. Mobility and Parks and Open Space. So this
will bring additional funds and money there. So in closing,
I'm pleased to be able to bring this forward to
you for first and second reading. Um, an area here
that will provide significant employment, protect over 50 percent of
the site for the environment, contribute to major important mobility
infrastructure for you in the future, uh, enhancement of public
walkways protection of key public views and significant financial contributions
to the community. The request in front of you here
with the motions is to allow this to take its
next step along its pathway. And that is to be
referred to a public hearing. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak. I can answer questions and we do have
the landowner rep as well if there are questions that
I can't answer. Thank you, worship. Thank you very much,
Mr. Holland. Councillo and then Councillor Hemmons. Thank you and
thank you Mr. Holland. Great presentation and very pleased to
hear the language that you use. We like that. Two
very quick questions. The pathway that goes both, um, well,
you know what I'm talking about. That'll be maintained. No
problem there. Walked at a thousand times. That's great. Thank
you so much. That's the first one. Um, under the
permitted uses, the zoning regulation. So permitted accessory uses daycare,
one dwelling unit per lot. Um, are you thinking of
putting any residential dwelling on top of, um, is that
in your plan at all. Thank you through your worship
residential is not a primary use. This is a, this
is a typical placeholder we find in zoning, uh, in
this case it would be like a caretaker's building or
something like that. In some cases, um, some industries would
like to have someone living on site. And so they
will allow a caretaker on that. This is really a
placeholder of that use. It's not a primary use. This
is not a residential project. You did use boxwood as
a similar setup. Okay. Good. Thank you very much. Thank
you. Thank you Councillor Hevins and then Councillor Manley. Thank
you, worship. Um. Random question. Are you aware that there
are large informal settlements in there? Okay. That's something that
your project team has considered. Thank you for your worship.
Yeah. The, the ownership group is in an ongoing continuous
state of stewardship of this area. So they have a
security firm that monitors that, but doesn't intervene if intervention
is required. It goes through the RCMP. And then they
come in with the security team and the owner comes
in and removes the garbage that piles up over time.
Um, it's, this is a, this is a situation you
all know well in the city here. It's a chronic
problem. A spin off of the housing crisis and other
crises that you deal with daily. So it's a stewardship
approach. They're just constantly maintaining that keeping the garbage from
piling up and following appropriate protocols and dealing with folks
who choose to live there. Thank you. I appreciate just
knowing that you're aware of it. Yeah. Thank you. Thank
you, Councillor Manley and the Council Spear. Thank you for
the presentation. Um, I really appreciate the amount of land
you're setting aside for environmental considerations. Um, a couple of
things. Just there's some degraded Gary Oak ecosystem in there.
And I'm curious whether your plan includes rehabilitating some of
that area to try to bring, bring back some of
that. Gary Oak system. Thank you through your worship. The
response to the specific sub areas in the environment there
will happen over two ways at the next right now.
This is a land use question when we get to
those areas. The biophysical examination that we'll be required of
that parcel or the parcels in that area, um, would
then begin to address what should be done there. And
the second point is that half of the CAC money
that would go that is intended for environmental and parks
uses. So there would be a budget there to begin
to take that on if that was the city's desire
in the discussions at that point. And just reading the
environmental assessment, are there going to be, an additional assessment
of the land? Yes. Okay. I know, I know that
there's some vernal pools in there that people have brought
to our attention. And, um, that there may be some
species at risk or rare species in there like we
have another spots. And then I'm on, um, and potentially
red legged frog, which is the use of fernal pools
because they, uh, they don't have to compete with the
bullfrogs in the swamps or frogs, the bulk frogs survive
in the throat. And the can't survive in the vernal
pools, but they. They outcompete the indigenous frogs in the,
um, in the other, uh, swamp areas in a deeper
pools. Yeah. So I just want to say, I appreciate
the work that's been done on protecting the environment on
this one. I think it's an important area to consider.
Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you Council Reesemeer. Thank
you through you. I'm not, I'm not sure if that
question addressed what I'm asking. But, um, in the environmental
assessment, it mentions that under the recommendations that a construction
environmental management plan should be prepared for each phase of
development, one's detailed designs are complete and prior to commencing
any site preparation works. Would that recommendation. Be followed? Absolutely.
Three worship. Yes. Each stage, um, when we're doing urban
projects, we kind of do a rezoning and a development
permit. And it all gets stacked on top of each
other. A project of this scale has many, those projects
are accordioned out. So this is a land use conversation.
And if Council, depending on community feedback and other things
you wish of Councillor Wisdom supports the land use, we
then need to go through a subdivision process. And that
would be phased. And then we have to come back
to the city for development permits for any individual building
within any one of those parcels. So we're, we're, the
horse has barely gotten out of the container. It has
multiple barns and stables and gates. It has to get
out of here and council has many, many points of
review over that. There will be environmental studies for each
of these projects here that have to be the environmental
issues have to be reviewed for each one of those.
Cause it's in an environmental DP area. Thank you. Yes.
It's a, it's a complicated and constrained site because of
the number of water courses and renal pools. And, um,
I, I see the, you know, high level perspective of
it'd be nice to have light industry here, but, um,
the environmental constraints make it challenging. And I look forward
to the further assessments that will be completed to give
us a closer picture of the area. I have another
question through to staff afterwards. Sir Armstrong. Sorry. Councillor Armstrong?
For staff. For staff. Do you want to ask a
question of staff? Well, if you don't mind. We know
that the sewer connection issues out in that area. Is
there any reason why the community can't go to contribution,
go towards the sewer. To help build a new sewer
connection? Like, I mean, that's critical. I mean, especially sandstone
as well going on board, like instead of, I know
what's nice to have, you know, your paths and all
that. But we need the sewer. I'd much rather see
money go to that. So we don't have to borrow
as much. Thank you through your worship council. I'm sorry.
So you're speaking to the, um, probably the millstone trunk
and some of the, uh, your report it says sewer
is going to be an issue. Some of the constraints.
Well, the project will address the, um, uh, sanitary issues
that are needed to support the project. Um, and there
are, uh, as Mr. Rosen and, uh, his staff presented,
uh, fairly recently to counsel, uh, identified sewer constraints, uh,
that, uh, the cities, the councils were aware of how
we'll be reporting back on options to fund to address.
If that's, I think that's what council Armstrong speaking to.
No, my question is, can we take the community amenity
contribution and put it towards the sewer upgrades. So the
sewer upgrades to address the project, the project will build.
No, I mean, our big issue. Yeah. Yeah. Well, the
timing, I think is, I was just kind of getting
to, I think the point I'm getting to, um, there
were a number of, um, uh, sewer constraint issues identified
that were brought to Council. So I think it's a
timing issue as well. Some of those are more critical.
Um, the funding from like the Community Manage Contribution that
we'd received through the project. It won't be coming, um,
in time. Okay. And, and in, in quantity, I would
say to really address the issues that, um, I appreciate
that. I was just wondering because it's going to be
expensive. Thanks. Thank you Councillor Eastmear. Thank you. My question
through to staff is whether the future development permits or
subdivision applications would for sure come back to council or
would they be delegated authority. Too early to determine, but
likely they would not come back to Council. So in,
uh, if I could maybe expand on that, um, so
some of what, um, what Mr. Holland has spoken to
and is identified in the report. You can see that
a number of conditions are identified as to be secured
through a master development agreement. So that's in Council's control,
including the construction environmental management plan that was, uh, the
question related to earlier. Uh, so those are items that
are secured through the rezoning to be addressed later, um,
and as well. So subdivision approval, obviously that's, um, outside
of, uh, councils authority, council sets the stage, the bylaws,
the requirements that apply the standards and the development perimeter
area requirements that apply. Uh, in the case of subdivision.
So council plays the role in setting the biola requirements
and the guidelines that apply, um, and development permit again
is follow the guidelines, development is permitted. Um, is, is
the pathway. That's the, that's the way that process works.
So council has played a role in second and will
continue to. The bylaw requirements and the guidelines that apply
to future subdivision and development permit. If the developer meets
the requirements follows the guidelines, complies with the guidelines, the
development is approved. So the permit is approved. Okay. And,
um. Pardon me, there's, I have another question. Sorry, and
I should have, I should have clarified that would be
whether or not that the permit is delegated or council
approved. If it complies with the guidelines, then it must
be approved. Just because of the complexity of this site,
is there a way to put a condition on the
rezoning that the development permit or future decisions would come
back to Council and not be delegated authority? No, that's
not possible. And I think again, if it complies with
the guidelines, then it must be approved. Okay. And one
more question from the environmental report, it mentioned that prior
to any plan development of the properties, the recommendation regarding
confirming whether any new policy or guidance documents have been
provided by the province of BC regarding wetland boundary identification
under the water sustainability Act or any future legislation that
applies to wetlands in BC because the wetland ecosystem boundaries
identified particularly in figure two were based on methods that
are not officially tied to the water sustainability Act and
it's understood that an official methodology or policy may be
developed sometime in the near future. Yes, I can speak
to that too. And, um, uh, through your worship to
Councillor Smire. So that's identifying that, um, so legislation is
changing regularly. It's a dynamic world in that regard. That's
just flagging, identifying that, um, we understand. And the qualified
environmental professional working for the, uh, the property owner understands
that the province is considering, uh, changes. Um, there's been
recently information released. Identifying that changes are pending. So we
need to be live to, uh, what the implications of
those changes are. And they may have, um, bearing, they
may have an impact on the proposed development. So we
will review, um, of course, the, uh, the development, um,
based on the, uh, requirements that apply at that time.
For instance, if they came forward next year, uh, with
say the rezoning was successful and they came forward next
year for subdivision. Uh, we would apply the guidelines, the
provincial requirements in place at the time. If they don't
come forward for five years, again, we apply the provincial
requirements in place at the time. And we update our
bylaws and our guidelines accordingly. Um, so that's just identifying
that in this case, we actually anticipate some changes. Um,
they can't be reflected in the assessments that have been
done at this point. Because, uh, they haven't been made
clear. They're not actually provincial policy at this point or
provincial requirements at this time. But we understand that there
are changes in the works. Thank you. And just to
confirm, so there is an additional environmental assessment that would
take place as a condition of this rezoning. There will
be three year worship. So there will be, yes, subsequent
approvals, depending on when they come forward. Will be evaluated
based on the requirements in place at the time that
they come forward. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Geselbrock.
You have a question. Great. Yeah. I think Councillor Eastmyr
raised, there was that section just about the water sustainability
act and that, um, in some cases, if it was
applied that it may be larger, uh, boundary. And I
just thought related at all to the conditions of rezoning.
And it says completed and updated biophysical assessment of the
properties by QEP in accordance with the environmental assessment recommendations
determined whether additional protections are necessary, including but not limited
to wetland alienation assessments under the applicable guidelines. Blah, blah,
blah. Is that what that point in the conditions of
rezoning that pertains to? Yes. Uh, yeah, through your worship
to Council, I guess for yes. So it's just, that's,
um, that's explicitly flagging that those reviews will take place.
So basically legislation that's in place at the time, um,
that the development moves forward through different stages. Dr. Thank
you for that clarification. Thank you very much. Thank you
for being so patient, Mr. Holland, Mr. Faye. And Mr.
Holm for your Folsom answers to this Councillor Eastern. Would
you care to move the motions? I'm a delegation. You
can have a seat now. Yes. Sorry.
Move that zoning amendment bylaw 2026 number 4, 500. 258
to rezone 2080 East Wellington Road and 2160 East Wellington
Road from single dwelling residential R1 and Light Industrial. To
light industrial with site - specific accessory industrial office use
to facilitate a Lite Industrial Subdivision Pass First reading. Second
and Councillor Hemmons. All those in favor, any opposed, none
motion carries. Move that zoning amendment bylaw 2026 number 4500.
258 past second reading. I'd like to speak to it.
Second accident Councillor Thorpe. Councillor Brown. You've got a question
comment. Just a comment your ship. I think it was
like 15 years ago. I remember talking to Keith Brown.
His property was owned by Henry Remple at length about
it. Uh, that time it was the transfer of the
South Wellington Park there and making that come together. This
is a longtime vision, long time in the OCP. I
think it's well suited for, uh, and I appreciate the
efforts that have been made. So a long time coming.
A lot of effort over many years. Um, so just
want to say it has my support. Thanks. Thank you
very much. Councillor Manley and the Council Review. Thank you,
your worship. Yeah, I'm, uh, ready to support this. I'm
looking forward to the public hearing. I'm sure that we'll
hear a lot of different things about, about this area.
But this is the kind of, uh, light industry land
that we need in the NIMO. And, um, so you
know what. Thank you. Councillor Eashmir. Thank
you. I really appreciate the level of detail and information
provided in this application and the fact that the developer
reached out beforehand to give us an opportunity to ask
questions. Um. I really enjoyed reading the environmental report from
the QEP on this, the level of detail was excellent.
Um, it does seem like a tricky site to redevelop.
And when wetlands are something that the province is really
interested in protecting, it becomes hard for me to envision
how we can develop these areas. But I think potentially
the way that it can be done in a mindful
way. And, um. The mayor spoke earlier about nothing about
us without us. So I look forward to the community
having a chance to weigh in on this at the
public hearing that will take place as a result of
this passing tonight. Thank you. Motion is second reading. All
those in favor. Any opposed non motion carries, Councillor Eastmear.
Move the Council Direct staff to hold a public hearing
for zoning amendment bylaw 2026 number 4, 500. 258. Secondary
Councillor Brown. All those in favor. Any opposed on motion
carry, Scout. Move that council direct staff to secure the
conditions related to zoning amendment bylaw 2026 number 4, 500.
258 as outlined in attachment D of the staff report
titled Rezoning Application number, RA509 2080 and 2160 East Wellington
Road dated 2026, July 27th prior to final adoption. Second
and Councillor Henns. All those in favor, any opposed on
motion carries. Thank you. Uh, on to Cvelopment Permit Application
number DP1397 - 3679 Shenton Road. Jackson Lowe. Your worship
only if there's questions? Yeah. If there's questions for the
architect, they are in attendance via Zoom. Any questions for
Mr. Lowe, assuming we're still there. Councillor Armstrong. Good evening,
Mr. Lowe. Nice to see you. Thank you. I think
Councillor Armstrong, then Council, pardon me, Councillor. Perino and then
Armstrong. Have questions. Okay. Thank you. Your worship. And just
a very quick question to Mr. Lowe. My understanding is
that you're going to construct a three - story mixed
use development. That's great. Containing 17 multiple family - dwelling
units. Is that correct? I just wanted to verify. Correct.
Very pleased to see it. We need to more homes
and that's a great area. And please to see that
come. I hope it goes through. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Councillor Armstrong. Just a question on
what width you're using for small vehicle. Parking. My vehicle
is trying to remember. It's just whatever the zone bylaw
is required of us. Okay. Good sport point. 4. 570.
I'm not sure. We deal with a lot of municipalities.
So forgive me if I can't remember the exact number.
No, that's fine. I was just wondering because I know
the buildings that have small parking and they actually are
going over into it because their cars don't fit. Thanks.
Thank you Councillor Easmir. Uh, thank you. I had a
question. The design panel had made a recommendation about, um,
considering bird - friendly glazing. And I see that there
was a revised plan which includes reduced glazing on the
south Lakeside Facade. Is that a direct response to the
bird - friendly glazing consideration? Correct. Correct. Yeah. It's sort
of the options of looking at bird - friendly glazing
and or reducing the amount of glazing on that self
- side. And the client had chosen to reduce the
molecules. Okay. Thank you. Um, yes, I appreciate that a
couple of changes were made in response to the design
panels recommendations, including that reduced glazing. More bike parking, a
ramp between Shenton Road and the main building entrances, uh,
retaining or replacing trees that couldn't be retained and switching
out the indoor amenity space for a viewing pavilion, given
it's right on the lake. Uh, and, uh, some stepped
walls to allow for more plantings and also some patterned
concrete. So appreciate those responses to the design panels recommendations.
Thank you worship. Um, I'm curious about the viewing platform.
Is that a public amend of the or is that
just for the, um, the residents and the workers in
the building. It's primarily for the residents and the employees
of the, uh, major floor. The pavilion is, I mean,
the public walkway accessing that pavilion. And there's no real
room to create such a public walkway to that pavilion.
Um, so when we were asked to create a public
amenity for the residents of the building, um, that was
our solution to doing that. And the form of that,
uh, pavilion actually emulates the, what historically was mining. And
so the shaft and cover. So that's what came out
of that. Okay. Thank you. And the, um, there's, I
can see there's a blanket statutory right away for featured
i relic loop trail across the property. And I assume
that that would be in front of the pavilion that
they're space in front of the pavilion for that trail.
Correct. There's lots of room in front of that. There's
a whole, um, sort of protected speed area and water
waste back. So we're a fair ways up land on
that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Someone cared to move
the recommended motion. Move Councillor Eastmere, second account, sir Armstrong.
All those in favor and any opposed on motion carries.
Thank you very much, Mr. Lowe. You've had a long
evening waiting for us. Thank you very much. Have a
good evening. The next is liquor license amendment application number
LA 168 - number 105 - 1825 Bone Road. Mr.
Den. You're here to respond to questions. Are the questions
for Mr. Din. Poor Mr. Dennis had to wait all
night, no questions. Oh, well moved the recommended motion Councillor
Eastman, your secondary councillor Hemings, all those in favor. Any
opposed, none motion carries. Thank you very much. You've done
your advocacy. Well done. Ron to bylaws, Councillor Eastmyr. Ready?
Move that. The first is the cursed is A zoning
amendment bylaw 2026 number four five zero zero decimal two
five. Move that zoning amendment bylaw 2026. Number 4, 500.
255 past third reading. Second and Councillor Himmons. All those
in favor. Any opposed none motion carries. The next is
zoning amendment bylaw 2026 number 4500 decimal 256. Move that
zoning amendment bylaw 2026 number 4, 500. 256 past third
reading. Second and councillor. Perino, all those in favor. Any
opposed on motion carries. Next is zoning amendment bylaw 2026
number 4500 decimal 257. Move that zoning amendment bylaw 2026
number 4, 500. 257 past third reading. Second of Councillor
Henns. All those in favor. Any opposed non carries. The
next is council procedure bylaw. Amendment bylaw 2026 number 7272
decimal 06. Councillor Easmir. Move that zoning amendment bylaw 2026
number 7272. 06B adopted. Your worship. Sorry. I'm sorry. Okay.
Move that council procedure bylaw amendment. Bylaw 2026 number 7272.
06 be adopted. Section Councillor Thorpe. All those in favor.
Any opposed? None. I am opposed. Sorry? I'm opposed. Card
me Councillor East Music. Motion carries. The next is Off
Street Parking byla Parseat Parking Regulations bylaw 2026 number 7453.
Move that Off Street Parking Regulations bylaw 2026. Number 7453
be adopted. Sectored Councillor Hemmons. All those in favor. Any
opposed none motion carries. Sorry, your opposed. Oh, and Councillor
Thorpe. My goodness. We're getting controversial late at night. Well
done. Next is subdivision development servicing bylaw 2026 number 7454.
Councillor Easmeyer. Move that subdivision and development servicing bylaw 2026
number 7454 be adopted. Executive Council Perino. All those in.
Councillor Brown. Thanks. Um, I'll be very quick. I know
it's late. Um, and I voted in favor the first
two readings. I've had some time to reflect on it.
I've actually had some people kind of comments about it.
And I thought Councillor Prune asked a very good question.
What sort of little lack of engagement by people that
this would impact. And my understanding was there was very
little engagement and I appreciate that probably the people that
worked on the project aren't here. But I'm just curious.
When we didn't get response did we dig deeper and
see why. Folk. Three of our ship to Councillor Brown.
I know, um, staff spoke to it when the bylaw
was introduced. Yeah. And, uh, my understanding is yes, there
was follow up with, uh, with some, uh, and. Um,
yeah, the outreach was to. I can't remember off the
top of my head, but it was substantial number of,
um. Consultants that are involved in this work. And, uh,
limited, um, response. It could be due to capacity. I
don't. Know. Okay. Um, so okay. I'm going to vote
in favor. I won't be around. When a lot of
these sidewalks get built on council. But if anyone is,
I'm very concerned that the cost of some of this
stuff is going to be very, very high and will
be realised in the affordability equation. And I think it
should be not going to make any motions, but I
think people should put it in their calendar to have
a little bit of review on that. Thanks. Thank you
very much Councilprino. Thank you. Your worship. And it did
concern me. We sent out a whole bunch of questionnaires
to the development community to respond it. What staff then
did was go back out, get in touch with a
bunch of other people. And they heard very much the
same thing. There was definitely a capacity issue, but also
some of the development community was saying, listen, let's, let's
try this out, see how it goes. We'll come back
and make changes as the need comes forward. So I
appreciate Councillor Brown asking the question because I was very
concerned about that. So I got the answer that I
wanted. And we'll be voting favor of the adoption. Thank
you very much. All those in favor. And any opposed.
None motion carries. The next is housing agreement bylaw 2026
number 7458. Councillor Eastmear moved that housing agreement. Bylaw 2026
number 7458 be adopted. Secret Councillor Thorpe. All those in
favor, any opposed on motion carries. The next is residential
tenant assistance bylaw 2026 number 7459. Move that residential tenant
assistance bylaw 2026 number 7459 be adopted. Seconded Count Soprino.
All those in favor and any opposed on motion carries.
The next is bylaw notice enforcement amendment bylaw 2026 number
7159 decimal 27. Move that bylaw. Sorry. Thank you. Move
that bylaw notice enforcement. Amendment bylaw 2026 number 7159. 27
be adopted. Secretary Council Prino, all those in favor. Any
opposed on motion carries. We have no notices of motion.
We have no correspondence. Uh, other business Councillor Eastern year
motion read the interim use of number six commercial street.
Yes. My motion is that Council Direct staff to provide
a report on options for the interim use of six
commercial street. The former Jean Burnsin site. And if it's
second, it'll. Councillor Brown. Thank you. So I'm really interested
in bringing the central part of our downtown back to
life. And right now it is a fenced off whole
and has been ever since a fire destroyed the old
ANB sound building at the corner of commercial and terminal
in 2016. And the city bought this property for an
undisclosed price in 2021 in an effort to ensure that
it didn't sit idle for many more years. When we
were elected, we all spoke about a shared desire to
get something in that hole by 2026. For me, I'd
love to see affordable apartments and attainable housing so people
can enjoy living in our amazing downtown, including the workers
who are vital to our local businesses, students, seniors, families,
and like the old ANV sound building affordable artist studio
space, like what the A and B sound building used
to feature. We have tried. There was an RFP put
out by the city and a proponent selected to develop
that site. And while I didn't personally support that proposal,
there was hope that something would materialize. And it didn't.
Then we put it into BC builds pretty recently, hoping
that a developer and nonprofit partner would be interested in
developing the site with support from BC housing to build
affordable rental housing with commercial on the ground floor. The
city was and is seeking a developer to transform the
site into a landmark mixed use rental housing project. And
we were offering a 60 year lease at no cost
for the land to any developer that meets the criteria
consistent with BC builds. But again, nothing materialized. So right
now the cost of redeveloping the site into a building
is evidently not feasible for many reasons. And unlikely to
happen anytime soon, the cost of building in today's economy,
the site constraints geotechnical issues and seismic requirements, et cetera,
et cetera. So there's nothing in that whole except some
cool street art. And I'm not okay with letting it
sit idle for another decade with no action until conditions
improve, which they may or may not. So I think
it's time to get creative. And I'm really curious to
see what options for interim uses our staff could come
up with. I think there's amazing potential for a mini
temporary amphitheater or performance space, food truck parking, or a
mini container pop - up shop area, a pop -
up community garden using raised beds or a temporary skate
park using portable or modular escape park elements. These are
just ideas, many of which I've heard while speaking to
the community. And people are really interested in temporary uses
for this underused piece of prime real estate. And I
think they would all work in their own way. It
might require a little poured concrete to make this area
more accessible. But I really see the potential to open
up and enliven this space in a way that creates
more usable, enjoyable, and vibrant community space in our downtown
core. Thank you, Councillor Armstrong. Thank you. And I'm assuming
that the cost of remediation will be in there because
we can't do anything unless remediation is done, correct? We
can't put anything on there due to fire risk, safety
risks, health risks, environmental risks, all of that. Through the
chair, I think between me and Mr. Holm, we can
answer. I would say there are some temporary uses that
we could do that don't involve digging into any potential
contamination, which I do are do not know whether we've
looked into that on the same. Mr. Holm, do you
have any more? I'm back. Uh, no, I don't imagine
it's been evaluated for temporary uses such as, I'm just
thinking to the, um. For example, there's a gas station
site turnaroad and the island highway that was, um, temporarily
used as a food garden. Um, so there are options
raised beds again. So there's different options that could, um.
You know, that could be undertaken. Uh, we'd have to
investigate obviously, but, uh, that'll be part of the report.
That's all I'm asking. Yeah. Exactly. Did it have to
be? And there are some, you know, there are some
other, um, issues with that site that would have to
be looked at as far as, um, the access and
stability of, uh, and ball protection and different things like
that given some of the, um, the site condition. But
I think the, um, site contamination issues. Probably aren't significant
for a temporary use for building the geotechnical and contamination
issues are definitely more substantial. Um, that's where the, um,
the building code and also the provincial contaminated sites regulations
apply. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Manley and then Councillor
Gusselbrook. Uh, thank you. I'm in support of this. I've
heard from residents as well. I'd like to see maybe
the area filled in or used as an amphitheater. I've
seen amphitheaters that are below ground level where you can
walk around the amphitheater and the seats are all aligned
to watch a show. And, you know, potentially have containers.
Shops or small portable shops surrounding it that provide avenues
for small micro businesses. Uh, I think there's lots of
opportunities here. And they could. You know, potentially be permanent.
Not necessarily interim. I think the geotechnical problems with this
site are going to make it very difficult for, um,
uh, developing in a cost - effective way. But, you
know, I would have loved to have seen commercial on
the ground for and residents above. But that hasn't worked
out in the years that we've been working on this.
Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Gelser Brock. Thank you, Mayor. I
think it's high time to find a temporary use for
the site. I'm getting tired of walking by the hole
in the middle of the downtown. I think that there
could be some creative ways that we can enliven that
space. And I think, uh, everybody's tired of walking by
the hole, um, and I think it's holding back the
progression of, you know, redeveloping and enlivening. The downtown. Um,
one question or just thought. I know some people brought
up the constraints for building in the site. Um, and
that one of the barriers is just the unknown around
the geotechnical, um, and that we did a geotechnical up
to six stories, um, but, uh, the economics of building
a six stories just doesn't make it feasible given all
the constraints, but there hasn't been a geotechnical study that
looks at going above six stories. Um, say to 12.
And that, that might could change the economics a little
bit. And so I'm curious in that report, you know,
even at a cursory level, um, if any constraints could
be identified of like a longer term solution be put
in there and that maybe, you know, if we did
a little bit more work that we could open up
a greater breadth of opportunity to actually have, um, the
housing that everybody hopes to see there and the commercial
space that ultimately would probably make the highest best use
of that spot. Thank you. Mr. Holm. Thank you. Sorry.
Um, three worship council guests of Rechi looking for a
response. Yeah, just is it possible to add that into
a report? It's hard to tell sometimes. Yeah. Well, I'm
kind of throwing it out there because I do think
that, um, we've been trying hard to get development there.
And it's been capped. And it's like we've been unsuccessful
with what we've done so far. But maybe a little
bit more push. So yeah, I think Miss Gil's will
probably be best to speak to the information that we
have on hand, uh, but, um, yeah, there may be
other barriers to, um, and we see through market development,
um. Uh, constructing above six stories. And depending on site
conditions, the building code requirements do change depending on building
height as well. So it's probably not just, uh, like
the economics of it's probably not just geotechnical. Related issue.
But, um, we can probably speak to the consultant that,
uh, that did the work for us. And, um, see
if, um, what would be required to look at expanding
the investigation. But I think the economics are probably related
to the, um, would be related to the height of
building. I think there'd be a limitation or sort of
a cost barrier there as well. Great. Thanks. Through the
chair, if I might jump in on this one, if
I understand the motion as it is, it's for the
interim or temper use. And so if Council wanted us
to look at something longer term, which through your worship
to Council Gasterpart, I think that would be a separate
motion. Um, so through the chair, the interim use allows
a lot more flexibility, creativity, or perhaps deviation from the
Santa. So it would be required to have geotechnical for
permanent use. Absolutely. I was just kind of lobbing an
idea out there and we can follow up on it.
When the temporary usage report comes if it's something of
interest. Thank you. I would remind Council we have an
in - camera meeting after this. All those in favor.
Any opposed on motion carries. Thank you very much. Question
period, Ms. Gurie.
All right. The Mr. Arnett 12A. Please welcome. Nice to
see you. You too, mayor council. First, let me apologise
for the writing. I am very able to write. Um,
I appear before you on behalf of Grace Elliot Nielsen,
executive director. And the management team fertility. Aboriginal friendship centre
in the board of directors. My name is Steve Arnett.
I'm a Maytee Nation BC citizen. A firekeeper and an
old one. On my way to being an elder and
can do's at 75. Um, I'm here to ask a
question in release to 12A, which email the decision on
with respect to, uh, the recommendation from staff. That our,
uh. Permissive tax exemption. For our young mom's expansion. Uh,
be denied. So my question is, um, based on that,
um, through, uh, through you mayors, your worship is chair.
Can staff tell me what the total amount of the
tax exemptions were, uh, for the six PTs that were
removed along with, I heard, I think the figure 27,
000 per the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board. In terms
of total of the, um, permissive tax attemptions that represents.
Against the 6, 000 dollars that doesn't seem like a
lot, but is a real hardship for, uh, TLAFC in
terms of the housing that we, uh, went ahead and
provided despite what Councillor Manning said, uh, that BC housing
did too many, many nonprofits across the province. In our
case, we asked, uh, we've spent a lot of money.
I raised a lot of money with TLAFC. Yes. I
guess it's a question. So I'll answer questions. You of
all people, Mr. experienced. Yeah. Well, I'm kind of like
you mayor, you know, put me in front of a
microphone. I know, I know. Ms. Mercer, can you answer
the question? There was a question in there. Yeah. Thank
you, your worship. Um, I don't have the total off
the top of my head, but if I, I can
get back to, um, the group. Thank you, council Armstrong.
I just want to say, I don't know if you
heard when Councillor Manley asked that. The staff said that
if the entered into a housing agreement, you'll be way
less than even getting permissive tax exemption. I'm aware of
that. In terms of process, all of that was sort
of put honest just the very last minute. And that's
no reflection on staff. I don't do that as a
former 10 year councillor myself. Um, I will follow up
with them. And you will be hearing back from us.
Um, certainly before they pulled the pen on the, on
the rip. Around this. Thank you very much. Thank you,
safe drive home. Thank you. The next is 13b. So
your worship? Mr. Chant. I think Mr. Chapman had a
question about the attachment to 13b. However, um, after reviewing
it and discussing it, this matter is going to public
hearing. So issues that are, even though Mr. Chapman was
saying that attachment doesn't specifically relate to the public hearing
matter, um, then that, that's not the matter that was
on the agenda. So it's kind of splitting hairs and
opening it up to others. So unfortunately that question isn't
available. And he can speak to, um, at the public
hearing, he can speak to Mayor and Council about the
attachment and or to staff. And I followed up with
an email to him on that. Mr. Chapman, nothing wrong
with trying to get your in the water first. But
you'll have to attend the public hearing. Sorry. Uh, and
the final one is 12 D. Jeff Ansley. Mr. Anisoley.
You know the drill introduce yourself for the record and
ask your questions, please. Jeff Hansley. The question is about.
The 3rd Street upgrades, which are part of the quarterly
report. First question is, is the, um, is the 5.
1 million, um, does that encompass the entire project. Is
that. Um. Part of the project. Ms. Mercer.
What project were you referring to? The 3rd Street upgrades,
NAP at the 5. 1 72 million. Right. I see
it now. Um. That probably wouldn't be for the entire
project. But probably the most of the work. There could
be other costs included in there. But I would say
that's probably the bulk of the project. But I'm not
an expert on this particular project. But for that company,
are they just doing the, um, sewer infrastructure or are
they doing the Road infrastructure as well. We would have
to get back to. You with details, Mr. Amson. Okay.
And just, uh, okay. Eliminates my second question then, too.
And just, um, just for my knowledge, are we replacing
that infrastructure with smart infrastructure? Do we know. Is the
piping beam that's being taken out? Because it says we
need to upgrade that. And I'm just wondering if that
was the main part of the upgrade. Mr. Through the
chair to the speaker, Visansley. Could you clarify when you
say smart infrastructure, what your definition of that is? Oh,
I just like, you know, um, like when the councillors
went to Calgary, they talked about the piping that went
in was they're taking the old stuff when they were
putting new stuff that has more, they can control the
flow control, that sort of thing. Is that. What we've
done here on Third Street and just, just more broadly
in general. Through the chair to Council to the speaker,
what I will say is our engineering and public works
department use the best technology. And when we have the
ability to upgrade through. Our road systems, we do replace
to more resilient standards. And in times that includes seismic
at times, that includes future proofing for water flows or
materials that are more durable. So we can get back
to you with the specifics if you're interested through Mr.
Rosen, who's currently wisely not here. Yeah. It was an
anti - speaking this question. So I think we have
your email. Yes. And so we can provide counsel with
that information as well as yourself. That'd be great. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you very much.