[6:28] Okay, good evening everybody. I'd like to welcome you to the regular council

[6:33] meeting of July 27th, 2026. Uh calling this meeting to order. I'd like to first

[6:38] of all recogn recognize that we're on the traditional lands of the South

[6:42] Nation who have stewards of this property for millennia. Uh first order

[6:47] of business is approval of the agenda that the agenda for the July 27th, 2026

[6:52] regular meeting of council be adopted as presented. So moved by St. Pierre,

[6:58] seconded by Baitman. Any discussion to the motion? Hearing none. All those in

[7:02] favor? All right. Which likes unanimous. Okay. Uh now we're getting into uh

[7:08] public and statutory hearings. Now this is going to take me a minute, so hang

[7:13] on. Statement you read. the chair of the public hearing. The public hearing is

[7:17] being convened pursuant to section 464 of the local government act in order to

[7:22] consider proposed short-term rental accommodations modernization zoning

[7:27] amendment bylaw number 947600-12026.

[7:33] As this is a public hearing, any person present who believes that his or her

[7:38] interest in the property is affected by the proposed bylaw shall be given an

[7:42] opportunity to be heard on matters contained in the proposal bylaws.

[7:46] However, it is important that we all that all who speak at this public

[7:50] hearing restrict their remarks to the matters contained in the bylaw. It's it

[7:54] is not my responsibility as chair of this hearing to ensure that all remarks

[7:58] are so restricted. Those who wish to speak concerning the proposal bylaw

[8:03] should at the appropriate time commence your address to the council and public

[8:07] hearing by clearly stating your name and where you live for the record. Then you

[8:11] may give us a brief uh benefit of your views concerning the proposed bylaws. It

[8:17] should be noted that this public hearing is being recorded and wreamed live and

[8:21] the recording will be posted on the website. I will ask anyone who wishes to

[8:26] speak to keep the remarks approximately 3 minutes before yielding to another

[8:29] speaker. Once everybody has spoken, if you have further points you would like

[8:34] to make, you are welcome to continue representation. We want to hear all

[8:37] points from people who are believed their interest in this land and their

[8:41] land is respected. Members of council may if they so wish

[8:45] ask questions of you following your presentation. However, the main function

[8:49] of council members this evening is to listen to your to the views of the

[8:54] public. It is not a function of council and the public hearing to debate the

[8:58] merits of the proposed bylaw with individual citizens and this hearing is

[9:02] not an appropriate back and forth. Everybody who deems his or her interest

[9:07] in property to be affected shall be given the opportunity to heard at this

[9:10] meeting. No one will be or should feel discouraged or prevent from making his

[9:15] or her views known. If you wish to provide a written submission to be

[9:19] included in the record of the public hearing, you must hand that submission

[9:22] to the corporate officer prior to the close of the public hearing. Once the

[9:26] public hearing is adjourned, council will not be able to receive any further

[9:30] information from the public on this matter. After the public hearing has

[9:34] concluded, council may without further notice give whatever effect council

[9:39] believes proper to the representations made at the public hearing. During the

[9:43] course of the public hearing, people sometimes become enthusiastic or

[9:47] emotional. Regardless of whether you're in favor or opposed any particular

[9:50] application or argument, please refrain from applause or other expressions of

[9:55] emotion. Restraint enables others who views may not coincide with your own to

[10:00] exercise their right to express their views. Enable all views to be expressed

[10:04] to be heard in impartial form as possible.

[10:10] It's a long one, but that's the way it is.

[10:13] Okay. Uh so now the we'll call the public uh

[10:19] hearings open. So if uh and this is to do with short-term rental

[10:24] accommodations, modernization zoning bylaw number 94760012026.

[10:30] If anybody wishes to speak, they can come up now.

[10:34] They're >> in the presentation first.

[10:36] » Sorry, my apologies. We'll do a presentation first.

[10:46] Okay, thank you and good evening. Um, this agenda item is related to zoning

[10:49] amendment via number 947, which is intended to modernize the district's

[10:53] zoning regulations for short-term rental accommodation.

[11:08] » Okay. Okay. The purpose of this presentation is to provide context for

[11:11] the proposed amendment bylaw and briefly explain its provisions uh before council

[11:15] hears from the public. Uh no staff recommendation or motion is being

[11:19] presented as part of the public hearing. However, council is scheduled to

[11:22] consider a third reading separately under item 10.1 of tonight's agenda

[11:27] following the close of the public hearing.

[11:32] On February 9th, council directed staff to prepare amendments to clarify and

[11:36] modernize the district's regulation of short-term rental accommodation,

[11:39] including alignment with the provincial short-term rental legislation. Staff

[11:43] then coordinated a business with business licensing and other relevant

[11:46] departments and presented the proposed amendments to the LUDC. On June 9th,

[11:51] LUDC recommended that the bylaw receive first and second reading and that

[11:54] council direct staff to schedule a public hearing. Then on June 22nd,

[11:59] council subsequently gave the bylaw first and second readings and directed

[12:02] staff to schedule a public hearing, which brings us to today.

[12:08] Uh reasons for the bylaw update include the need to modernize terminology. Uh

[12:12] for example, the existing zoning bylaw uses the term vacation accommodation

[12:16] unit and does not contain a consolidated set of regulations for that use. This

[12:21] has created some uncertainty, particularly where a property contains

[12:25] multiple dwelling units or more than one type of visitor accommodation. The

[12:29] province has also recently introduced a principal residence framework for

[12:33] short-term rentals, which is proposed to be captured more clearly in the zoning

[12:37] bylaw through these amendments. Uh the proposed amendments also respond

[12:41] uh by creating clear definitions in a dedicated regulatory section of the

[12:45] zoning bylaw, which currently does not exist.

[12:50] In terms of proposed terminology changes, uh vacation accommodation would

[12:54] be replaced with the more commonly used term short-term rental. Uh the bylaw

[12:58] would also replace small suite uh with detached suite uh which more clearly

[13:02] describes the type of dwelling being regulated. Also, new definitions for

[13:06] short-term rental, principal residence, and host uh would establish the

[13:10] foundation for administering these uses consistently.

[13:18] Uh the proposed short-term rental framework is intended to mirror the

[13:21] provincial framework uh which is based on the host principal residence. So

[13:24] under these amendments, a short-term rental could occur in the principal

[13:28] dwelling, a secondary suite or a detached suite provided the use is

[13:32] permitted in the applicable zone. A host could use a maximum of two dwelling

[13:36] units for short-term rental. However, the two units, if two units are used,

[13:40] one must be the host's principal residence. also clarified in the bylaw

[13:44] amendments uh in the case where a host principal residence is an accessory

[13:47] dwelling unit such as a detached suite or a secondary suite uh they may rent

[13:52] out the main house on the same parcel under these provisions.

[13:56] So the proposed definition also changes the maximum stay uh from 30 to 90 uh

[14:02] consecutive days to align with the provincial legislation.

[14:07] And yes, one one of the more significant clarifications is that the host would

[14:11] not need to remain physically present on the property whenever a short-term

[14:14] rental is occurring. For example, a host could rent out their principal residence

[14:18] while tempor temporarily traveling provided the dwelling continues to be

[14:22] their principal residence as defined. Uh this differs from the district's

[14:26] previous administrative approach which uh required vacation accommodation uh to

[14:31] be linked to a homebased business regulations and generally interpreted as

[14:35] requiring the operator to reside on the premises while the business was

[14:38] operating.

[14:44] The amendments also intend to clarify that short-term rentals and bed and

[14:47] breakfast are distinct accommodation uses and are not homebased businesses.

[14:52] Each use would be regulated through its own definitions and requirements. The

[14:56] amendment would also prohibit a bed and breakfast and short-term rental from

[14:59] operating concurrently on the same parcel. Uh the intent is to prevent the

[15:04] stacking of multiple commercial accommodation uses on a residential or

[15:07] rural residential property. Uh this separation is a zoning classification

[15:12] change.

[15:15] [snorts] The proposed amendments are

[15:17] intentionally limited in scope. uh they do not expand short-term rental

[15:21] permissions into zones where the use is not already permitted as vacation

[15:24] accommodation and it would not increase the number of dwelling units otherwise

[15:28] permitted on a parcel. The amendments would establish the land use framework

[15:32] uh whereas operational matters may be considered separately through business

[15:35] license bylaw or uh related enforcement practices such as licensing fees,

[15:40] inspections, complaint response and enforcement procedures.

[15:44] uh properties also within the ALR uh would also remain subject to the the ALC

[15:48] act and the ALR use regulation uh which is more restrictive.

[15:56] Staff have confirmed that there are currently 107 active short-term rental

[16:00] business licenses and 14 active licenses for bed and breakfast. Um, following

[16:05] receipt of correspondence concerning an existing combined operation, uh, based

[16:09] on the available data, uh, staff confirmed that only one property

[16:13] currently is holding a license for both bed and breakfast and short-term rental.

[16:17] Uh, no other licensed property was identified as operating both uses

[16:21] concurrently.

[16:24] Notice of the public hearing is published twice in the local newspaper

[16:27] in accordance to the local government act. Um, as for the preparation of this

[16:31] presentation, um, as of the preparation of this

[16:35] presentation, two written submissions had been received, that one in support

[16:38] and one requesting the bylaw not proceed as drafted or that an existing combined,

[16:43] uh, bed and breakfast and short-term rental operation be allowed to continue.

[16:47] Staff have reviewed the business license information and operating history of the

[16:51] identified property. And based on that review, staff confirmed the existing

[16:54] combined bed and breakfast and short-term rental use would be lawful

[16:58] non-conforming if bylaw 947 uh was adopted as drafted.

[17:04] However, the use could not be expanded or if discontinued for a period of 6

[17:08] months. Um future use would need to comply with the zoning bylaw in effect

[17:12] at the time. Uh the rationale for the amendment

[17:15] remains to prevent new stacking of multiple commercial accommodation uses

[17:18] on residential and rural residential parcels. Uh and is consistent practice

[17:23] uh in most municipalities.

[17:28] That concludes my presentation. Um again, once the public hearing is

[17:32] closed, council will have an opportunity to consider third reading uh under item

[17:35] 10.1 of the agenda. Thank you. >> Thank you, staff. Uh now I will call on

[17:41] any individual that has a concern in regards to uh this bylaw to come

[17:46] forward. State your name and uh community you live in.

[17:59] You have to press the on button there.

[18:04] Uh good evening. My name is Mike Hicks and representing my wife Kathy Hicks as

[18:08] well. 3018 Manor Road, Souk.

[18:13] [clears throat] So, thank you, uh, mayor and council, counselors.

[18:18] Um, we have run our small homebased business for 25 years. And thank you,

[18:24] uh, Jade, too. We've been writing back and forth. We have, uh, run our small

[18:29] homebased business, uh, for 25 years on our property, 4.5

[18:34] acre property in Souk. We operate a vacation rental and a threeunit B&B on

[18:41] our property. We have soup business licenses for both. We also are

[18:47] registered with the BC government for the vacation rental. So basically all

[18:53] our ducks are in order for 25 years. this bylaw amendment not allowing a

[19:00] vacation rental and BNB on the same property and reclassifying away from

[19:08] homebased business will destroy our means of income. That's that's what

[19:14] it'll do. The district of Souk staff are bringing forth this amendment to

[19:19] modernize Souk's regulation on shortterm rental accommodations.

[19:26] As far as we can determine, Kathy and I, we are the only parcel

[19:31] affected in suit in all of soup and we were never consulted

[19:37] and the question is why are you doing this?

[19:41] But anyways, the bottom line is we are directly affected affected negatively

[19:47] and trust that you will not adopt this bylaw as written or you will grant us

[19:52] lawful non-conforming status. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Hicks.

[20:01] Is there anybody else wish to speak on this matter?

[20:14] » Once again, your name and uh the community you live in.

[20:22] » Yeah. Press thing. Here we go. >> Yeah.

[20:24] » Sorry. Uh Dave Saunders uh family owns property on W and Spit. I live in

[20:29] Machosen but I represent my family own that property and within spit for over

[20:33] 60 years. Um I've supplied uh our CIO uh with a email. I believe there's overlap

[20:41] between the two um issues respective of vacation and tourism and the redefining

[20:49] of uh the land use. I don't believe in any of the

[20:56] reports that I've seen uh that deals with fair and equitable taxation with

[21:01] respect to either residential, commercial or ALR. I believe some of

[21:07] what is proposed benefits ALR over and above what was just uh professed here by

[21:14] Mr. Hicks and Kathy uh their long-term existence. I've been asked to speak uh

[21:22] because of the fairness. Um it doesn't really affect us so much because our

[21:26] property is ALR, so we would benefit if we did uh have short-term rental on

[21:32] here, but it certainly wouldn't be fair to those other entities. I don't believe

[21:36] that we've done enough homework. I also believe that there's been two members of

[21:40] the land use committee that have prejudiced the process and my email

[21:44] speaks to that. I can provide evidence to that when I've circulated that to

[21:48] mayor and council and that's through disclosure and whatnot. So I would just

[21:53] uh say maybe put the brakes on this until such time that you've fully

[21:57] researched the fair and equitable taxation related to the overlap with

[22:01] respect to what I've presented both at this council meeting and the previous.

[22:06] Thank you very much. >> Thank you.

[22:11] Is there any questions for the person speaking? Hearing

[22:16] none. Will anybody else wish to speak?

[22:21] Hearing none, then I'm going to close the public hearing and and go on to uh

[22:27] regular business.

[22:48] I'll move that. Thank you.

[23:08] Uh, yes. The only thing I want to add to the report was just a special shout out

[23:11] to the artists um that um have their [clears throat] artwork displayed on the

[23:15] new banners hanging around town um Megan and and Kathy um have some beautiful

[23:19] pieces there that are now decorating our town and u just want a special thank you

[23:24] to them and uh the soup fine art show for um supporting their work.

[23:30] » Thank you. Any any questions for our CEO in regards to that report?

[23:36] » Yeah, I'll I'll throw a question out. >> Okay, there you go. Councelor Baitton

[23:39] » through through you to our CEO. I note you uh have the item intersection is

[23:43] part. Can you give us the quick update for those who have not read the report?

[23:48] » Uh for sure. Uh through the deputy mayor, councelor Baitman. Uh the more

[23:52] update, the last uh update I am aware of is I believe they're planning on um

[23:57] setting up in the parks as they're leasing some of the space for us during

[24:00] the duration of the project. Uh they said uh late August, early September, I

[24:06] believe uh the tender closed and um I I know that some people may see on-point

[24:11] signs and some trucks around there. So the prog the project is uh progressing

[24:15] just a little bit of delay closing the tender but um the last we've heard is um

[24:19] starting in September uh there should be more noticed activity in the area.

[24:25] » Thank you. Any more questions for >> and just in terms of road closures and

[24:29] hours of of work you have a I think we've heard before that we're going to

[24:34] be sensitive. >> Uh yes through the uh deputy mayor

[24:38] council Baitman. Uh I know a bit there'll be a bit more um calm

[24:41] communications going out when um we know a bit more from the province on the

[24:45] timeline but I know I was attended a meeting with the school district as well

[24:50] on this subject. Of course they're concerned with cenos there and the

[24:53] province is assured um that there'll be communication well in advance if they

[24:57] ever do need to close the road they um or or divert traffic. It'll be um

[25:02] obviously at later on in the evening's time as well as during the school year

[25:07] they will have um fencing up on the site uh to ensure safe crossing for the

[25:13] children and parents. Uh drop off areas will be repositioned in the short term.

[25:18] So um yeah, more details to come on that but but they are aware of the issues and

[25:23] um don't know the timelines if they do need to temporarily close the road for a

[25:27] certain phase of the project. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for

[25:31] our CEO? Hearing none, we'll proceed on to the

[25:36] public question and comment period. This is a time for any member of the public

[25:40] to come and comment about any other item that's on our agenda other than 10.1.

[25:45] You'll be given two minutes if you wish to come up and uh state your name and

[25:49] the community you live.

[26:02] on. Oh, Ellen Lur's uh Cenos.

[26:08] Um I I want to talk to 10.3 the permiss permissive tax exemption application

[26:13] from from uh catalyst. Um I know that it's up for passing today. Now, I just

[26:20] wanted to say that uh I did talk to staff and and it wasn't uh uh necessary

[26:28] to to pass the pass the permissive tax exemption in order for the medical

[26:32] center to happen. That wasn't a caveat that was being held over our heads just

[26:38] for council's information because they were starting in 20 by the end of 2026.

[26:45] And also they're they're a development company and uh when you look at the

[26:51] amount [clears throat] of money >> this could you please not talk while our

[26:56] public or >> the amount of monies that are

[26:58] » just a sec one I'm going to give you some more time please do not

[27:05] we have the person speaking here and I'm having trouble hearing it with the

[27:08] background talking so okay we'll continue on. Thank you Miss Lewis. So uh

[27:14] the amount of monies doesn't seem like a lot lot,000

[27:19] but without the permissive tax it'd be 447,000

[27:25] and and uh these people are already getting tax on

[27:29] the commercial part in the bottom or not tax income from the commercial part in

[27:35] the bottom which is for the doctor's offices and uh for the other 70% of the

[27:42] affordable able or at at um market value. So I I I don't think we should be

[27:50] giving permiss giving uh tax exemption to people who are developing. We already

[27:55] gave them as uh councelor Haldane said that at the last meeting that we gave

[27:59] them a pretty expensive piece of property and we gave them a lot of um um

[28:05] you know parking and all kinds of exemptions that they already and I don't

[28:10] think we should be seeing tax exemptions especially in light of the fact that we

[28:14] are already paying way too many taxes and the pro people are suffering. So I

[28:19] think that that should be looked at more. It's not necessary to give them

[28:23] tax exemption. They ask for it. They'll ask for the work. Everybody asks for as

[28:28] much as they can get. Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze, squeeze. But we have there's a

[28:32] point you have to say no. >> And uh I also another um question I

[28:37] have. >> Miss Lures, your your uh time is up.

[28:40] » I know, but is it very short? >> Yes, very short. I just want I'll give

[28:44] you I just want to know give you some latitude. I just want to know why the um

[28:50] do we know if the medical center when it's built is going to be built with

[28:54] medical equipment in it and is it going to be staffed? Do we have staff work? I

[28:59] just a question. I've never heard anybody say that it's going to be

[29:02] equipped with medical equipment. >> Okay. Well, we'll we'll check that

[29:05] question in a minute. Uh I'll go to um staff if they have that answer. My

[29:10] understanding is uh VIHA uh will be looking after that portion of it. I

[29:14] don't know much more. Uh the deputy mayor uh yes that's my understanding is

[29:20] the staffing model hasn't been um decided yet but it will be run uh by

[29:24] Island Health and as far as the equipment in place again that's hasn't

[29:27] been determined but as far as I know like it's not set up for X-ray I know a

[29:31] few samples have been thrown examples have been thrown around um

[29:35] [clears throat] over the years and so it's not X-ray is not scheduled to move

[29:38] in there that's a separate entity with a separate I know they'll be reaching out

[29:42] to confirm if they wanted it but >> uh yes it would be Alan health. Sorry.

[29:46] » Okay. Thank you, Miss Lewis. >> Okay.

[29:50] » Anybody else like this opportunity to speak?

[29:53] » Yes. State your name and your community,

[29:57] please.

[30:03] » My name's Veronica Pbertton Billing. I live in Sun River Souk. It's good to be

[30:07] with you. Appreciate your work. Uh I'm going to speak on two things in my two

[30:12] minutes. One is I just want to underscore what Mrs. Lure said about tax

[30:15] exemptions. I can't remember the exact uh number and I don't have it in my at

[30:21] my fingertips, but I seem to recall Mayor Tate speaking about every 1% like

[30:26] every 120,000 or maybe it's a bit more is equal to a 1% increase on the tax

[30:33] load of our homeowners. And so this is a serious thing. And I I don't think we to

[30:38] give the tax exemption there is to force pressure on the homeowners that are

[30:44] struggling so much. So I I don't think we should be doing that. I also think

[30:48] the below market uh category is very confusing a below

[30:53] market rent because rents have been falling in Vancouver. So it is in fact

[30:57] possible for someone to offer or to have offered a below market rent last year

[31:02] that would be above market this year because the rents have been falling. So,

[31:06] it's a it's a bit of a questionable category. So, I would just say that and

[31:11] I'll leave that up to council. I wanted to speak principally on the ECOM. This

[31:16] is section 84 on the agenda, the ECOM 911 update and the projections for the

[31:22] increase over the next several years. And this is really concerning and I know

[31:26] council's concerned about it and I know everyone's concerned about it and I

[31:30] think we need to be looking at alternatives and I don't know what they

[31:33] are. I don't know if every single municipality uses this service, but it

[31:38] see that have exempted themselves from it. I

[31:42] don't know. But I I really think we need some creative I would say in the

[31:47] consulting out of the box thinking on this about how to you create an

[31:52] alternative because I just don't think we can sustain that uh level of increase

[31:58] and I think we need to be pushing back and pushing back hard and being willing

[32:02] to not do it. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[32:08] » Anybody else wish to speak? Come on up. Same thing. Your name and the community

[32:12] you live in, please.

[32:19] » Hello, my name is Patty Holm. I live in Souk. Uh we received a letter about um

[32:25] the application for variance and I'd like to speak to that please. Um my

[32:32] family uh my husband who's written a letter already that you have in your

[32:36] email package and myself and our other family member that share our home. We're

[32:41] all in agreement that we want to see this application denied and I'll outline

[32:46] some reasons. So the first reason is geotechnical

[32:51] hazard and I know that you do have a geotechnical

[32:54] somewhat of a report. Um I'd just like to speak a bit more about it. So the

[32:58] subject property for the variance application is located at the base of a

[33:02] steep slope. The existing slope is about 1.5 to 1 and 8 m high. It's likely near

[33:09] the maximum safe angle of repose. Any undercutting of the slope toe may

[33:15] destabilize the UPS slope. Some adjacent properties are reported to have had

[33:20] related slope instability issues already. So a geotechnical hazard report

[33:25] addressing the uphill slope risk and required remediation to current practice

[33:31] standards should be provided before the uh application for variances is

[33:37] considered. Secondly, it's a flooding risk. The subject property is located in

[33:42] the identified flood plane. Ocean level rise and increased wind and wave height

[33:47] associated with climate change may exacerbate this issue. This development

[33:52] will likely require alterations to the wetted perimeter shoreline and flood

[33:57] protection that should be studied before considering the variance permit.

[34:02] Thirdly, the foreshore and the repairarian protection and environmental

[34:06] impact developing within the 15 m shoreline. And just to be clear, the 15

[34:12] meter corp is what is the usual standard and this is being requested to be

[34:18] reduced to 3.09. That is a huge difference in variance.

[34:23] Um so developing within the 15 meter shoreline protected area may

[34:28] » holds. Uh you're out of time. If you got much more to go, I give I have some

[34:32] latitude here to give you another 30 seconds.

[34:34] » Okay, I can take 30 seconds. Thank you. So it it will adversely affect the first

[34:39] nations intertital zone. Um, typically residential developments

[34:45] for this kind of variance are not accepted unless it's it's um like a

[34:49] hardship case like a fire or something like that when it's allowed to be uh

[34:53] rebuilt. Finally, archaeological concerns. People have lived in that area

[34:58] for a thousand years at least thousands of years and there should be a full

[35:03] archaeological study instead of just finding things when the construction is

[35:07] being done. >> Thank you for listening. Anybody

[35:13] else take this opportunity?

[35:18] » Once again, state your name, your community, and what uh item you're

[35:22] speaking to. >> Yeah, my name is Chris Rein. Uh Souk. Um

[35:28] I'm currently the president of the Fredmill Park Society. I'm here to

[35:31] discuss our recent rental changes for our user groups. Fredmill Park is a

[35:35] private facility owned by the community association and operated by the Fredmill

[35:39] Park Society. This facility currently received zero tax dollars and zero

[35:43] support from the municipality of souk. The new rates were decided by the

[35:46] Fredmill park board and not the community association. In the past two

[35:50] years, the community association has provided more than 100k towards various

[35:54] park upgrades. Any negative attention towards a community association is

[35:57] simply unacceptable. I do not attend community association meetings or nor

[36:01] have I received any direction from the community association members. The

[36:05] Fredmill park has historically been run by volunteers from both the Souk soccer

[36:08] club and the souk slow pitch societies. Fredmill park has always charged a

[36:12] minimum rent on the understanding each organization was putting money away for

[36:16] future park upgrades. Unfortunately, the current soccer executive has no desire

[36:20] to collaborate and assist with park upgrades. Ju just cause constantly. Do

[36:24] we have that on the agenda? Uh >> I'm looking for it as he's speaking. He

[36:29] did speak a number. >> I was waiting to double check. Yeah. If

[36:31] there was course I need some clarification then I'll let him continue

[36:34] it. But >> yeah. Are you speaking to a certain item

[36:37] on the agenda? Is it public? >> No. It has to be an item on the agenda.

[36:42] So that's why I was trying to double check if it was either in the

[36:44] correspondence package or in the minutes >> um from the last meeting. So yeah.

[36:48] Sorry. No, I was just uh

[36:53] » so I I have to go to our CEO to see if that's okay to continue.

[37:00] » Yeah, you got halfway through anyway. So,

[37:05] [laughter] >> uh yes, sorry. It is an item on the

[37:08] correspondence agenda, so it's fine. So, the item you're speaking to, sorry, the

[37:12] correspondence agenda item. >> Okay, you continue. Thank you.

[37:15] » Thank you. Speaking for soccer, Pete McCay claimed

[37:18] the Fred Park Society voted on these increases without a representative from

[37:22] soccer being present. This is simply untrue. Souk soccer had two

[37:26] representatives at the vote when the rent was changed. We're at a point where

[37:29] our turf is on its final legs. We're hoping to get five more years. The

[37:32] expected cost to replace is $1 million. The decision to increase our rental

[37:36] rates was not made lightly. Without support from the district of Sue, we

[37:40] simply have no choice. If we suddenly have no turf field in 5 years, how would

[37:43] the community respond? This is more than a few soccer fields. This is more than

[37:47] slow pitch ball fields. This is the largest public, remember, it's private

[37:51] property, green space in the District of Souk. When the facility isn't booked,

[37:55] it'll often be full. It might be people playing soccer on the turf with a

[37:59] different group playing football. At the same time, there are groups of people

[38:01] playing frisbee, baseball, or simply hanging out on the grass. Private or

[38:05] not, what you think of it or not, this is a public space the public uses, and

[38:09] we love it. The public using the facility puts wear and tear onto it.

[38:13] That wear and tear requires maintenance. It's time the district pursuit steps up.

[38:17] It's time the district put some funds towards these facilities. Lastly, all

[38:21] the funds sent to Fredmill Park stay with Fred Park. No funds received from

[38:25] by Fred Park go to the community association. The community association

[38:28] provides Fredmill Park with funds. They do not take away to the community. Get

[38:34] off your keyboard. Step up. Volunteer. Thank you for your time.

[38:38] » Thank you. >> Any questions? No, I just I there any

[38:43] questions for the individual? >> Okay, thank you for your

[38:48] » anybody else wish to speak with any other items other than 10.1.

[38:55] » Once again, your name and your location and 6507 Water Street.

[39:01] » Okay. >> And your name again?

[39:05] » Wilfrid Kanga. K L I N G S A T. >> Go ahead. I've been endeavoring to build

[39:11] a building on this property for two and a half years now and I've had all the

[39:16] variances passed and at the last committee varants were passed. Uh they

[39:21] brought up the point that the district said I would have to pay $107,000 for

[39:26] the road front. I was u I was confused by it and I sort of agreed to it, but

[39:33] I'm really against it and I'm hoping council will give consideration for the

[39:38] hardship this places on me for $107,000 added to the cost that I've incurred

[39:43] already. I'm about $100,000 into this thing without even a building permit.

[39:49] So, I'm just asking you guys if you could just consider this to lower it

[39:52] down or anything would help it. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm sure we'll take

[39:56] that into consideration when we discuss that later on.

[39:59] » Thank you. Anybody else at this time? Okay.

[40:06] » Once again, your name, your community, and what item you're speaking.

[40:11] » Oh, uh, Dave Mccclimman, Souk. I'm speaking on 8.3. I think it's the CEO

[40:17] report on Philips Road connector. That correct?

[40:22] So, I've I've been on that property for a long

[40:27] time. I've done some work on that for the District of Suit, the trail. I'm not

[40:31] in favor of the uh I'm only in favor of the 20 mill 20 meter rightway. I don't

[40:36] think we need to spend our money on an elaborate roadway. I believe we should

[40:40] get the uh rightway from the uh CRD now. So, eventually we could build the road

[40:47] out bigger when we have the the funds to do it. So, at this time, I think it's a

[40:52] safe alternative to the extravagant plan that I've seen

[40:57] with many different engineers over 20 years. I've talked about it with them.

[41:02] I've walked it with them. I just think we need a two-lane road with a bike lane

[41:06] on one side. I think it'd be safe enough and that would meet our needs of today.

[41:12] And so, it' be an interimm road until we're ready to spend the money. I don't

[41:16] think the taxpayers are going to want to spend that much money and it's

[41:21] going to fail and we won't have a road. We need a road. We've been talking about

[41:24] this for 30 years and it's time that we get

[41:29] it done. Thank you for your time.

[41:35] » Any other speakers? Okay. Again, your name and the item you're

[41:41] speaking to. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. uh citizens uh

[41:45] staff uh Dave Saunders uh the item I'm speaking to is 10.6 six and the minutes

[41:50] uh also the minutes just want to speak to the minutes I've uh given an email to

[41:56] uh the CEO the minutes are incorrect with respect to my statements at the

[42:00] last meeting but more importantly um there was new information about troop

[42:04] road connector and I had asked what I thought was a simple question to some

[42:08] members of council about a 25 meter rightway and the impact to a legacy art

[42:14] Morris Park ballpark uh I'm speaking to you now was a former

[42:19] president, past president of Lanford Minor Fastball. Had three daughters in

[42:23] fastball, coached them for 15 years, coached many uh young ladies from Souk

[42:28] in fastball. So when I heard our mayor talk about generations or future

[42:32] generations for the impact on a 25 meter road, I can tell you the impact on the

[42:37] generation right now that are using that ballpark equated to a 25 m impact is not

[42:44] conducive to having that park last in perpetuity.

[42:50] I'm concerned about future generations that use that legacy park. The impact of

[42:55] 25 m. You learned the impact. Staff knew about the impact and a simple question

[43:02] was asked. Will it impact the park? Yes, it will impact the park with respect to

[43:07] parking and loss of field space. That park is one of the best parks in all our

[43:12] entire region. Coached here for 15 years. Sports kept me from the bad side

[43:19] of drugs and alcohol and being on the streets. If I had not had sports in my

[43:24] youth, I may be different today. I've coached many women and young ladies and

[43:31] males in the sport of hockey and fastball. I can say very clearly that

[43:36] the impact of this park on the future generations will impact our youth. It's

[43:42] not acceptable. Please reconsider the road design. It doesn't impact that

[43:47] park. Thank you. You right on time.

[43:53] Okay, next person. Same drill. Your name, uh, what community you live

[43:58] in and what item you're speaking to. >> Absolutely. My name is Katie Grieve. I'm

[44:02] also a resident of Souk and I am speaking regarding the group road

[44:06] bypass. >> Um, and specifically regarding the loss

[44:10] of a park at Art Morris. I grew up playing on that park. My brother did. My

[44:14] dad did. Um, I have spent a lot of time giving back to Souk as well. I can speak

[44:20] from experience that we do not have enough youth fields anywhere on this

[44:24] island. And there's already concerns from other leagues, be it baseball,

[44:29] soccer, football, as to where they can find fields based flight. Boozing a

[44:34] field at Art Morris is detrimental to that. It's really unnecessary. I agree

[44:40] with Dave that we do not need a 25 meter bypass. It's absolutely unnecessary.

[44:46] Adding in a bike lane, absolutely. I can see that being very beneficial,

[44:50] especially with the school very close by, but anything more than that is

[44:54] frankly ridiculous and a misuse of funds.

[44:59] And that's essentially all that I have to say about that.

[45:01] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[45:05] » Anybody else? Please come forward again. State your name, what you're

[45:10] speaking to in your community. >> Hello, my name is Brian Banner, live in

[45:14] Souk. I'm speaking on item 8.3. Uh, good evening, mayor and council.

[45:21] I'm the vice president of Souk Minor Fastball Association. I'm here tonight

[45:25] because I support the throughpro connector. In fact, it's unbelievable

[45:28] this road still hasn't been built in more than 20 years of discussion. Souk

[45:32] needs another connection, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

[45:36] What I don't understand is how we've gone from building a muchneeded

[45:39] connector road to a proposal of 25 m rightway with an estimated cost of

[45:43] around $50 million at the expense of one of the most important recreation

[45:48] facilities in our community. Art Morris Park has served the community for more

[45:52] than 70 years. It wasn't built by the district. It was built by volunteers,

[45:57] fundraising grants, local sponsors, and thousands of hours of hard work by

[46:02] people who wanted to give their kids a place to play.

[46:06] and it's owned by the Souk Community Association. What concerns me the most

[46:10] is we're talking about taking recreation away from the community that already

[46:14] already doesn't have enough. Over the past 20 years, Souk has grown

[46:18] dramatically. But our recreation infrastructure has not kept up. We need

[46:22] more ball diamonds. We need a second sheet of ice. We need more soccer

[46:26] fields. We need more indoor recreation, not less. Every week, Souk families

[46:32] leave town because we don't have enough facilities for our kids. They travel to

[46:35] Langford, Cwood, Victoria, and beyond just to play sports they love. That

[46:39] shouldn't be a reality in a community of our size.

[46:43] And if we're going to lose ball diamonds, parking, and pickle ball

[46:46] courts, where where's the replacement plant? Where are the new facilities? How

[46:51] will they be funded? Those are the questions our community deserves answers

[46:54] to before a decision is made. I'm not asking to stop a Through Pro Connector.

[46:59] I'm asking to find a way to build it while protecting Art Morris Park. We

[47:03] shouldn't have to choose between transportation and recreation.

[47:06] A grow a growing community deserves both. Please don't solve one problem by

[47:11] creating another. Thank you.

[47:16] Anybody else?

[47:20] Once again, your name, your community, and what item, please.

[47:24] » Okay. Um, my name is uh Dell Gibbs and it's concerning the th road. Um, mainly

[47:30] the Art Morris um baseball park um Art Morris is my

[47:37] grandfather and at the time art worked for a man named Eric Bernard after and

[47:43] after his death Mr. Bernard donated that land to the ball field and is now on is

[47:50] now on in memory and perpetuity to Art Morris and Souk. I'm thankful for all

[47:55] the volunteers that have done all the hard work. Um Souk has turned out a lot

[48:00] of known great ball teams because of those fields. Uh the conductor road is

[48:06] proposed and is definitely needed to ease congestion through suit during peak

[48:11] times. Um the area is very sportsminded with the golf course, Souks gate park,

[48:17] pickle ball courts, the baseball field, plus the nearby schools of Poyet and

[48:22] Journey Middle. The school is classified as a connector or the road is classified

[48:27] as a connector road and schools the speed limit will be 30 kilometers an

[48:32] hour in that area. It would be beneficial to narrow the road width as a

[48:38] deterrent to speeders and hopefully prevent any encroachment to the baseball

[48:42] park property lines. And as it is, I have two young grandsons in the area and

[48:48] they will becoming baseball players in the future. Um they will have a sense of

[48:52] pride in deeply rooted family history to see their great greatgrandfather's name

[48:58] um and legacy on a sign. Thank you. Please narrow the road.

[49:04] you. Anybody else?

[49:08] Again, state your name, your community, and uh what item you're speaking to.

[49:14] » Okay. My name is Matt Banner. Speaking item 8.3.

[49:18] I was born and raised in Souk. My family's lived here for over 100 years.

[49:22] Like many of the kids raised here, I played fastball.

[49:25] Some of the best memories I have are playing sports in general. As I get

[49:29] older, as the kids got older, we had to leave sports to play elsewhere. And Souk

[49:33] didn't have the leagues nor facilities to support higher levels of play with

[49:36] the exception of fastball. I have two active sporty sons. I don't want them or

[49:40] the next generation of Sug athletes to have to leave Souk to play competitive

[49:44] sports we love because we have no facilities left.

[49:48] I've been following council's discussion about the fruit road connector and I

[49:51] struggle with it from an industry perspective. I agree this road needs to

[49:55] be built. What growing community with any sort of plan doesn't have a bypass

[49:59] road? I'm blown away at the costs. I'm shocked at the notion we would sacrifice

[50:03] the softball fields my family and friends have spent thousands of hours

[50:06] building and maintaining and they're still in good condition. Professionally,

[50:10] I'm a general contractor with over 20 years of experience in road

[50:13] construction, underground servicing, and land development. Listen to council

[50:16] discussions. It seems to me there's only a few counselors that under that that

[50:21] recognize this is a complex engineering project with more than one path to a

[50:24] safe and effective outcome performance and financially. As a contractor, I know

[50:30] I knew and I wanted to prove that there was a better way. In discussions with my

[50:33] engineering firm, Onpoint Engineers, I've had them prepare an alternative

[50:37] through road connector concept and construction estimate from Souk Road up

[50:41] Phillips to Church. The engineers confirmed there is a much better way.

[50:45] There also can be an interim road with two travel lanes, a center turn lane, a

[50:49] sidewalk, a bike lane that meets specs and transportation needs. And we can do

[50:53] this while protecting the sports field, neighboring properties, all within a 20

[50:57] m rightway, which I will add works in every other community in Western Canada

[51:01] that I've worked in. The estimate that we came up with so far has come up at

[51:06] $15 million and will include a 25% contingency. That's a fraction of the

[51:11] cost being recorded recommended by the majority of mayor and

[51:15] council. This shows the road can be built sooner. It meets and needs any

[51:20] safety requirements. It can protect recreation. It can preserve the option

[51:24] to build the ultimate road if and when it's ever needed, which I don't really

[51:26] feel that it would need to be in the community.

[51:28] » Mr. Banner, you're just out of time. How much longer have you do you need?

[51:31] » Two lines. >> Okay, go ahead.

[51:33] » Most importantly, we'll build a road when we can afford it. Okay.

[51:37] » Thank you.

[51:48] Rob Pierce, uh, 2407 Popular Sun River. I've been to a few meetings here when

[51:54] you guys have been talking about the Through Road Connector, and for the life

[51:57] of me, I cannot understand why the majority of council, the mayor, and

[52:02] staff seems hellbent on this $50 million project. We can't afford it. Simple. Now

[52:09] you're talking about taking land from a recreation facility that we don't have

[52:13] enough of in Souk. It's ridiculous. It's It's ridiculous. It's It needs to be

[52:22] relooked at. We can have the road. We can have the sports facility that's

[52:26] already there. It's a win-win. Stop throwing $50

[52:32] million around. It's ridiculous. And no, I'm going to leave it at that.

[52:37] » Thank you,

[52:43] CEO. >> I just wanted to make you aware I think

[52:45] we're very close to 20 minutes of >> one more speaker, please.

[52:58] » I too want to speak to the Super Road connector. As I've spoken before, I

[53:02] think it's ridiculous that we're looking at building something bigger than our

[53:06] souk road, our highway, looking at a bypass. It's ridiculous. It's 25 m is

[53:15] way out of whack. And I do like what Mr. Banner proposed. And I hope that council

[53:20] would go back to this and look at this and and um uh say no to this $50 million

[53:27] question going on a on a uh referendum. I I think it's totally insane. And uh

[53:35] talk to the people that live here. There's a lot of people that know. And I

[53:38] also had five grandsons that went through that ball field

[53:48] off. Sorry. So So looking at everybody else's forgot mine. That ends our public

[53:54] question and comment period. Thank you everybody that took the time to comment

[53:57] on some very tough issues that are we're facing in our community. Um I'm pretty

[54:02] sure council is listening and uh we'll see where it goes from there.

[54:11] Okay. Now we'll go to the consent agenda that the following items in the consent

[54:16] agenda be adopted as uh by consent 8.2 8.3 and 8.4. Is there anybody want to

[54:23] pull any of those? Councelor Pearson

[54:32] » 10J through connector uh from Dave Saunders

[54:38] 19F

[54:41] zoning amendment uh bylaw 54 947 Mike and Kathy Hicks. And I'll have to ask

[54:47] the corporate officer through through me through the chair.

[54:52] » Um I'm asking for that after a public hearing has been. So this isn't this

[54:57] this is already here. >> It's in the agenda. So is it it's

[55:01] acceptable? It's not we're not receiving more information. It's my question.

[55:04] » Uh through the deputy mayor to councelor Pearson. Uh that is my understanding is

[55:09] it's not new information. Uh it's already been included on the agenda.

[55:12] Just now that the public hearing is closed, council is not allowed to

[55:14] receive any new information. >> Okay.

[55:16] » So, this is not considered >> I didn't want to jeopardize the public

[55:19] hearing. >> Thank you.

[55:20] » And 22.1 uh engineering safety matter and

[55:24] petition uh from Miss Parks T. Parks. >> Those three items, please.

[55:31] » Thank you. >> Uh all right. So then all those other

[55:35] items. Uh council.

[55:40] » Yeah. So I'd like to pull 8H Ella Beach behaviors Fred Brown.

[55:45] Okay, that's recorded. And yeah,

[55:51] » Mr. Haldane. Sorry, Council Hold. >> Yes, please. Um, I would like to take

[55:56] out 7G and 18E.

[56:04] » So, my understanding, it's correct me if I'm wrong, CAO, that will come up at the

[56:08] next meeting. >> Correct. Thank you.

[56:12] » All right, with that, uh, we have a vote on all the other items. Uh, we remove

[56:18] those from correspondence, the 8.3 and 8.4. So, we have a motion. So, moved by

[56:23] councelor St. Pierre. We have a second here.

[56:26] Councelor Pearson. Any discussion to the motion? Hearing none. All those in

[56:31] favor? Unanimous. Thank you. Uh, report of the chief and

[56:39] I already had that, right?

[56:44] 9.1. It's good. Thank you. Uh, roof replacement, Pursuit Municipal Hall.

[56:49] That's a staff report.

[56:53] Thank you very much. Um, staff went out to tender for the roof

[56:59] replacement for this building and some work on the siding. Uh, we received four

[57:04] bids. only one was a qualified bid or compliant bid I should say. The other

[57:10] three were not non-compli were not compliant. Um therefore with a compliant

[57:16] bid within budget we are proposing to award to

[57:22] uh Regal Roofing for 234,754.

[57:32] So that's our staff report. Any questions from councel?

[57:37] Council Pearson. >> Yes. Thank you, chair. Through to the uh

[57:41] district engineer. Um are we changing the type of roof that we're getting?

[57:46] Like 234K. That sounds like a huge amount of money.

[57:50] What's the price per square meter or square they used to call? What I used to

[57:55] put or deal with through the deputy mayor to the council. Uh I can't tell

[58:01] you the cost because that would be proprietary information for through the

[58:06] bid. It is an ashalt roof which is pretty standard for a building. And this

[58:12] is a fairly large building to replace its roof plus and its elevation and

[58:18] slope and such. So that's not in my mind too unreasonable the the dollar amount.

[58:24] And that is what we were looking at when we budgeted for this project in the in

[58:29] the 26 budget. >> Okay. And just one follow-up question.

[58:33] And how old is this? How old is our roof now?

[58:38] » I would have to go back and double check because that predates me by quite some

[58:43] time, but it's probably beyond 20 years or more

[58:46] » at least. Yeah, >> it's the original roof. I did it.

[58:49] » That's my understanding. Okay. Thank you. Any other counselors wish to speak?

[58:55] Okay. Councelor Haldane. >> Yes. Thank you. Um, so when you say you

[59:00] we we budgeted for this, all I've seen in the report was a budget for 70 and

[59:04] something,000 for windows, roofing, and a bunch of other repairs. So what was

[59:08] budgeted for the roof in the breakdown? >> I would have to go back and double

[59:13] check, but I believe it was close to 250K for doing the roofing.

[59:18] » And And who came up with that? Where where do we get that number? That would

[59:22] be from our consultant. >> We hired a consultant to come up with an

[59:25] amount of roof or we we've sent it out to tender to get.

[59:29] » They prepared the tender and administered it for us and part of that

[59:33] was preparing the uh cost estimate for doing the work.

[59:37] » Okay. And and lastly, during u the budget deliberations this year, we

[59:42] talked about a lot of these uh costs and expectations and it was brought up by me

[59:47] and and it brought up on more than one occasion about using local contractors

[59:50] and local people. And in this case, we go out to BC bid. We throw it out there

[59:55] from June 29th to July 13th, so a two-e period. And we don't inform local

[1:00:00] people. And it's been said time and time again. We have a soup builders

[1:00:05] association that we didn't ask about any of it. So, they had no idea that we're

[1:00:10] going out to these bids. So, it's I guess it's it's up to each person to go

[1:00:14] on BC bid anytime uh the district suit decides they're going to put something

[1:00:18] out, but not everybody has BC bid as part of their computer system. So, can't

[1:00:24] we do it in the future where we go to some local contractors and we have many

[1:00:27] roofing contractors and suggest put on here right now was done by a

[1:00:32] local roofing contractor originally. I'm not sure what process he had to go

[1:00:36] through, but the roofs lasted for the 30 years it was built in 96. So, um I would

[1:00:41] think at this point we could go to another local suit guy where people who

[1:00:44] pay local taxes here could get to work. So, I'll be voting against this. Thank

[1:00:49] you. >> Mr. Mr. Miller, would you like to

[1:00:52] comment? >> Uh, your worship. Um,

[1:00:57] basically we have a purchasing policy within the district. We also have the

[1:01:04] provincial trade requirements through trade agreements that anything over a

[1:01:09] 100,000 in construction has to be open bid. And we also have a Supreme Court

[1:01:15] decision that basically struck down local preference um clauses that made it

[1:01:21] impossible for municipalities to do that without running the risk of lawsuits. So

[1:01:28] um we can't make anyone bid. That is a decision the biders make, but we do

[1:01:34] follow the process as set out by the province and by tender law.

[1:01:40] » Thank you Miller. and our CEO would like to comment.

[1:01:43] » Uh and just one further uh comment in regards to uh local uh businesses

[1:01:48] knowing about BC bid procurement. Uh we did speak with our MLA uh Leanness and

[1:01:53] my understanding was he was planning to organize and host a session for

[1:01:57] businesses on how to uh submit bids to BC bid because it's not just souk that

[1:02:03] has this requirement to post um requests for proposals etc on BC bid. other

[1:02:08] municipalities, other levels of government as well use this system. So I

[1:02:12] believe um potentially uh MLA Lajanesh could be a resource because he was going

[1:02:16] to coordinate and offer a community session information session on how to uh

[1:02:20] procure uh or submit bids for contracts on BCB as well.

[1:02:24] » Thank you. >> Anybody else? Councelor Baitman.

[1:02:28] » Yeah, thank you for for all this. Um a few points. I I believe a consultant was

[1:02:32] hired to look at the entirety of the municipal hall and all the work that

[1:02:35] needed to be done within this aging building. So, councelor Haldane, I think

[1:02:40] we've discussed this before as well. We've also discussed local um bids to lo

[1:02:46] to local uh suppliers and I do see that we had one uh local um local company did

[1:02:53] bid on this project and they clearly did not meet the the uh the policy uh

[1:03:00] approach to uh submission.

[1:03:05] Uh what's the word I'm looking for? you know where I'm going with that. So, and

[1:03:10] yeah, for I our house, a 1600 square foot uh residence, uh $20,000 to put a

[1:03:17] new roof on that. So, I I guess 20 What was that? 230 is not a bad

[1:03:23] » 2347. >> Okay. 224. Okay.

[1:03:30] Anybody else council?

[1:03:35] Okay. And hearing none, then I'll call for the motion the council award the

[1:03:38] roof replacement municipal hall project contract to regal roofing in the amount

[1:03:44] of 234,754 excluding GST. Do I have someone making

[1:03:49] that motion? Councelor St. Pierre, do I have a second? Councelor Baitman. Okay.

[1:03:54] Any discussion to the motion? So, councelor Pearson. Oh.

[1:04:00] » Oh, sorry. Yeah, sorry. I should go to the movers first. So, we'll go to

[1:04:03] councelor St. Pierre. Uh so I appreciate councelor Haldane's

[1:04:08] uh points about trying to hire local people and I think that's actually what

[1:04:11] we should be doing. Uh having said that uh we are constrained by the Supreme

[1:04:16] Court and various other nonsensical rules to not do what makes more sense

[1:04:20] for our community. Um I think the work that the staff has done on essentially

[1:04:27] keeping us more or less under the proposed budget of the contractor and um

[1:04:31] getting the job done makes sense. I feel it's unfortunate we're still using

[1:04:34] ashalt when we probably should be using metal even though it's more expensive

[1:04:39] but it lasts a hell of a lot longer doesn't burn and given that we you know

[1:04:43] have risks in that direction that would make sense to me but given that we're

[1:04:47] looking already at 234 for something that does burn I guess we're going to

[1:04:52] we're going to skip the fire smarting and go to ashvalt

[1:04:55] but having said that I think the work is good and we do need a new roof and this

[1:04:59] is what is budgeted and this is the tender process we Council

[1:05:03] Baitman. >> Yeah. Well, that's fine. Thank you.

[1:05:07] » Hey, Council Pearson. Yeah. Well, it's it just every time we award one of these

[1:05:12] contracts and it goes out of town, it feels counterintuitive to what we're

[1:05:15] doing, what we should be doing. You know, we're trying to get traffic off

[1:05:18] the road, we've got congestion, we've got, you know, greenhouse gases, all of

[1:05:22] the things that get improved. So, there's something missing in our system

[1:05:27] of either a getting qualified contractors. You know, the economy is

[1:05:30] tough right now. Builders are out of work or you know, it it's slowing down

[1:05:35] certainly and this is another example of where we could employ local people and

[1:05:39] do all the right things. So, something's wrong with our system in my opinion.

[1:05:43] However, anybody else?

[1:05:48] Okay, hearing from nobody else, I'll make my comments. Um, I think staff has

[1:05:53] followed the procedures as been outlined following provincial law. The other

[1:05:57] thing that wasn't mentioned is that uh if we do in in future adopt the process

[1:06:02] where we give favor favoritism to uh people that are registered in souk uh

[1:06:08] then that allows Langford to do to do the same and then uh that could cut out

[1:06:13] a lot of our souk uh contractors and our best souk contractors don't just work in

[1:06:18] souk they work in the capital region district so you also put that in

[1:06:22] jeopardy when you keep everything in house langford who keep everything in

[1:06:26] house call to keep everything in house. The chosen keep everything in house and

[1:06:30] that limits our our contractors. We live in a capital region district and we have

[1:06:35] to uh allow our contractors to uh move just because they live here and have

[1:06:40] their office here. They do need that work in those other areas. So uh I will

[1:06:45] be supporting this motion and uh at that I will call the question. All those in

[1:06:50] favor of the motion. All those against. Okay, that's three to

[1:06:55] two. That is passed. Thank you. All right. Next is development permit in

[1:07:01] with variance PLN01930 flood plane exemption

[1:07:07] staff report. >> Yeah. In summary, this application is

[1:07:10] requesting a a development permit. >> Sorry.

[1:07:16] » Oh, sorry. Yeah. Thank you, Councelor Haldane.

[1:07:29] Yes. So, in summary, um this application is requesting a development permit,

[1:07:33] flood plane exemption, and two variances to accommodate a proposed duplex

[1:07:37] development at 6507 Water Street. Um the zoning variance proposes to reduce the

[1:07:43] 15 m setback to the sea uh to 3.09 m for the dwelling and 1.2 m from the deck.

[1:07:51] There's also an SDS uh bylaw variance proposed to exempt the applicant from

[1:07:55] required frontage improvements at building permit.

[1:07:59] Uh the flood plan exemption is proposed due to the dwelling being proposed

[1:08:02] within 15 meters of the sea and a development permit is required due to

[1:08:07] the activity taking place near the shoreline and with steep slopes on the

[1:08:11] property. The LUDC considered this application on

[1:08:15] July 7th uh in support of the staff recommendation um which was to approve

[1:08:19] the develop permit zoning setback variance and flood plane exemption while

[1:08:23] denying the requested frontage uh improvement exemption variance. Um just

[1:08:28] one thing to note is that this item was inadvertently uh approved through the

[1:08:32] July 13th consent agenda before the required notice for the variance request

[1:08:37] had been completed. So the uh the first motion therefore rescends that approval.

[1:08:43] Um notification uh I can confirm notification has been completed and the

[1:08:47] remain motions return uh the application for council's consideration uh in

[1:08:51] accordance with the LUDC uh and mirroring the staff recommendation here

[1:08:55] today. Um so with that staff are available for questions uh and the

[1:08:59] applicant is uh also in attendance I believe still uh if there are questions

[1:09:03] directed directly for him. >> Okay. Um,

[1:09:08] we can either do it with having the motion on the floor, but I think I'll u

[1:09:12] have uh uh council ask questions now. They have some for staff.

[1:09:20] Anything? Councelor St. Pier. Um, so I recall that the

[1:09:28] the cost of $17,000 for the front improvements was based on a

[1:09:31] cross-section which um think council tended to think was probably more than

[1:09:38] was necessarily needed for that particular area for water street. Uh my

[1:09:42] understanding is that uh there would be the possibility of sending Zaka staff to

[1:09:46] look at an alternative cross-section that might have a reduced cost because

[1:09:50] that would make sense and would actually reduce the cost of the applicant. I

[1:09:53] believe that although there was some appetite on the part of council to

[1:09:56] actually do so um and this will be something to refer to the applicant

[1:10:00] again when the applicant was asked if they would want a delay to consider a

[1:10:06] potentially less expensive cross-section. they would reduce the

[1:10:09] frontage costs. Uh the response was I'd like to have

[1:10:13] this built before I die. Um or something along those lines. So I was curious at

[1:10:18] this point in time and I guess that might not be a question for staff so

[1:10:21] much for the applicant. What does the applicant actually prefer? Something

[1:10:24] more immediate get her done or more time spent to reduce the cost of frontage

[1:10:29] potentially?

[1:10:33] » I hope so. Yes, you may answer. Yes, you come up to the mic.

[1:10:39] Okay, I can I can repeat and and try and explain because I think it's important

[1:10:42] that you be very clear in what's being >> suggested here.

[1:10:46] » Right now, the only way potentially we have to reduce your frontage costs

[1:10:51] » is to look at a front at a a treatment for the road, you know, with sidewalks

[1:10:55] and so on that is less than what is in presently being asked. And it doesn't

[1:11:01] make sense to quite put as much as being asked in that particular road because

[1:11:04] that's a small area. it doesn't make sense necessarily to build out that

[1:11:07] much. So, if we went back to staff and said, "We need maybe a different

[1:11:11] alternative cross-section," chances are we could come back with

[1:11:15] something that's cheaper than $107,000, but it would take more time.

[1:11:22] And when you were previously asked if you willing to take more time, you

[1:11:26] indicated not.

[1:11:31] » Can you turn his microphone on? >> Turn on turn the mic, please. Uh, right.

[1:11:35] No, no, on the the long stem. Bottom of the long stem.

[1:11:39] » Other one. >> Other box.

[1:11:41] He's got off. >> So, so just to clarify,

[1:11:43] » I sorry, I thought I was confused and I thought I was going to get the the

[1:11:47] billing permit the next day and was explained to me after, no, you're not

[1:11:50] blah blah blah. So, I would have asked then it be reduced. I went along with

[1:11:55] this thing for about two and a half years and nobody ever mentioned this

[1:11:58] until that meeting that they would bring this up for $107,000.

[1:12:03] that so it was a big shock. >> Okay. So, but at this point in time,

[1:12:07] would you prefer an additional delay with the potential

[1:12:11] to reduce the cost of the >> If I could just ask you what would the

[1:12:14] additional be? You don't know. >> I don't know. We we probably we go to

[1:12:19] staff and uh if it goes back to relook at that portion of the uh what we're

[1:12:24] looking for road improvements, can you give me an idea what the delay would be?

[1:12:31] your to you council. Uh basically the delay would be we're not

[1:12:38] just redesigning this one portion of the road. We're going to create a whole new

[1:12:42] cross-section within the subdivision bylaw. So it would take me

[1:12:49] probably a month or two just to kind of find one that works through the whole

[1:12:54] situation. And again, I can't guarantee at this time that the new cross-section

[1:13:00] would be lesser what its cost would be because I would have to look at the road

[1:13:05] in its entirety, not just the frontage across this lot

[1:13:10] and see what type of cross-section. Then it would have to come back to council

[1:13:15] for adoption because it would form part of the subdivision bylaw. So, there is

[1:13:21] at least two council meetings in which to do that. Um,

[1:13:25] » and we're running out of council meetings.

[1:13:27] » Yeah. So, if I pushed it really, really hard and pushed a few things down to the

[1:13:33] bottom of the pile, I might be able to come back in September with a new

[1:13:38] cross-section and the amendment to the bylaw. Um,

[1:13:44] but beyond that, then I would be constrained by the municipal election.

[1:13:49] » Right. So, there is no immediate recourse for those. Well, they're going

[1:13:53] to get me both ways, I think. So, I might as well just agree to it.

[1:13:56] » Okay. >> Go with it.

[1:13:57] » Well, I guess so because they might come back and just say they want 107 or 106

[1:14:01] or something. >> I just want to make sure we were

[1:14:03] » Okay. >> Yeah. No, I understand. I appreciate

[1:14:05] that. >> And I appreciate your comments back.

[1:14:07] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:14:08] » You want to ask me? >> So, go ahead. Yeah. Council Pearson.

[1:14:12] » Okay. Yeah. Um

[1:14:18] through the chair through the chair to staff. I I not have a question for you

[1:14:21] in a minute. So >> when we discussed this

[1:14:26] in pri previous meetings it was it [snorts] was our request to consolidate

[1:14:31] these lots where there wouldn't have been any road

[1:14:35] frontage required right like we kind of debated that whole point is that because

[1:14:40] they consolidated and I my opinion is is that we actually just took three lots

[1:14:45] waterfront lots and then had most of their land in the water and somebody and

[1:14:49] I think wisely said well if we put them sideways,

[1:14:53] we can make a building site. It's a pretty uh you know, we heard from one

[1:14:58] member of the club, pretty treacherous site to to even kind of work with, but

[1:15:02] they've done they they've done all the work.

[1:15:04] Can we pass all the ports? My question to staff, can we pass all of the

[1:15:10] amendments with the exception of the road frontage improvement um and

[1:15:17] exercise cash in Lou? through the chair.

[1:15:22] » That's for staff to answer please. >> Sorry through the deputy mayor. So

[1:15:27] what's being uh requested right now is cash and

[1:15:30] » no my question two parts um Mr. manager of community planning um through

[1:15:38] the chair is can we pass the we've got how many variances we have here? One,

[1:15:44] two, three, four, right? Can we pass all four of them with the exception of

[1:15:52] the road improvements and then discuss that last one?

[1:15:59] And and I have a I have an idea and I I'm not going to surprise it. My idea is

[1:16:03] to pass those and then ask staff and the applicant to to negotiate a cash and loo

[1:16:10] settlement because I really believe this is one of these weird things. We asked,

[1:16:15] we consolidated those three lots. If he hadn't consolidated those lots, even

[1:16:20] though there are treacherous lots on the hill, they could be built without roads,

[1:16:25] right? >> On if if they had been consolidated,

[1:16:31] they could have been built without ro >> the deputy mayor staff

[1:16:36] » possibly. Yes, for your last question there. Um but I'll confirm here that

[1:16:41] procedurally yes, council can of course um pass the all all the motions with the

[1:16:45] exception of that the last one for frontage exemption. Um but when talking

[1:16:51] about um negotiating for cash and loot right now the the discussion is about

[1:16:55] cash and loot not construction.

[1:16:59] » That's a statement >> that could

[1:17:05] thank you for that answer. So I have to go back to our corporate

[1:17:10] officer or CEO the procedurally. I'm not familiar with this one.

[1:17:15] » Uh to the deputy mayor I believe if I'm understanding um Mr. Riley correctly. Um

[1:17:22] council can pass all those motions and defer commentary on the last motion in

[1:17:28] regards to the frontage. However, we'll still be in the same situation of delay.

[1:17:33] So, I guess if councelor Pearson was going to come up with alternative

[1:17:37] motion, maybe potentially is that what he's looking for? Um, we would just need

[1:17:42] to understand what that look like. >> I just need a little bit of recap for my

[1:17:45] own mind if we if we even if we separate this, we're still looking at uh delays

[1:17:52] in getting into the election. And uh the the member applying for this, the the

[1:17:58] citizen said that he's we just he wasn't really in favor of going on and on by

[1:18:04] this. That's what I heard. So, uh

[1:18:09] » correct. >> I I don't see if we separate it. We're

[1:18:11] just doing much the same thing as before, throwing it back to staff to

[1:18:15] negotiate with the the applicant and then and then we're right back at the

[1:18:20] same position we were before. So, it's just a different avenue to get there.

[1:18:25] Uh, it's still delays and the applicant said that uh he wasn't in favor of any

[1:18:30] more delays. So, yes, sir, Mr. Riley. >> Yes, just uh one point of clarification.

[1:18:36] So, with the all the uh uh permits, flood plane exemption variances being

[1:18:42] proposed, um all of them are contingent upon each other in order for this

[1:18:46] project to move forward with the exception of the frontage exemption

[1:18:50] variance. So if uh the uh variance to the sea, the variance to the flood plan

[1:18:56] exemption and also the um uh the development permits, if those are all

[1:19:01] approved together, the project may move forward to building permit. The only

[1:19:05] thing uh that is a barrier potentially for the owner would be the the cost of

[1:19:09] uh the cash and payment of $17,000 in accordance with the STS bylaw. So that

[1:19:15] that could be separated out. It would it would

[1:19:18] » the clarity that I needed. So it will not affect the issuing of the building

[1:19:22] uh permit or the he can go ahead with with the construction now then then the

[1:19:29] negotiation starts about the $107,000 of revenues.

[1:19:34] So what uh I need from the CEO uh what procedure is we just separate uh

[1:19:40] just a sec just a sec. I'm just asking the CEO question first. Now come to

[1:19:44] council m >> uh the through the deputy mayor. I

[1:19:48] believe uh you can put forward for council consideration uh the one two

[1:19:54] three all of the that motions and uh for now

[1:19:59] call the question on those if council is supportive of that and then defer the

[1:20:04] conversation on the last motion which is and that council deny the subdivision.

[1:20:09] Uh, if councelor Pearson or others want to have additional conversations on

[1:20:14] that, if you would like to close the loop on all of the first items,

[1:20:17] » I hear what you're saying. >> You can read out all of those items.

[1:20:19] » I think I can do that by chair to separate.

[1:20:22] » Correct. Correct. >> Yes. Yes. And yes,

[1:20:24] » I I will do that as chair to separate and we'll vote on the the first ones.

[1:20:28] And just a sec. I'm going to go to uh councelor Baitman first. But that's my

[1:20:32] plan until I hear differently. Councelor Baitman.

[1:20:35] » Yeah. So, thank you. Um, so before we we jump to a conclusion here, we need to

[1:20:39] very carefully consider the uh submission tonight from uh Jeff Holm and

[1:20:46] his wife Patty. Uh Jeff Holm being a professional engineer who and a near

[1:20:51] neighbor of this property. So I' I'd just like to go through these the four

[1:20:55] points that have been raised in in the letter tonight through you to uh Mr.

[1:21:00] Riley. Um so let's start with Gio.

[1:21:05] the geotechnical hazard. So I do understand that a geotechnical

[1:21:10] assessment was done on the property but a geotechnical hazard report is a

[1:21:14] separate matter. Is that correct? >> That's correct. There was a high level

[1:21:19] report sorry through the deputy mayor there there was a high level

[1:21:21] geotechnical report that focused primarily on the flood plan exemption

[1:21:25] components um and recommendations for building sighting and elevation of flood

[1:21:31] construction level of the habitable space of the dwelling. Um so that has

[1:21:36] occurred. Uh staff were comfortable with um moving forward as uh with with the

[1:21:40] recommendations although it wasn't a substantial uh geotechnical report for

[1:21:44] hillside hazards due to just the size of the property and also the fact that at

[1:21:48] building permit uh we would also be asking for a geotechnical report to

[1:21:52] ensure stability of the foundation as a standard procedure.

[1:22:00] Um, and sorry, ju just to add to that, there's also um some specific sediment

[1:22:04] and erosion control uh measures that are in place from the qualified

[1:22:08] environmental uh professional report that's included and makes up a condition

[1:22:12] of the permit. >> Um so the second point raises risk.

[1:22:21] » Hello, >> please. Thank you.

[1:22:26] you've got the team doing this work now. Thank you, Rachel. Um, yeah, so flooding

[1:22:31] risk that I believe was dealt with to a degree in the um,

[1:22:38] let's see, we had an erosion and stability assessment was done on this

[1:22:42] property environmental overview. The flooding is a speak to that, please.

[1:22:47] » Yes. So the district of Souk has a flood flood plane regulation bylaw uh which

[1:22:53] development must abide by um and it requires uh there to be a 15 meter

[1:22:56] setback um from the high watermark of the ocean

[1:23:00] [clears throat] and also a geodetic elevation of a of a certain number is

[1:23:04] 1.5 meters or if there is flood uh mapping data available which there is

[1:23:09] now just recently actually with through the CRD um it must uh meet that uh

[1:23:14] minimum and that accounts for uh things like wave action and sea level rise. Uh

[1:23:19] so we have confirmed that the proposed geodetic elevation of the habitable

[1:23:23] space of the proposed dwelling is up is 3.62 meters which is adequate um and uh

[1:23:29] would be considered safe um for the for the intended use as per the professional

[1:23:33] report that's attached to the permit and report here.

[1:23:37] » Thank you. you you've spoken to all this at the land use and development

[1:23:40] committee meeting of course back on July 7th but just to to final finish this

[1:23:45] foreshore and riparian protection and environmental impact now I know there

[1:23:49] was a um a referral from hoo from the ministry of water land and resource

[1:23:56] stewardship that very much spoke to recommended compliance with

[1:24:00] environmental and geotechnical reports is that about the the sum of

[1:24:08] uh through the deputy mayor, you could say that. Um basically, we would ensure

[1:24:13] uh through a qualified environment professional that all uh correct

[1:24:16] authorizations provinially and locally are adhered to. This is not a riparian

[1:24:20] area by the way because riparians are are streams uh rivers uh that exist that

[1:24:24] are fishing upland. This is proximity to the ocean uh which is different. Um but

[1:24:29] we still do have development permit areas which do look at development and

[1:24:32] ideally try to maintain a 15 meter buffer from that 15 meters. But of

[1:24:36] course we're dealing with some challenges on the site. Um just given

[1:24:40] the the historical context of of the property um and uh we did our best to

[1:24:46] work within our guidelines as per the recommendations of the QEP um to support

[1:24:51] this uh proposed development with all those mitigation measures that are

[1:24:54] actually uh components of of the the permit and its conditions.

[1:24:59] So very much sightsp specific um application of the development permit

[1:25:03] guidelines. Yes. Okay. And finally probable

[1:25:07] archaeological impact. Now there was a referral as well from the uh archaeology

[1:25:13] branch which does note that there is a very high likelihood of archaeological

[1:25:19] evidence at this site. and they noted [clears throat]

[1:25:22] uh archae archaeologists recommended prior to excavation

[1:25:27] is uh h how does that play out in this project?

[1:25:31] » Yes. So um these referral comments um uh and advisory comments would make it in

[1:25:36] their way to the development permit itself. Um and we would uh follow the

[1:25:41] provincial guidelines through the the heritage conservation act for chance

[1:25:45] fine procedures. So that's in all of our permit language. Uh uh we do note that

[1:25:50] um there's high potential uh to discover artifacts potentially around shoreline

[1:25:54] areas. So if they are found um and uh there are correct professionals on site

[1:25:59] that would would stop work and and follow the correct procedures.

[1:26:04] » Okay. And of course the S also recommended that uh that as well. Okay.

[1:26:09] So thank you. >> Okay. Thank you Baitman. Anybody else at

[1:26:14] this point? Otherwise, I have to back up the bus a bit. But we'll start with

[1:26:18] councelor St. Pierre and then go ahead. Uh I just want to clarify something that

[1:26:24] did come up that had not come up during use committee uh through your go ahead.

[1:26:28] Okay. So my understanding now from the questions that council Pearson made in

[1:26:32] the answers received is that um there may actually be opportunity to

[1:26:38] completely separate the matter of the frontage from the other for the permit

[1:26:42] to go forward. and for example for Mr. Miller potentially to have time with a

[1:26:48] bit more leisure to look at what would be a suitable cross-section for that

[1:26:53] area. Is that correct? And that's up to anyone who

[1:27:01] Mr. Miller who wish to comment.

[1:27:06] Yes, your worship to the counselor. Yes, it

[1:27:10] does give a little more time. Um you have to remember we are amending the

[1:27:15] subdivision bylaw. So there is a procedure we will have to go through to

[1:27:20] create this cross-section and through that bylaw um it's either build it or

[1:27:26] cost in l. So there will be a cost um associated with it. I mean, council

[1:27:33] could in its uh decision-making process wave all fees, but then you could be

[1:27:41] setting up a precedent for the other lots along that property line uh where

[1:27:46] they would ask for a similar exemption. So, what the cost would look like, I

[1:27:52] have no idea at this point. It might come out to be similar because of the

[1:27:56] train we're talking about. Um, it might be

[1:28:02] the same or it might be less, but by how much less, I wouldn't be able to tell

[1:28:06] you, but it would take some time to look and come up with a new cross-section and

[1:28:11] add it to um the subdivision bylaw. Sounds to me like it's possible, but may

[1:28:17] or may not come to fruition. Thank you. >> So, uh, this is from the chair to Mr.

[1:28:23] Miller. So we you say we can wave or alter that that figure uh but the danger

[1:28:30] is setting a precedent for the the other lots in that area. Is that correct?

[1:28:36] » To do to your worship um it is council's bylaw. they can you can make any changes

[1:28:44] you want to it but >> and you're not necessarily constrained

[1:28:49] by the decisions you make but it will be harder in the future if someone else

[1:28:54] okay >> on that road comes along and says I want

[1:28:57] the exemption I understand that so thank you for that clarification okay so uh

[1:29:02] the way I would like to proceed I already gave uh that I was going to

[1:29:05] separate this uh but before I do that I have to resend the old one right that

[1:29:10] hasn't been done So first of all that the approval of item 8.6 as part of

[1:29:15] resolution 20 26259 development permit with variances PLN01930

[1:29:22] floodplate exemption PL uh N02032 be rescended. So I'll need a motion for

[1:29:29] that. So St. Pierre Baitman or Pearson any discussion to the motion? Go ahead,

[1:29:36] councier. >> Through your worship to staff, if we

[1:29:38] vote against rescending, just essentially go forward and we skip all

[1:29:42] this mess. >> Um to the deputy mayor to councelor St.

[1:29:47] Pierre, I believe procedurally uh we need this rescended because it

[1:29:51] challenges the enforcability based on the advertising requirements.

[1:29:55] » Okay. >> So no.

[1:29:56] » All right. >> So hearing no other discussion, all

[1:29:58] those in favor of the motion. That's unanimous for Okay. And then the second

[1:30:04] one is um I don't know. Oh, you're going to put it up here. Oh my god. Um

[1:30:10] have you separated that one now? >> There's a lot here to read.

[1:30:18] » Okay.

[1:30:26] » Oh, sure. Yeah. >> Thank you. Section 14, Sue Land District

[1:30:29] Plan EP88370 to permit the construction of a duplex

[1:30:33] dwelling and a deck in accordance with the terms and conditions of draft

[1:30:36] development permit PLN1930 attachment one. Second,

[1:30:40] » the council authorized issuance of development variance permit PLN1930

[1:30:44] attachment one to vary section 3.21 of zoning by number 600 2013 by reducing

[1:30:50] the required setback from the present natural boundary of the seat from 15 m

[1:30:53] to 3.09 m for the principal dwelling and 1.2 2 meters for the deck. The council

[1:30:59] grant an exemption under section 524 of the local government act and section 11B

[1:31:03] of the flood plane regulation bylaw number 7732020

[1:31:07] to permit the proposed dwelling to be located 3.09 m from the present natural

[1:31:10] boundary of the sea subject to registration of a section 219 covenant

[1:31:14] under land title act to secure compliance with the applicable flood

[1:31:17] construction levels 3.62 geodetic elevation. the recommendations of the

[1:31:22] Ryzac Geotechnical Assessment dated May 6, 2026 as amended and related to flood

[1:31:27] hazard acknowledgement release indemnity and safe harmless provisions to the

[1:31:31] satisfactory of the district. I think there's one more

[1:31:35] » the other one is being in terms of the block. I think there's one more a couple

[1:31:39] more sections. >> Oh, okay. Yeah.

[1:31:43] uh that the flood plane setback exemption does not take effect until the

[1:31:46] required section 219 covenant has been registered entitled to the satisfactory

[1:31:49] of the district and the council deny >> yeah okay we stop right there

[1:31:54] » okay so that that's the part that and we have a motion

[1:31:58] and a second is councelor Pearson any discussion to the motion hearing none

[1:32:04] those in favor and that's unanimously four uh so now um we can discuss the

[1:32:11] last part of it is that correct CEO.

[1:32:14] » Uh, correct. And just to clarify, um, for this motion, if council, the

[1:32:20] applicant has requested a variance to not, I believe, do any of the frontage

[1:32:25] requirements and staff is recommending denying it. If council doesn't like

[1:32:29] either of those options, then the only option at this time is to send this back

[1:32:32] to staff to report back to council at a future meeting on what alternative

[1:32:36] options could be available at this time. >> Nothing's ever easy. So if the applicant

[1:32:41] is in wanting to do this quickly, I believe that's why initially as

[1:32:45] councelor St. Pierre referenced, he agreed to the cash and loo amount and

[1:32:48] that uh in order to move this forward quickly, this is the motion we need

[1:32:52] council to pass if um council can also support the variance and require no

[1:32:59] frontage. I believe was the uh which is against the land use committee

[1:33:02] recommendation. Um or council can send this back to staff

[1:33:07] to work with the applicant. So we we can pass it the way it is. We can send it

[1:33:12] back to staff which god knows when it will ever get back. Uh or we

[1:33:19] can just say council take uh that we are not going to request the frontage

[1:33:25] improvement cost at all. So I'll go to councelor Pearson.

[1:33:31] Okay. So I have to through the chair. Thank you. So

[1:33:36] in all in all of those options, could council propose a different amount

[1:33:43] through to Mr. Miller? That's kind of where I was going at the

[1:33:49] beginning of this. Uh through the worship to the counselor,

[1:33:53] again, it's council's bylaw. They you have the ability to change the bylaw to

[1:33:59] what you want. If you want to make it $1, you can. Again, you're now modifying

[1:34:05] the bylaw. You're not just modifying it this one. It's the whole cost system.

[1:34:12] » Yeah. >> That you're modifying. So, if you say

[1:34:15] it's $1 for this one, it's $1 for the next one coming through because you're

[1:34:19] modifying the bylaw. >> Yeah. And and I have I have a couple of

[1:34:23] couple of follow-up questions on that. >> Go ahead.

[1:34:25] » So, through the chair. Thank you. Um, how many of these lots are left without

[1:34:31] a house on it? We should have an inventory because these are the rarest.

[1:34:35] According to DFO and surveyor of general of British Columbia, there's only eight

[1:34:40] or 12 of them that exist in British Columbia. These are the ones through to

[1:34:45] Mr. Riley, I guess. I don't How many do we have?

[1:34:48] » Uh through the deputy mayor. Um I'm not sure. I think there are about a dozen or

[1:34:52] so. >> Yeah.

[1:34:53] » Yeah. >> And so, and we understand that the

[1:34:56] survey pins are actually out in the water. Is that correct?

[1:35:01] the parcel boundary stretch out into the ocean.

[1:35:03] » Yeah. So that they and somewhere along the line 10 or 15 years ago, we heard

[1:35:07] that there's actual that's where the property goes to. I don't know whether

[1:35:11] the ocean came in or whether somebody well they survey I I don't know that

[1:35:14] part and I know it's irrelevant probably but um so if any one of the other how

[1:35:25] vacant lots came along to build anything on those tent lots and they could meet a

[1:35:32] building requirement would they be as individual lots required road frontage

[1:35:39] » through the deputy mayor depends on the trigger. The SDS bylaw triggers frontage

[1:35:43] improvements for certain types of of dwelling types.

[1:35:47] » Yeah. But if the Okay, because we learned last week it was a duplex. If

[1:35:51] they were SFR, single family residents, each one not duplex, would they in fact

[1:35:56] have to pay road frontage? >> They would not under the SDS bylaw. And

[1:36:01] also the uh applicant could construct a single family dwelling as well and not

[1:36:05] pay frontage. >> Correct. So, the applicant's application

[1:36:09] is triggered to $107,000.

[1:36:13] Okay. Thank you. That's all my question. >> Okay. Um

[1:36:18] I guess with me, um I I don't feel comfortable modifying the

[1:36:25] bylaw number 9252 2025. Uh that is too far reaching. Uh I am very sympathetic

[1:36:33] to the applicant and I'm struggling to find a way to save him a few bucks on

[1:36:37] this because he's put his life and uh soul into this uh development. He did

[1:36:42] say that he would accept it as it is, you know, rather begrudgingly, but uh he

[1:36:48] did say that. Uh so I'm uh I'm willing to deny the request for

[1:36:57] variance because it is too far reaching to uh to make any further changes uh

[1:37:03] down the line. It affects too many properties uh for for years to come. So

[1:37:09] at this point in time u I'm not prepared to do that. There's another system that

[1:37:14] will find some relief for this gentleman. I'd be more than happy to

[1:37:18] explore it, but I don't see it with what we have here. Councelor St. Pierre.

[1:37:23] » Um, I agree that uh making changes to the bylaw itself will have farreaching

[1:37:27] consequences. We know that the public would like to have access to that area

[1:37:30] and that improvements at some point are going to be needed and this is pretty

[1:37:34] much the only way the district has to pay for it other than putting more taxes

[1:37:38] on residential taxpayers, which they really don't need. So, that's why

[1:37:41] development is expected to pay for this sort of thing. Having said that, I'm

[1:37:45] still struggling because the cross-section that we observe and that

[1:37:48] is um being suggested for this particular

[1:37:52] area seems to be somewhat more than necessary. I don't

[1:37:55] necessarily know it's going to cost a whole lot less even if it was a

[1:37:58] different cross-section. But having said that, I would be interested to know from

[1:38:01] staff whether or not it's possible to have um

[1:38:07] language that would allow once that new cross-section because I predict we'll

[1:38:12] want a different cross-section for that area. Once that's determined, could we

[1:38:17] have uh a refund or a different cost attached for the applicant? Is that

[1:38:22] actually a possibility or is just too challenging?

[1:38:30] Yeah, I kind of think we're going down in the weeds here, but if you can answer

[1:38:34] that, fine. If not, I'm going to move on >> to your worship. Um,

[1:38:41] it's not a route we pursue very often, so I can't give you an answer whether it

[1:38:48] is or isn't possible. Um I think when our regular corporate

[1:38:55] officer who is on holidays right now and is more versed in these

[1:39:01] discussions uh I think he would be able to provide you an answer but myself

[1:39:07] I have never gone down this road and whether or not we could write an

[1:39:11] agreement to take the 107 and then refund a certain amount we probably can

[1:39:19] but I don't know what that would look like and I have no I don't have enough

[1:39:25] » so it could go on for months and months and months. So with that being said and

[1:39:29] thank you staff for that. Uh we seem to be caught in a sort of a catch 22

[1:39:33] situation here but I'm willing to make the motion that council deny the request

[1:39:38] variant to exempt the proposed development for the frontal improvements

[1:39:41] requirements under section 3.2 of subdivision development standards bylaw

[1:39:45] 9252025. That's my motion. Do I have a second?

[1:39:51] Councelor Stamp Pierre seconded. Okay. Now, motivation. Um, again, I'm

[1:39:57] very sympathetic. Uh, but I just don't see a way around this without just

[1:40:02] delaying this and delaying this. U, the applicant did say he he woulding to

[1:40:08] pay it. Um, like I say, it doesn't quite sit right with me, but I there's just no

[1:40:13] way that I I could vote for changing bylaw number 925 2025 unless we uh had

[1:40:22] uh you know, a long staff report of the consequences

[1:40:26] uh and a long discussion with council and uh that clock is ticking. So, I will

[1:40:31] make that motion and we have a seconder. Anybody else wish to speak to that

[1:40:35] motion?

[1:40:38] Councelor Pearson.

[1:40:42] » No, he said he Sorry. Oh, um I think that the um So, you should

[1:40:50] have gone Yeah. >> from the staff is is that the

[1:40:52] application on the single lot to build the duplex triggers the uh triggers that

[1:40:58] that uh road improvement. So, um I actually think we can't I think we have

[1:41:05] to I think that's if if the applicant changes his his application from to to

[1:41:10] an SFR and doesn't trigger it, it's the duplex which is triggering it which is

[1:41:14] throughout our entire community. So, >> okay, that's I have to support the

[1:41:19] motion. >> Okay. Thank you, Council Pearson.

[1:41:21] Councelor Baitman. >> Yeah, I'm I'm having a bit of trouble

[1:41:24] with this. um look looking at that roadway

[1:41:28] water street it it's a very narrow piece of property and what we're talk with the

[1:41:32] local urban suburban crosssection in the bylaw two sidewalks bio swale and two

[1:41:39] travel lanes now that that road is not going to accommodate all of that

[1:41:43] activity and that we I would suspect in future we will need a wildcard

[1:41:48] cross-section of some kind to deal with the realities of roads in in the

[1:41:54] district. This is a very unique piece of property uh that water street itself.

[1:42:00] And um so yeah, I'm knowing that Mr. Miller said, you know, a few months he

[1:42:07] could tinker away and come up with a unique cross-section for this water

[1:42:12] street um uh reality. Um so yeah, I think I think I'm going to

[1:42:19] have to vote no on this, but that's fine.

[1:42:22] » Okay, I'm going to call a question. And all those in favor of the motion,

[1:42:26] all those against, please note that councelor Baitman voted against that

[1:42:29] motion. That is passed. Thank you. All right. I'm going to take a uh five

[1:42:36] minute uh health break. So anybody can wash rooms or have a drink of water.

[1:42:43] That is

[1:47:12] Could

[1:47:24] I get council members to come back?

[1:47:31] Councelor Baitman, sit down.

[1:47:36] Yeah. Is it

[1:47:43] Okay. All right. Now we'll go on to 9.3 park use permit commercial use staff

[1:47:50] report

[1:47:54] through you to your worship. Uh this is a parks uh parks use commercial parks

[1:48:01] use permit modification because there will be a commercial component to this

[1:48:07] but it is also uh the harvest event that the society has put on over the last two

[1:48:14] years. Uh so one I need council direction to modify

[1:48:20] the uh agreement and they have also requested that any funds or fees um

[1:48:29] associated with this permit be waved which has also happened in the past.

[1:48:35] » Okay. Thank you. >> Council St. Pierre like to move the

[1:48:41] motion. >> Okay. Go ahead and move the motion.

[1:48:43] » Okay. The council authorized a commercial parks use permit for soupuchi

[1:48:46] society for harvest festival and market at the center of a community garden and

[1:48:49] orchard 2380 Phillips Road in accordance with section 6.0 Know the community park

[1:48:54] regulation bylaw number 101 and subject to conditions outlining the permit

[1:48:58] action one >> and that council exempt sukfuchi society

[1:49:02] for ad ministry of fee commercial use permit fee and deposit for the use of

[1:49:06] sun river community garden and orchard for December 20th 2026 in accordance

[1:49:10] with section 8 of the community parks regulation by law number 101.

[1:49:13] » Okay, I'm going to take these together. So one second's good enough. So uh

[1:49:18] councelor St. Pierre made the motion, councelor Pearson seconder. Any

[1:49:21] discussion to the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor that's

[1:49:27] unanimous. Thank you very much. Uh next one is 9.4 request for sponsor

[1:49:34] sponsorship soup music and arts festival 2026.

[1:49:38] Okay, that's moved by councelor Haldane and that is council approve the sponsor

[1:49:43] request for soup music and arts festival for the 2026 event in the amount of

[1:49:47] 1,000. Moved by >> second.

[1:49:49] » We sure can. Councelor Baitman second that. We'll fight over it. It's okay.

[1:49:53] Any discussion to the motion? >> A question.

[1:49:55] » Oh, a question. Sorry. >> Do we need to source like where the

[1:49:58] money's coming from? >> I think uh uh to staff, we have money in

[1:50:02] the sponsorship still, don't we? That's what it's asked for.

[1:50:05] » Yes, correct. >> Yes, I just want to confirm.

[1:50:07] » Yeah, good. >> Thank you.

[1:50:08] » Okay, then I'll call the questions. Sorry, Council Baitman. You're in the

[1:50:12] visible zone. >> I am in the invisible zone here. So, go

[1:50:14] ahead. >> Rightly so. Um

[1:50:18] what was I going to say? Oh, yeah. So, $1,000 has seemed to become a new normal

[1:50:23] in in these applications with the exception of the pickle ball tournament.

[1:50:27] As councelor Haldane me mentioned some six months ago, we need to to watch our

[1:50:32] our pennies. But these kind of events like the soup music and arts festival

[1:50:36] and the harvest festival are are much larger scale public events. All soup day

[1:50:42] as another example. So sponsorship um is in my mind anyway this $1,000

[1:50:50] seems an appropriate amount. And yes, there's 1362 still in the sponsorship

[1:50:55] budget and we also have $18,800 in the council contingency.

[1:51:00] » So that will will cover this nicely. Thank you.

[1:51:03] » I'm going to call the question. Oh, sorry. Councelor Heline, go ahead.

[1:51:06] » Excuse me. Thank you. Yeah, because um I always go against the whole idea of uh

[1:51:11] small user groups who you know it's their own thing, but uh any of the arts

[1:51:16] festivals, music festivals, stuff like that, they involve the whole community,

[1:51:19] so it gets people out. A lot of free stuff at those things. I'm always for

[1:51:24] anything that families and everybody can get to be involved in. It doesn't cost

[1:51:28] them any money or very much money at all. And lastly, if uh the roofing is

[1:51:34] only going to cost us 230 grand, we have 250 budgeted for. We got a whole bunch

[1:51:37] of money we can call. >> Okay. Councelor Pearson.

[1:51:42] » Yeah. Just a clarific question clarification question through the chair

[1:51:46] to our CEO. What was the delegated authority on sponsorship that we

[1:51:53] » uh 200 through the uh deputy mayor to councelor Pearson? It was $250.

[1:51:57] » Okay. >> I believe.

[1:51:58] » And so and and so have have you been using that that delegated authority? Uh

[1:52:06] I can I'll double check with Miss Mo. >> Oh okay.

[1:52:10] » Uh through the deputy mayor. I believe we we've used it twice.

[1:52:14] » Um but generally the asks are greater than 200

[1:52:17] » over in the CEO report. >> So now that you've been using it, is

[1:52:23] there any feedback? I know this is maybe because we're debating the question. Is

[1:52:27] there any feedback that you could give us that on that amount? Is it enough or

[1:52:30] is it because like these thousand ones, you know, we're doing these all the

[1:52:35] time. Should, you know, should that not come to council? Like, in my opinion,

[1:52:40] this is sort of a, you know, a no-brainer sponsoring this.

[1:52:45] » I I think we probably deal with that at another time. We just have the one in

[1:52:49] front of us today and I think we get this out of the way. I think that's for

[1:52:53] new business under another council meeting.

[1:52:56] » But I I understand where you're going with Well, it is it is kind of germanine

[1:52:59] to the question. This is, you know, councelor Haldane actually summed it up

[1:53:02] pretty nicely. There's a lot of I think council has the um discretion and we we

[1:53:08] rarely say no to these important events here. So, I mean again it takes up

[1:53:12] council time, council minutes and things like that when I think we have to tell

[1:53:15] the staff. Oh yeah, we got staff. Go ahead.

[1:53:20] » Uh through deputy mayor to councelor Pearson. There may be uh this discussion

[1:53:23] will likely come up through the newly formedish uh MRDT tourism committee. One

[1:53:28] of the the items in the tactical plan is events and festivals and grant funding

[1:53:33] through that stream. So there is a mechanism to review this under that

[1:53:37] context and uh uh as MRD eligible projects there's certain data that we

[1:53:42] need to collect through the event. So this would be a conversation I am hoping

[1:53:46] uh to bring forward to the MRDT committee. Thank you.

[1:53:49] » Thank you. No further question. Gray, you got something more to say on it or

[1:53:52] » to the deputy mayor. That was the same narrative I was going to say is uh with

[1:53:56] the newly formed tourism committee. This is uh an item I know was going to bring

[1:54:00] forward to them for discussion. >> Okay. With that being said, I like to

[1:54:06] call the question then. All those in favor, that's unanimous. Thank you. Uh

[1:54:12] next 9.5 update on wastewater bylaw development

[1:54:19] to council in our June committee of the whole um a

[1:54:26] discussion was held with respect to a new wastewater bylaw because the old one

[1:54:31] is coming to the end of its life and we have to come up with a new mechanism in

[1:54:36] order to pay for the utility. In that discussion, uh committee was presented

[1:54:43] with a model where partial was collected through partial tax and partial was

[1:54:51] collected through user tax or user feed. The report you see before you is fairly

[1:54:58] similar. Uh you might have noticed I might have recycled some of it from the

[1:55:03] committee of the whole with some deviation in there. Since the June

[1:55:08] committee of the whole, we've been working with our consultant to try to

[1:55:11] find out how we can make that work. And it was our hope that we would have been

[1:55:18] bringing back um first, second, and third reading to council of the new

[1:55:23] bylaw, but we're running into difficulties

[1:55:27] either with our data with the interpretation and such to make sure

[1:55:32] that we're coming up with a fair and equitable model um for our residents and

[1:55:38] the users of the utility. And because of that, we've kind of there's an

[1:55:44] alternative way that um we could possibly move forward with this bylaw,

[1:55:50] and that would be the abandonment of the parcel tax portion and do it totally as

[1:55:57] user fees. Um so

[1:56:01] the reason why this is coming forward to council is so you're not

[1:56:05] » I'd like to know. Yeah. >> Yes. So you're not surprised in

[1:56:07] September if you actually saw one that was all based off of user fees.

[1:56:14] So again, we're trying to find this fair and equitable model that will not

[1:56:21] produce too many heart attacks when people see their bills um from what

[1:56:25] they're seeing for 625 parcel fee right now. And so again, it's just trying to

[1:56:33] give council the heads up that you you might see a different version in

[1:56:37] September. >> So we have already received the report,

[1:56:40] but you're just warning us with this that the report can change somewhat when

[1:56:44] it comes back to us in September. >> Just on how we're going to collect

[1:56:48] » the uh the funds, right? >> So I just need a motion to accept this

[1:56:52] as information bouncer St. Pierre. >> Oh, go ahead. Go with the question. Uh

[1:56:58] my question is uh does staff want any further clarification on whether it

[1:57:01] should be option one or two or are you good to go for the next stage without

[1:57:05] any further clarification from council >> to the mayor to the counselor? Of course

[1:57:10] it's council's final decision. If you like the parcel tax and a user fee we

[1:57:16] can proceed that way or we can continue to f again find

[1:57:22] massaging both the methodologies back and forth.

[1:57:26] um to find the one that is fair and equitable or and bring that one back to

[1:57:32] you. I mean, at that time, if you choose to go back to the other one because you

[1:57:36] don't like the one presented again, that's council's prerogative. Um it just

[1:57:43] uh we run into the election more than anything.

[1:57:47] » Okay. I need to clarify a little bit here. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah.

[1:57:50] » Okay. So, um, if I understand your answer, at this point, uh, working with

[1:57:56] a consultant, you're looking at really just taking it away from the parcel tax

[1:57:58] entirely and moving towards, you know, a utility billing type of situation.

[1:58:03] » Yes. >> Perfect. Thank you. Uh, and then in the

[1:58:06] report you have option one and two, but both of those are actually referring to

[1:58:09] a parcel tax, which we are at this which staff at this point and the consultant

[1:58:13] is considering moving away from. Is that correct?

[1:58:17] I included the parcel tax as background information for where we had started

[1:58:22] from and just for extra understanding to how partial tax

[1:58:26] » but it's not necessarily even a front runner for consideration at this point

[1:58:30] in time in terms of where we seem to be moving. Correct.

[1:58:33] » It's one of two options that we're looking at.

[1:58:35] » My my understanding is staff is still working on this and it'll come to us in

[1:58:38] September. >> Any further clarification on parcel tax

[1:58:41] » other just received this? We we understand what committee had told

[1:58:45] us. >> Okay. So, Mr. Councelor Peterson,

[1:58:49] » thank you chair. Um, is there any or Okay. Question. What

[1:58:56] when is the debt retired >> at the end of this year?

[1:59:00] » Oh. So, so it has to be in place because and now my second question is there any

[1:59:06] ramifications from a portion of that parcel tax? We have to make a decision,

[1:59:12] I guess, is that my understanding and it's probably to our CEO is that $200 in

[1:59:17] interest, I think, or whatever it is that's paid out of that partial tax,

[1:59:21] partial tax will have to be it'll have to come off the bill if we don't do

[1:59:25] anything, right? Is that how >> right now the way it sits, it would stay

[1:59:29] at 625 unless the bylaw was modified, but also the bylaw was set up as a

[1:59:37] partial tax and they have finite lives. So, it was set up till you paid off the

[1:59:43] debt and then the bylaw goes null and void. That is why we're going forward

[1:59:48] with another bylaw. >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:59:51] » Yes. Yes. >> Okay. So, go ahead, councelor Bait.

[1:59:58] » Well, just a comment. Thank you very much for this heads up on this minimum

[2:00:02] fixed toll, the asset management toll and the consumption toll. Seems like a

[2:00:06] pretty interesting uh approach which we'll hear about in September. Thank

[2:00:11] you. >> Have a motion to receive this report for

[2:00:14] information. All those in favor? That's unanimous. Thank you. Uh next one. 10.1

[2:00:20] short-term rental accommodation moderniz moderate modernization zoning amendment

[2:00:25] bylaw number 947600120 2026.

[2:00:31] That council give third reading for the zoning amendment bylaw. same one uh to

[2:00:36] amend uh zoning bylaw number 600 to modernize soups regulation of short-term

[2:00:41] rentals. That's the motion. You make it council St. Pierre or do we have a

[2:00:46] seconder? I will second that. The only thing uh

[2:00:50] now we open for discussion. I'll go to you first and then I'll comment. I've

[2:00:54] got a couple of questions and maybe a comment. Uh my further question through

[2:00:58] your worship the staff is uh my understanding is that the

[2:01:04] one property owner that has the two uses that are at this point being stacked uh

[2:01:10] will be receiving what they requested which was a legal non-compliant status.

[2:01:14] Is that correct? >> Through the deputy mayor um they would

[2:01:18] be legal non-conforming. Sorry. >> Yes. So just automatically legal

[2:01:22] non-conforming. Okay. um if they're looking for uh written confirmation of

[2:01:26] that, I'd be happy to to provide that to Mr. Hicks.

[2:01:28] » It sounds like they would very much appreciate that. Thank you very much.

[2:01:31] Okay, so my qu second question uh is more to do with uh the

[2:01:37] stacking. So, uh it's been mentioned that other local governments are not

[2:01:41] actually in favor of actually having these two usages on the same property at

[2:01:44] the same time. And there were issues with stacking. I have no idea what

[2:01:47] that's supposed to mean and what the actual

[2:01:51] negative implications of having those two uses. Uh it seems pretty clear that

[2:01:55] at least one property owner has been able to do it for quite a long time. Uh

[2:01:58] it seems useful to be able to actually potentially invite a few guests for bed

[2:02:01] and breakfast and have something else where you can actually have some for a

[2:02:04] longer period of time. I don't actually understand

[2:02:07] what the risks to the district and in general could be and uh if you could

[2:02:11] just explain why if you >> Yeah. through the deputy mayor. So, um,

[2:02:15] stacking, I suppose, uh, could have a negative consequence. Think about, um, a

[2:02:21] public nuisance. Uh, there's a threshold, uh, you can imagine, uh,

[2:02:25] where you would have potentially five, uh, bed and breakfast units, five

[2:02:29] different guests, as well as short-term rental accommodations occurring where

[2:02:33] the property uh, does not uh, contain these accommodation uses as accessory.

[2:02:39] they become uh basically the principal use of the property that is uh generally

[2:02:44] better suited for something more uh like tourist accommodation chalets or through

[2:02:48] a reszoning process would be more suitable to have those uses. I think

[2:02:52] there are some unique properties that are on larger lots that may be um uh

[2:02:58] less of a a concern um perhaps Mr. Hix's property. But if you're looking at

[2:03:03] properties located in uh town center areas or within community residential

[2:03:08] areas um that are a bit more dense um then those uh uses proliferated um could

[2:03:16] could cause uh some concern from like a bylaw and and public nuisance

[2:03:19] perspective. Parking as well it has to be looked at comprehensively.

[2:03:24] » Okay. So, if I understand correctly, uh the main concern is over areas that'll

[2:03:28] be in denser spaces where lots are smaller and you could potentially

[2:03:33] looking at public nuisance issues. Uh too many cars, not enough parking, that

[2:03:37] type of thing. >> Yeah, that's my initial uh thought on

[2:03:41] that. Um, of course, those issues can occur anywhere. Um uh but again uh

[2:03:47] depending on the uh uh like the the bed and breakfast provisions right now are

[2:03:52] become quite um permissive uh with the larger lot. So it's scaled uh by parcel

[2:03:57] area. Um so adding short-term rentals on top of that uh again does have the

[2:04:03] ability to substantially uh alter the the land use of that property. So, it's

[2:04:07] mainly a land use control measure that's in place and and I would suggest if

[2:04:11] there are properties that are looking to go that direction to have 10 uh you know

[2:04:16] short-term accommodation rentals through a combination of bed and breakfast and

[2:04:20] um and short-term rental. Um then we'd be looking at maybe potential commercial

[2:04:25] use um a hotel or or tourist accommodation or chalet. Uh that's

[2:04:31] something we could look at potentially at through our zoning bio update

[2:04:34] upcoming next year. >> Okay. Thank you. I'd appreciate at that

[2:04:38] time that we just make sure that uh as much as possible. Uh we're not actually

[2:04:43] constraining people from providing tourism accommodations that we

[2:04:47] desperately need and you know making the best use of the property that they can.

[2:04:52] Uh as long as we're looking at let's make sure that we're looking at real

[2:04:55] risks as opposed to um things that may never really happen

[2:05:01] much. Just thank you very much for the answers.

[2:05:05] » Okay. As a seconder, my main concern is that Mr. Hicks was uh grandfathered in

[2:05:10] and that's happened. You're going to give a letter to that effect. And so, uh

[2:05:14] I think at this point in time, unless there's no other questions, I'm going to

[2:05:17] call the question. I'll open. Oh, sorry. I didn't see your hand there.

[2:05:23] » Okay. >> Yeah. So, if modern means dissolving

[2:05:27] more property rights as we have done on numerous bylaw housekeeping changes in

[2:05:31] the past, then I will not be in favor of this change. Why do we care how people

[2:05:35] rent out extra units on their own private lands? I'm of the belief that

[2:05:39] given these uncertain financial times that we need to be coming up with more

[2:05:43] possible uses rather than less. It's my belief that people pay a heavy tax

[2:05:47] burden and deserve as many options as we can provide. I'm struggling to

[2:05:51] understand and now that I've heard some of the things back because of

[2:05:54] possibilities of something down the road. Well, Mr. Hicks hasn't had any

[2:05:58] issues in 25 years. So, I'm I'm having a real tough time understanding why we

[2:06:03] think somebody's going to have some issue at all anyway. So, I'll be voting

[2:06:07] against this as there's no compelling reason at all for this housekeeping

[2:06:11] issue other than staff wants full control as usual over people's property

[2:06:16] rights that I'm completely against. Mixer Hicks and his family have proven

[2:06:20] there are no issues to this presence and these uh double types of use. So

[2:06:25] therefore, I will be absolutely 100% voting against anything like this. I'm

[2:06:30] not delegating any more authority for this.

[2:06:32] » Pearson. >> Yeah, I have a few questions that came

[2:06:36] up and starts off, I guess, with a few comments. I following on councelor St.

[2:06:42] Pierre's words. The word stacking sounds it's kind of like a negative word to me.

[2:06:49] Like the word's chosen to be negative. I think mixed use on properties is clever

[2:06:56] because I think that um I I still think it's a homebased business too as well.

[2:07:01] But but I think that given all the circumstances of of people moving,

[2:07:06] people selling a house, relocating, um coming to town for a short term,

[2:07:11] short-term rentals is an affordable option for people. And I think that if

[2:07:17] you've got property and zoning dictates the density, you've got property that

[2:07:22] you could have couple bed and breakfast and a short-term rental on. I think

[2:07:26] that's advantageous not only to the property owner, but to us as a

[2:07:31] community. It it puts an affordability component in there. So there's options

[2:07:35] for people when they get into these situations. Transfers, relocations,

[2:07:40] houses being renovated, flooded, damaged, all these things that come up.

[2:07:45] And if we don't give options like or I should say the the presenter today, Mr.

[2:07:51] Hicks, he gave a you know a very valid u uh or compelling argument I think is to

[2:07:57] think that they can coincide quite nicely on on a piece of property.

[2:08:03] I it seems like we're fixing a problem where there isn't one. To me, I I I got

[2:08:10] that sense. Um so through to staff I think you gave the explanation uh to

[2:08:16] Mr. to Mr. riding through the chair is that the mixed use you feel could

[2:08:24] increase density somehow like I don't I don't get that kind of in your

[2:08:29] presentation you talked about density like a big piece of property having five

[2:08:33] bed breakfast and five short-term rentals but we've only got one in our

[2:08:38] entire district that I kind of think the risk is low for people on something

[2:08:44] » yeah through the chair so uh the fundamental component here for

[2:08:48] consideration is the fact that these accessory uses uh become primary become

[2:08:54] the primary use of the property. So when you have a residential property

[2:08:58] residential zone >> that is really intended for residential

[2:09:02] use not for commercial use. >> So this is where uh the stacking or for

[2:09:07] lack of a better term um the combination of uses operating concurrently

[2:09:12] » can exceed the intended use of the parcel. So that's why we have zoning

[2:09:18] bylaws is to confirm exactly what is reasonable where we have residential

[2:09:23] zones, we have commercial zones. So if you want to say all residential zones

[2:09:27] can be commercial, >> you know that that may be problematic

[2:09:30] for lots of people and has obviously some negative consequences and that is

[2:09:34] why it is best practice and very commonly uh restricted for those to

[2:09:38] operate concurrently. >> It's not saying that they can't be

[2:09:41] permitted. Both are permitted, right? those operating those uses concurrently

[2:09:46] right now there's only one property may still operate as they are as they have

[2:09:50] been and their property is likely very suitable for this use

[2:09:53] » right >> um yeah and so if the secondary use is

[2:09:58] becoming the primary more of a commercial lean uh property you know

[2:10:02] there's there's potential for reszoning to permit that type of use as well if

[2:10:05] suitable to council >> yeah okay and thank you um so I have two

[2:10:10] other questions um m if if we grandfather you you said two things if

[2:10:18] the use discontinued for 6 months that grandfathering would come to an

[2:10:24] end. So what like I mean there's all these I

[2:10:30] thought about you know 200 things like extenduating circumstances that could 6

[2:10:35] months is not very long like somebody could have you know an extended vacation

[2:10:41] and shut down their bed and breakfast at their house 6 months and go to go to

[2:10:46] stay in Mexico for six months well would that constitute discontinuation of that

[2:10:50] use I mean I think we're kind of it's six months feels slippery and what

[2:10:55] happens If the question what we ask all what

[2:11:00] happens if one of those units burns down is that used now discontinued.

[2:11:06] So two questions for you. >> Thank you for the questions. Um so

[2:11:14] in terms of uh the legal nonconformity it's a it's a local government act

[2:11:19] statute right. So this is discontinuation of six months. I think a

[2:11:23] good evidence would be that there's a business license that's existing on the

[2:11:27] property and if that continues to get renewed, I think that would be adequate

[2:11:31] for our purposes. Uh we're not going to be standing uh property side confirming

[2:11:35] that people are actually renting these units. Um but if they have submitted a

[2:11:40] uh a business license year after year, I think staff will consider that to be

[2:11:43] legal non-conforming. um in terms of the actual uh the

[2:11:48] structure uh being demolished or burning down through a hazard. Um the use itself

[2:11:54] can still remain as is. It just can't be expanded upon. Um there's legal

[2:11:58] non-conformity when it deals with structures as well. Uh that's a that's a

[2:12:01] different part of the LGA with legal non-conformity. But yeah, this the

[2:12:05] structure and the use could could be rebuilt in a sense as long as it isn't

[2:12:09] expanded upon or the operation isn't seized for that period of of 6 months or

[2:12:14] for the duration of their their one-year business license.

[2:12:24] Okay. So, uh we have another comment from staff. Mr. Marshall, you had

[2:12:28] something to say? Yeah, thank you uh deputy mayor um and council. I think the

[2:12:36] you have to think about this as in the in the sense of would you want this

[2:12:43] business as a neighbor? If there was five rooms in a bed and breakfast and

[2:12:48] they had several short-term rentals and there was now eight cars coming and

[2:12:52] going on a nightly basis, there's garbage cans, you know, strewn down the

[2:12:58] street. there's a lot of extra noise. There's a lot of extra activity. And so

[2:13:04] I've certainly had experience in communities where the public just

[2:13:08] absolutely gets up in an uproar when these types of things start happening

[2:13:12] because it's that's not what I bought into when I bought my single family

[2:13:15] house in a single family neighborhood that I'm going to be dealing with all

[2:13:19] this noise activity and people coming and going. So, I think, you know, that's

[2:13:24] what we try and do with zoning is try and give people certainty as to what

[2:13:29] they can expect when they buy a home in a particular neighborhood that they can

[2:13:34] expect that that's sort of activity and commercial use isn't going to be

[2:13:37] happening, uh, next door. And so, um, yes, there's lots of these types of

[2:13:43] businesses that aren't a problem, but unfortunately, we as a municipality and

[2:13:48] many municipalities have to deal with the one-offs where it's a real problem.

[2:13:52] And if you don't have the zoning in place to enforce that problem, um, then

[2:13:58] there's no way of dealing with it. So, um, that's the intent anyway.

[2:14:04] » Okay, here. >> Yeah, over in the blind spot here. I

[2:14:09] know. I saw it this time. Little >> Yeah. I I just want to be clear here.

[2:14:14] This is a modernization of our zoning bylaw to align with the short-term

[2:14:17] rental accommodation act introduced by the province of British Columbia uh

[2:14:22] designed intentionally to uh free up or preserve long-term rental housing. Is is

[2:14:28] that correct? So really Okay, go ahead. Answer that for

[2:14:34] » Yes, it is correct. So uh again we we've mirrored uh many of the uh the

[2:14:39] provincial uh regulations in the act um in terms of uh the permissions for uh

[2:14:44] the principal residence framework. So we we've just basically mirrored that and

[2:14:47] build that into our zoning by or at least in the draft amendments. Um in a

[2:14:52] lot of cases it's it's slightly more permissive. Um but in some cases such as

[2:14:57] the extension of of the 30 days to 90 consecutive days and also the rental of

[2:15:02] the uh of this of the principal dwelling and the ability for the host not to live

[2:15:06] on the premises. So that's where it's it's is becoming a little more flexible.

[2:15:10] Um this one element here of the of the amendments about it being more

[2:15:14] restrictive is is one small piece as well. But then there's also a more

[2:15:18] broader modernization where we're actually filling a lot of really needed

[2:15:23] gaps here. um just in terms of actually providing regulations around short-term

[2:15:27] rentals which is completely lacking uh in the bylaw and unfortunately has been

[2:15:33] uh uh considered under homebased business regulations whi which don't

[2:15:37] which literally does not make sense in terms of the the set of regulations that

[2:15:41] exist. One example is that a homebased business must occur on a size of of no

[2:15:46] greater than 50 square meters. Um and we all know that size of a suite they're

[2:15:51] all over 50 square meters. So, there's just been these inconsistencies and

[2:15:55] interpretations that just have not been clear for staff or or the public and and

[2:16:00] that those these are the gaps we're trying to fill while also being as

[2:16:03] permissive as possible uh in alignment with those uh provincial uh regulations

[2:16:09] and law um and also looking at other minor forms of modernization that that

[2:16:14] happen to be this one in particular being a bit more restrictive. So,

[2:16:18] hopefully that answered your question. >> Yeah, it does. And I know you're you're

[2:16:23] this is advanced work on the new zoning bylaw. Effectively, this is going to

[2:16:27] make the job easier when you get down to the actual renewal of bylaw 600. Um

[2:16:35] yeah, I think that's good. Thank you. >> Okay, councelor St. Pierre, you want to

[2:16:39] speak again? >> Yeah. Uh first of all, I really

[2:16:42] appreciate the answers that have been provided. Uh they've really helped a

[2:16:44] great deal, especially uh the distinction in usage and that we're

[2:16:48] actually potentially when we're looking not densification number of people but

[2:16:52] densifying commercial usage. So Airbnb rentals looking more like a hotel type

[2:16:59] situation. Once you get to a certain threshold realistically

[2:17:03] it's to the benefit of for example residential taxpayers in the district

[2:17:07] but that property is on commercial. It's going that direction so that the

[2:17:11] residential taxpayers aren't actually paying for the services on the wear and

[2:17:14] tear in the community and the needs of a commercial business. uh especially when

[2:17:19] our residents are being way too much. So I think that's one piece that I'm

[2:17:23] feeling pretty strongly at this point. That makes sense. Uh I also uh recognize

[2:17:29] that the one exception and the one truly

[2:17:33] affected um property.

[2:17:38] Our laws and bylaws are not actually for the best case scenario when someone runs

[2:17:42] a business for 25 years and follows all the rules. uh if everyone was like that,

[2:17:46] there's indeed any laws and bylaws. Uh the bylaws are actually because if you

[2:17:51] actually make a neighborhood where anybody can actually put as many Airbnbs

[2:17:56] and stack in as many STRs as they want, pretty soon there's nowhere to drive.

[2:18:02] It's a little crazy now. I think that there's a space in the future where we

[2:18:06] could be looking at how do we manage to, you know, make that work. But I think

[2:18:10] what I'm hearing is that without actually being very careful, you're

[2:18:13] basically opening it up for that kind of thing to happen. And so I appreciate the

[2:18:17] answers and the discussion. I think I was very firmly

[2:18:22] against not basically I I thought we should allow this to happen together.

[2:18:26] But I see now that there's a need to be more careful, especially with regards to

[2:18:31] making sure that our residential taxpayers are not being punished while

[2:18:35] their neighbors who are having essentially a business on their property

[2:18:38] are flourishing and that we don't actually open it up so that we have no

[2:18:44] businesses in our commercial areas because it's so much easier to open a

[2:18:47] business in our residential areas. Uh so I I say that there's more to it and I

[2:18:53] appreciate the answers. Thank you. Any other counselor before I call the

[2:18:57] question? Councelor Pearson. >> Yep. Thank you. Um through the chair. So

[2:19:01] do we have an inventory of non-conforming when we if if this passes

[2:19:07] do we have an inventory of where these illegal non-conforming

[2:19:12] » through the chair of one property >> one property

[2:19:15] » based on our data Mr. Vixon.

[2:19:22] » Okay. Councelor Haldane, I'll call the question.

[2:19:26] » My last [clears throat] thing would be is that the province and both proposed

[2:19:28] bill 44, Bill 44, and this council here before I got here was was against it.

[2:19:34] They didn't like it and the modernizing of that bill into our rules that we have

[2:19:40] here now wasn't accepted very well. Um, so I don't believe that provincial

[2:19:44] legislation necessarily makes it good business or or good procedure. Um, bill

[2:19:50] 44 in most cases isn't even possible and in most cases doesn't even work by

[2:19:55] design. So, I have little faith in the provincial expectations in most cases

[2:20:00] when it comes down to expectations with housing and and our little small bylaw

[2:20:05] changes and modernization. So, again, not for it.

[2:20:09] » Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Uh, do you want one more

[2:20:13] comment then? Just in response to that, we are, as they say, a creature of the

[2:20:19] province. When when a legislation of this kind comes down the pipeline, are

[2:20:23] we not duty bound to largely adopt? Councelor Hollain, you're shaking your

[2:20:29] head. So through you. >> Well,

[2:20:31] » maybe we're not. I' I'd like to ask Chris Marshall that question.

[2:20:37] » Mr. Marshall, if you could answer that and if not then I'll comment on.

[2:20:42] » Yeah, I mean there are is certain legislation that is required for you to

[2:20:48] comply to. Yes. Um there's other legislation

[2:20:52] such as the um they there's new legislation around not legislation but

[2:21:00] guidance around how shoo housing could be designed and built and they provided

[2:21:05] examples of different types of housing and and to try and speed up the process

[2:21:10] of getting a building permit and just provide generic forms of of screw

[2:21:14] housing. Um that's not required. That's just something that is advisory to

[2:21:20] communities to help them to uh implement uh the shimu legislation. So yes,

[2:21:26] there's legislation that's required to be uh followed and then there's other

[2:21:31] sort of more guidance type material. So >> okay, I'll comment now. Um

[2:21:38] I I'm in favor of of this. I see that there is one property that was concerned

[2:21:44] about it and that person's concerns had been met. Um there's not a great long

[2:21:50] list of people coming forward and saying they're going to be affected by this and

[2:21:54] also that the uh this new modernization uh expands a lot of time 60 to 90 days

[2:22:01] and a number of other things where I think the average person dealing with

[2:22:05] these things would probably be happier. uh we've dealt with the one that wasn't

[2:22:09] and uh I think we should move ahead. So I'll read it out again that council give

[2:22:13] third reading to zoning amendment bylaw number 947600120

[2:22:18] 2026 to amend zoning bylaw number 600 to modernize suits regulation of short-term

[2:22:23] rental accommodations and that's already been seconded but all

[2:22:27] those in favor all those against. So that's 342 against

[2:22:33] that is passed and make a note of those voting against please.

[2:22:37] Next order of business 10.2 zoning bylaw amendment number 95612

[2:22:42] 2026 R2 housekeeping amendment staff. >> Yeah, there's um no presentation on this

[2:22:49] one either, but it is uh was uh reviewed by the LUDC on July 7th um where they

[2:22:56] supported staff recommendation. Um the amendment addresses the ambiguity

[2:23:01] created through the February 2025 snow amendments. Um the current wording could

[2:23:06] be interpreted as allowing each permitted single family dwelling to have

[2:23:09] both a secondary suite and a detached suite uh resulting in more dwelling

[2:23:12] units than was intended and it's a change from the bylaw unnecessarily

[2:23:18] uh that existed prior to the smooth amendments in 2025. So we're just

[2:23:21] basically correcting that. Um, yeah, I'm I'm available for questions. Uh, if

[2:23:27] council has >> somebody like to make that uh motion and

[2:23:30] then we'll go to questions. >> Anybody willing to make the motion?

[2:23:37] » Well, we're giving first and second third reading zoning amendment bylaw

[2:23:40] number 956121.

[2:23:46] » No, no.

[2:23:51] So this is a housekeeping. I'll make the motion. Somebody second it. Otherwise,

[2:23:56] it's dead. Okay. Councelor St. Pierre. All right. Any discussion? Anybody any

[2:24:02] questions for staff?

[2:24:08] » No debate. >> Comment. As as stated in the report, the

[2:24:11] proposed amendment to the RU2 zone is a housekeeping correction intended to

[2:24:15] resolve an ambiguity created through the February 2025 shoo amendments. So that's

[2:24:21] common sense and thank you for the work. >> Okay, then I'll call the question all

[2:24:26] those in favor. I got three and councelor Pearson, Councelor Haldane, I

[2:24:30] didn't see a movement. You want to stand a yes or a no?

[2:24:36] » No. Okay. Councelor Haldane.

[2:24:42] Yay or a nay on that motion? Yeah, I know. So, it's a nail. Okay.

[2:24:48] Thank you. I just want a clarification to make sure I get it right. Thank you.

[2:24:52] All right. That passes three to two. Uh, next order of business. Permissive tax

[2:24:57] exemption application from catalysts.

[2:25:04] Okay. The council adopt the bylaw site

[2:25:08] progressive tax exemption amendment bylaw number 949 2026. Somebody want to

[2:25:13] make that motion. Okay. Councelor Baitman Counc St. Pierre

[2:25:17] seconded. Any discussion to the motion? >> Well, go ahead counc

[2:25:24] were comments at the beginning of the meeting. Normally with an adoption we

[2:25:27] just move it forward. But in light of those comments, it's worth worth noting

[2:25:32] a few things here. Um, you know, this is a five-year permissive tax exemption on

[2:25:39] those, I believe it was 30 units in the building that are are considerably below

[2:25:45] market. So, we're not uh exempting the uh at market or near below market units.

[2:25:53] Um this as as we discussed when we this came up at first, second, and third

[2:26:00] readings, uh this council did struggle over this permissive tax exemption. Um

[2:26:08] we we've looked at it for that five-year phase out for nonprofit housing. Um, the

[2:26:14] permissive tax exemption remains in place for a wide array of of uh local

[2:26:22] organizations. Um, it just seems appropriate to me that

[2:26:27] we continue to uh do what we can to attract nonprofit housing to suit

[2:26:34] knowing that they've just got a fiveyear window here to uh to ease into the

[2:26:38] market. So, that's what that's it. Thank you. Anybody else? Councelor Pearson.

[2:26:44] » Yeah. Um, thank you, Councelor Baitman. You're you're correct. We did debate it.

[2:26:48] Um, I'm um happy that um it's actually an accelerated rate. It's not going to

[2:26:55] be five phased out of after 5 years. It'll be phased out by 2030.

[2:26:59] So, it's going to be compressed by it'll be a fouryear. Um and I think we had

[2:27:04] robust discussion around, you know, the portions of catalyst that were there. Um

[2:27:09] it's part of the project where hopefully it uh breaks ground soon and we get our

[2:27:14] medical center as part of this. So okay, no other questions and I'll I'll call

[2:27:20] the question. All those in favor? Okay, that's unanimous. Thank you. Uh any uh

[2:27:26] new uh yeah any new business hearing? None. Items removed consent agenda.

[2:27:35] Uh council verbal reports. Anybody have a verbal report?

[2:27:42] I just have one. I attended the opening of the horseshoe uh roof the pitch as

[2:27:48] deputy mayor and got cut the ribbon with the big scissors. Uh and it was ironic

[2:27:52] that uh just as I was cutting the ribbon, it started to rain and that's

[2:27:56] what we were cutting the ribbon for is the cover so they can lay horseshoes in

[2:28:01] the rain. So it worked out really well. It was a lot of fun and uh it was a good

[2:28:05] time down there. Anything else from anybody?

[2:28:09] » Yeah, >> go ahead.

[2:28:10] » We we skipped the verbal reports last time, so we we didn't talk about Canada

[2:28:14] Day. Fred Milan Park was was a uh second year in the park and um

[2:28:22] a number of us were there for that event. It it was a it really works well

[2:28:27] in the park, I believe, as much as we miss the flats. Um yeah, so I also there

[2:28:34] was a special meeting of the souk homelessness coalition uh which I have

[2:28:38] been an informal um representative uh on behalf of the mayor

[2:28:45] uh over the last six years and unlike other groups such as the souk region

[2:28:50] food systems network which formally appointed counselor St. Pierre to that

[2:28:54] role. I was never formally appointed. So I have some concerns

[2:29:00] um that uh that this may may

[2:29:06] have some problems going ahead particularly with our other co-chair

[2:29:09] Melanie Cunningham stepping out. So, um, we determined at the special meeting

[2:29:14] that we will go out to the council candidates and seek, uh, seek their

[2:29:18] views and opinions on how, uh, the district can, uh, formally create some

[2:29:24] sort of intermediary or body or organization that will, and the soup

[2:29:29] homelessness coalition has served this purpose, be a um, uh, a link, an

[2:29:35] accountable link between council, the district, and the community at large

[2:29:39] with the souk shelter and with our homeless population. So, that's

[2:29:43] something we'll be doing. I also uh attended a number of CRD meetings on the

[2:29:48] mayor's behalf, including the environmental services meeting at which

[2:29:52] a new um climate action uh strategy for 2026 to

[2:29:59] 2030 was introduced, arising out of the work that your task force, Tony, you

[2:30:05] were part of. And this is staff bringing forward a very pragmatic approach. This

[2:30:11] is the key point. They've taken the politics and the panic out of climate

[2:30:15] action and they're taking a pragmatic approach to uh dealing with areas in

[2:30:21] which the CRD has some direct um influence. So these are things like the

[2:30:26] home energy retrofit program, the delivery of very strong climate data to

[2:30:31] to local governments, um outreach programs, and then a lot of

[2:30:37] corporate emissions reduction policies as well as development of a new regional

[2:30:42] transportation plan. And um while I'm at it on the subject of

[2:30:47] climate action, I just want to note that I attended the um the Fed Federation of

[2:30:52] Canadian Municipalities webinar um implementing and integrating climate

[2:30:57] adaption plans which our CEO spoke to in her last report. Um, it's worth noting

[2:31:04] this this presentation, as she stated, um, emphasized the district's practical

[2:31:10] olive organization approach to climate adaptation

[2:31:13] by aligning action with shared goals, saving time, saving money, reducing

[2:31:17] risk, and protecting our environment locally.

[2:31:22] So these are local actions done through a whole of organization um

[2:31:30] uh action by the by the district of souk and its staff and built into our master

[2:31:35] plans. So this the the FCM in its wisdom chose souk and uh St. John's

[2:31:42] Newfoundland as the two two model communities for how this climate action

[2:31:48] ad the integration of climate adaptation plans into district business. So I just

[2:31:53] want to thank um our communications coordinator for that work and I really

[2:32:00] do hope that FCM will be uh uh posting that webinar I believe on its website

[2:32:08] and it it's well worth watching it. It does sort of you know I know that there

[2:32:13] are concerns that the climate action is such a wicked issue at such a dramatic

[2:32:18] level that we ensue can't do anything about it but we can and that is part of

[2:32:23] this protection of natural environment for future generations as is our this

[2:32:28] council's mandate from the get-go. >> I could go on but I I'll stop now the

[2:32:35] early guy. >> All right. Is there anybody else before

[2:32:38] I adjourn to a closed meeting? Hearing none, then I'll adjourn to a closed

[2:32:43] meeting that council closed the July 27th, 2026 meeting to the public

[2:32:47] pursuant of the following subsection of the committee charter 91 uh I uh

[2:32:53] received advice that subject to solicitor client privilege including

[2:32:57] communication necessary for this purpose. So, thank you. Uh do I need to

[2:33:03] have a vote on that? No, that's good. Yeah, I I thought I

[2:33:08] just moved it. Okay, I will just have a minute or so for the public to leave.

[2:33:15] » Yeah, we'll take five minute bathroom break.

Regular Council - 27 Jul 2026

Transcript