Transcript: Regular Council Meeting - 2026/07/27

Speaker A · Okay, So, good evening everyone. We are now into our regular council meeting for Monday, July 7th. We're a few minutes after the hour here and I'm going to officially call the meeting to order. Acknowledging we have Councillor Newton joining us online this evening. All other members of Council Council present here in council chambers. I've concluded the territorial acknowledgment at our earlier meeting, so I'll look to move the approval of the agenda amended by adding the revised report and a late presentation for item 1412, please, if I could have a mover and a seconder moved.

Speaker B · Second.

Speaker A · Second.

Speaker C · Second.

Speaker A · Thank you. Any discussion on the agenda? Seeing none. Any opposed? None are opposed. The motion carries. Adoption of the minutes of July 13, public hearing and regular council meeting moved. Seconded. Thank you. Any errors, omissions or changes to the minutes? Seeing none. Any opposed? None. Carried business arising from the minutes, if any? Seeing none. No rise in report this evening. We do have an opportunity for public questions or feedback for the next 20 minutes, please.

Speaker D · Good evening. Last week, Monday morning, I experienced rather frightening experience. I was in a local coffee shop. There weren't many in it. There was myself, a friend of mine and a mother a few tables away with her son and the son was busily eating ice cream. We're sitting there and as the fellow in front of me is talking, he stopped talking and looked over my shoulder. I turned around, looked at the door and in through the door walks a man, middle aged, wearing a pair of jeans, look, wearing a shirt just like he was wearing a holster. And he was also wearing a handgun. The handgun was a large automatic handgun, to say the least. It was frightening. All three of us, the mother, myself and a friend, we all stopped what we were doing.

Speaker D · He slowly walked to the counter, had some conversation, short, walked back to the door, walked out the door and then sat with a local detachment officer. So at this point I'm assuming that this fellow is a policeman, but he wore no identification. He was in street clothes, totally civilian. Again, it was a shocking experience. There's no point going into the concerns with guns. We had two mass shootings in the States yesterday. Toronto just had a gun incident yesterday. Surrey seems to have gun incidences regularly. Someone walking around who is an officer supposedly walking in civilian clothes with a handgun, automatic handgun on his hip to me seems wrong.

Speaker D · So my question to the District is what policy around police mingling with the community does the District have in terms of civilian clothing and not obvious stature as an officer?

Speaker A · I appreciate the question. As you may be aware, under the B. C. police act, the governance of the police service in Central Saanich is solely vested with the Central Saanich Police Board, not with council. So while the question is definitely one of a legitimate concern, it's not one we're able to answer. In fact, we don't generate policies with respect to the Central Saanich Police Service in this case that under provincial legislation would fall to the police board.

Speaker D · So you're saying that this council has no impact or influence in that process?

Speaker A · I'm saying legally, under the laws of British Columbia and the legislation duly passed by the legislature in Victoria, the police service is the responsibility of the separate police board for Central sanitary.

Speaker D · And who. Who assigns the police board for central sanitary.

Speaker A · So the. The vast majority of the appointees are provincially designated under order and council by the premier and cabinet.

Speaker D · Okay, thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor King.

Speaker E · We do have a police board rep. If the person wanted to speak to a council member or a. I'm not

Speaker A · gonna entertain that in this forum. It would not be the correct forum for that. Councilor. The police board is duly.

Speaker E · But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about just so that you're

Speaker A · not going to put that person on the spot.

Speaker E · No, no, I'm not asking that person to be on the spot. You're reading into my question. I'm just pointing out to the person who's asking questions that they can follow up with somebody from council if they wish, plus they could attend a police board meeting.

Speaker A · Certainly the latter would be the most appropriate course of action.

Speaker E · Both. They're what I'm. I've already stated. So you know, we don't have to have a contest between us about it. I just.

Speaker A · There is no contest, Councillor. Thank you.

Speaker E · Well, then let me finish the question or my point and then you can speak.

Speaker A · Thank you, councilor. Welcome to the next speaker, please.

Speaker B · Hi, sorry. My name is Susan Zidel and I live in Brentwood Bay. But I'd like to just speak as the chair of the Advisory Planning Commission for a moment. Our last meeting was on June 17th, which we had barely a quorum at five out of nine people in attendance. The deputy corporate officer has tried to. We couldn't get a quorum for a July meeting and she tried to get members of the APC to agree to other dates in the summer and unfortunately there was no other date. So our next meeting will be in third Wednesday in September. I just want to go back to the. The June 15 council meeting, which was.

Speaker B · The council meetings in June were on the third and fifth Mondays of the month and the APC meetings on the third Wednesday. So our meeting was the same week as the council meeting. I suggested at that time that the subject that was sent to the APC on June 15 of short term rentals, I suggested that perhaps we could discuss it on the Wednesday, but there wasn't enough time for any members to read the materials and so we didn't add it to the agenda.

Speaker B · Therefore, that subject of short term rentals, we won't be able to address it until September. I just wanted to let council know that in case they want to proceed with other I know that had come to us prior to a motion and first and second reading and often we get things forwarded to us after they've done first and second meeting. So I don't know, it's not really a question. I just want to put that forward to council that, you know, we're not going to be addressing having another meeting until September.

Speaker A · Appreciate that. Obviously it's it's unfortunate that quorum was was not able to be established, but we do appreciate the work that the APC is doing and hopefully that input can be brought in. First and second readings certainly are steps in the bylaw, but do still allow for input and if there were major changes can obviously be wound back and changes made. So appreciate the work and hope that that quorum is established in September and that we can receive the work of the agency.

Speaker B · Okay, great. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker F · Norm Rider, Sanderston About a month and a half ago, I asked if there was a policy that when contractors were shutting down the roads in Central Saniture, some of the lanes, if a traffic control plan would be to be submitted to the municipality and checked by the police for that matter.

Speaker F · And I was told if people didn't know if there was a policy, which you'd get back to me within two weeks. That was a month and a half ago. I haven't heard yet, but that's okay. I realize now Central Signage has no respect for the this is the staff and police have no respect for for the Motor Vehicle act and the accompanying regulations when it comes to closing lanes down. Last Saturday for your party on Wallace Drive. It was a very dangerous situation that I had to take some beginning riders through. The signs were not done properly. They were done in a way that actually made it more dangerous.

Speaker F · And so I've been talking about this for probably about 15 years, bringing it up with the police, with staff that vulnerable road users are not properly protected in Central Savage. And this last incident I've Got to say with the police there, staff there, I'm beginning to think it's willful trying to deter the vulnerable road users from using the road. And that goes on further that you've got a plan to for taking topsoil to build a parking lot at the hospital. There's a big thing about traffic control plan in there, but there is nothing in that about including vulnerable road users and making sure they are looked after properly in what I've seen in the package.

Speaker F · It's about time the municipality, instead of talking about vulnerable road users and active transportation and spending $5 million on a bike path that the staff has told me they know cyclists aren't going to use, it's about time you showed that you actually were concerned about vulnerable road users and wanted to protect them.

Speaker F · Vulnerable road users have a higher priority than automobiles in every other municipality in this province except Central Sanich. They're almost an afterthought if they qualify that high. When are you going to do something active to protect the vulnerable road users? That was my question to you.

Speaker A · We appreciate your input. Thank you.

Speaker F · No, that was my question to you

Speaker A · and I'm responding by saying thank you for your input.

Speaker F · You have left me with no choice but I will have to start looking at legal action against the municipality and the police. I've already had to take the police several times to the police complaints commissioner to get any form of action on protecting vulnerable road users. Is that what the municipality wants as well?

Speaker A · You are entitled to pursue whatever course of action you feel is necessary, Mr. Ryder. Thank you for your input.

Speaker F · You mean safety of vulnerable is not important?

Speaker A · Thank you for your input.

Speaker G · Hello, my name is Corrine Swiften, 6517 Torren Road, Brentwood Bay. The neighborhood I live in is formerly known as Garden Estates because we're neighbors to Central Saniches world renowned Bouchard Gardens. We bought our lot. Me and my husband bought our lot in 1998. We designed and built our home and moved in September 1999. We've been living in our beloved home on a beautiful property neighboring many farms and boot shark gardens now for about 27 years. This year our property tax bill was $10,000 or thereabouts. For the first time in the 27 years being there, we, meaning my husband and I and our neighbors are experiencing a Norway rat infestation of municipality municipally owned ditches in front of our residences.

Speaker G · For those who don't know what a Norway rat is, let me educate you as I've had to educate myself the last couple of months. Norway rats were the secondary carriers of the bubonic plague of Europe. The bubonic plague was arguably the most devastating pandemic in human history, wiping out an estimated 30 to 60% of the European population during its peak from 1340 to 1351. Norway rats are also carriers of five other dangerous and deadly diseases, including hantavirus. Norway rats multiply exponentially due to early sexual maturity, short gestation periods and large litter sizes. This rapid reproduction allows a small initial population to balloon into thousands within a single year, driving their aggressive geographic spread. Norway rat breedings are among the most prolific breeders on the Earth. The reproductive cycle includes the following metrics.

Speaker G · Sexual maturity 2 to 3 months of age gestation period 21 to 23 days litter sizes 8 to 12 pups on average and they can reach up to 20 pups. Number of litters per year 4 to 7 litters per female. Postpartum estrus females can mate again within 48 hours of giving birth. A single breeding pair can theoretically produce up to 1200 descendants in one year. Not only are they extremely dangerous health hazards to humans and pets, they also impact the survival of ground nesting birds and seabirds. They devour eggs, chicks and even adult birds. They live in embankment areas where they burrow and tunnel and create an extensive embankment network of tunnels that can cause the embankment and anything above it to collapse, including paved road surfaces where these are Norway rat infested.

Speaker G · Embankment communities rapidly require broader food sources than seabirds. Municipal ditches in which weeds and vegetation are not regularly cut back or sufficiently maintained or cleaned, such as the one in front of our residence, fill with rapidly growing berry producing bramble and are such a necessary food source for the Norway rats attractant.

Speaker A · I should ask you to wrap up your remarks as each speaker is given only two minutes and you've, I understand, exceeded that, so thank you.

Speaker G · To move to meet their exponential need for food, they will move towards other food sources, including other rats. Gardens, grain, produce and fruit bins will be subject to the invasive and prolific Norway rat colonies, especially as fall harvest time arrives and the winter nears. They are known to supersede and overtake and eat the weaker and smaller black rat colonies that live in rural areas. They're not merely dangerous hazards to health and property, they are a complete nuisance to property owners. The invasive pestilence completely diminishes the use and enjoyment of one's property and that of our neighboring properties, not to mention devaluing properties. I can attest to the nuisance and loss of use and enjoyment of my property.

Speaker G · Over the last two months there has been insufficient maintenance of these ditches. Me and my neighbors entirely and sincerely appreciate municipal staff's prompt responsiveness to our recent unhappy discovery of the new colony that inhabits our municipally owned ditches. They cut back the vegetation overgrowth of our embankments and brought in a pest control company from the mainland to confirm the invasion and treat the tunnels and close up the holes with soil. However, I regret to report that the holes were back in a few hours and Norway rats may be seen rebuilding their embankment holes. We are as neighbors regularly removing dead and decaying rats on the sidewalks along the embankment.

Speaker G · The colony has not been eradicated. Municipal staff report no budget for permanent solutions and insufficiencies for funding more regular treatment and maintenance. I seek the Mayor and council's urgent attention to properly funding permanent solutions. Quickly. This is important. I invite Mayor Windsor and council to come observe the residential colony in our municipal dishes ditches in our subdivision and talk to the constituents of our neighborhood if need be. I apologize for the graphic description of the nuisance and the nightmare in my neighborhood. I've been living with this this summer for the sake of residences here and their dinner. Because this is around the dinner time, I will not get into gross details of how my summer has been interrupted.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor King.

Speaker E · Much like the previous point, I would hope that the speaker is feels comfortable going to the website seeing that we all have our phone numbers and contact info. All members of council, please feel free to contact us there.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker H · Good evening. My name is Kathleen Zimmerman. I live in Brentwood Bay. I want to start on an unrelated note. I wanted to say kudos to council and staff for the amazing 75th anniversary event on Saturday. It was so much fun and it was just pure joy. There was a gentleman who was creating gigantic soap bubbles and it was just pure joy watching the children chase those bubbles across the field and try and catch them. So that was really lovely. And I also want to thank Councillor Pal Teel for his notice of motion on tonight's agenda which is to review application fees and other municipal requirements for agricultural buildings and infrastructure.

Speaker H · This looks like it could be a really positive way to support agriculture and farmers. At the end of his notice of motion, it includes a proposed consultation with the Peninsula and area Agricultural Commissioner. Pac. Excuse me. This would be the second referral to PAC in the last month. The first was for short term rentals and these two referrals, plus the recent zoning bylaw revisions I think help reinforce the importance of consulting with the farming community. According to their newly revised terms of reference, PAC should be meeting in mid September. But unfortunately their next meeting is in limbo because Central Senate has withdrawn their administrative support.

Speaker H · My understanding is that Councillor Thompson attempted to meet with PAC to try and find an alternative option and that they've sent him a letter saying that they just feel that there are no other viable alternatives. So it seems to me a simple option would be to hire a contractor just to administer three meetings, September, October and November, and then pack. This ultimate future of PAC could be decided by the new council in December. So could you please help PAC meetings resume in September so they can respond to your referrals in a timely manner? Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you for the helpful suggestion, Councilor Thompson.

Speaker I · I'm not certain of the rules, but I think some of that information should be clarified.

Speaker A · Well, I was going to point out that we had indicated we would support back through June, so that might be one of the points you wanted to clarify. But go ahead then. Councillor.

Speaker I · We, the administration, as per the motion that was made in June, did attempt to organize a meeting with staff members with. With representatives from the other municipalities and pac. And unfortunately we were not able to get adequate folks to attend. Ergo, the decision was made to leave that discussion until September. I might point out that of course, the idea of that is not just me.

Speaker I · It is a motion of council that encouraged discussion and looking at various options and ultimately is up to council and the local governments to make that. Make those decisions.

Speaker A · Okay, thank you. Just to be clear, we have no other. We're out of time. Okay, thank you. Councillor King,

Speaker E · what would be the opportunity to have further discussion on that item? Just to get clarity in terms of. Because it becomes always so complex with regards to. There was a notice of motion I had and I just don't know when, when in September the resolution might come about and what the like, what the implications are in terms of.

Speaker A · Perhaps I'll turn to our corporate officer if there's any anticipated discussion around the question of the Peninsula and Area Agricultural Commission in September.

Speaker J · Absolutely. So as Councillor Thompson indicated, there was a session planned for this week to meet with current PAC members, including Ministry of Agriculture, CRD Council liaisons. Because we are one of four members, unfortunately we just. Given the time of year, we weren't able to achieve sufficient attendance to make the session worthwhile, to hear sufficient input from everybody. So it was postponed until September, which was felt that perhaps would be a better time. At this time, nothing has been scheduled per se. There's no date I can provide, but the intent of that session was to get the input of the PAC membership in terms of other proposed models.

Speaker J · It is also currently sitting with a referral via notice of motion from Director Windsor at the crd. So there are multiple kind of items in play at the moment, if you will. And the previous motion related to your notice of motion, Councillor King, was that the current council liaison, Councillor Thompson, was directed to engage with the PAC chair, which is where that September session came from.

Speaker E · And prior to that motion for that discussion, which I think Councillor Thompson made, there was a motion that I made that we fund the PAC for the duration of the year, but that's been that. That is postponed until that discussion.

Speaker J · That's correct. That motion was deferred pending further consultation, which is still kind of haven't done yet.

Speaker E · And that consultation is the meeting you're

Speaker J · talking about, which was that, I believe, in consultation with Councillor Thompson as a liaison and the current PAC chair was to have a broader discussion with the group on service models. A group discussion, that's right.

Speaker E · So is the ETA or estimated time for that September for that discussion or when is that discussion currently unknown.

Speaker J · September sometime was the. Was the message that CAO column sent to PAC members.

Speaker E · Right. Okay. So it was a decision of council to do that. So. So that's as Councillor Thompson saying, that's a decision of council to defer until whenever that meeting happens. If it happens in September. If it were not to happen in September, it would not. It would still be deferred until some day that it would happen. I guess. Is there.

Speaker A · I guess there would be a report back to Council that the meeting was unable to take place. Well, end of September, early October, I

Speaker J · believe the intent was for the results of that session to be reported back to council to receive additional direction. In addition, the notice of motion that you, Director Windsor, filed with the CRD is considered to be considered, I believe, at the September board meeting. So that would presumably have happened as well.

Speaker K · Yeah.

Speaker A · So the question arose as to whether or not PAC could meet in September. At current, it's unable to, but pending some other direction by council on a temporary basis, if council so wishes, or

Speaker J · if I may, one of the others may also choose to host the September meeting.

Speaker K · Right.

Speaker A · Whatever. Whatever the facilitation is, whether it's another municipality or municipalities finding someone neutral to do it, Whatever the case may be, there's an allowance for that direction if council wishes, but it hasn't been made today.

Speaker E · It's sort of a catch 22 because the motion I had made was to move on with having PAC Meat fund it while discussions be able to take place. But then a motion was made to to defer until the discussions take place. But we don't know when the discussions take place. So it's deferred into limbo in turn.

Speaker A · As Councillor Thompson said, had there been a group as opposed to two individuals, that discussion would have taken place.

Speaker E · But there isn't. So it's sort of frustrating because I made an effort to try to move it forward, but it's in limbo. Is there a way to un limbo it?

Speaker A · Councillor Graham?

Speaker L · PAC used to run on just a nominal budget. As I recall that used to go out. Each council would just approve it because it was just a small item of the five members.

Speaker F · Or four.

Speaker L · Five or four. Anyway, that's not really relevant. It was five because Sydney dropped out.

Speaker I · Yeah.

Speaker L · Just to move this forward, I would just move that we poll the members and provide a space and provide a meeting opportunity at our cost, at our and their convenience. So just to be able to schedule one so that they can have a meeting and then maybe we can make the move that forward to have that further discussion about funding and how we deal with this.

Speaker A · What kind of meeting are we talking about?

Speaker L · An actual pack, an actual PAC meeting. And this would just be an agenda

Speaker A · item for them to deal with and said meeting when?

Speaker L · Well, they'll email out the membership, find out their availability and as soon as convenient.

Speaker E · Presumably before September, because otherwise.

Speaker L · Presumably, but it's assumed as convenient. I don't really care about the date. This is availability of membership and stuff.

Speaker A · Second, I guess it's an on the fly motion, but we'll entertain this. Councillor Thompson, did you want to add something?

Speaker I · Well, part of the challenge with the meeting is that from the information that I received, I'm not sure what information went to the corporate officer, but that members were too busy in part to meet in July. I'm not sure if that is the the same for August.

Speaker L · Well, it's convenient, so if it's inconvenient that'll move it back.

Speaker A · The motion doesn't have a specific date associated with it. It calls upon polling the membership. So I'll let the motion stand and members of council may do with it as they wish. So is there further discussion on the matter? I will call the question those in opposition, Councillor Paltiel, Councillor Thompson, myself. The motion carries. We'll consider that matter dispensed with and we will move to the next item in our agenda. We are on Council member reports, please. Councillor Paltiel, thank you very much.

Speaker M · I'm sure. Along with other members of council, I just want to take a moment to thank district staff for the tremendous work they put into on last Saturday's 75th anniversary celebration. By every measure, it was a success through and our community really owes you gratitude. It was great to see integration with our neighbors at Startlip and say out throughout the event that grounded the celebration in the history of this place and reminded us all the story did not just begin 75 years ago. It was great to give recognition to former elected officials as well as take a pause in a moment to recognize our emergency services personnel who have kept us safe for decades.

Speaker M · Also, it was great to just see the spotlight on local business farmers, not for profit organizations, the folks who are really the backbone of our daily life here. And giving them the stage was a fitting way to celebrate it. Ultimately, it was about community, people coming together, appreciating Central Saanich and the place that it is to live, work and love. Again, it was just extremely positive feedback coming from folks throughout the community. And so with a I'll give a specific thank you and recognition to Ms. Britt Burnham, who's not here for me to directly embarrass today. I see. But yeah, I know this was kind of her idea and she really ran with it, but I know it was a massive team effort and with many people from throughout the municipality putting in a big role.

Speaker M · And so yeah, thank you again. It was a great, great opportunity for our community.

Speaker A · I would be remiss in not echoing the statements about the volunteers, the community members who put a considerable amount of time into that, including Brit, among others, and you, Councillor Paltiel, for acting as the master of ceremonies. You did a brilliant job, better than I would have done, I have to admit. So congratulations on that. And to the four members of council who were brave enough to take on the dunk tank. Councillor Newton, Councillor Paltiel, Councillor Riddle and of course Councillor King, all got soaking wet to help the firefighters raise for charity. So to the four of you brave souls, well done. And with that I'll look to other members of council. Councilor Newton, I see you online. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Speaker K · I will just echo the comments by you and Councillor Peltiel on the. The work done by staff and the community to put all of that together. It was. It was incredible. It was truly a magnificent day of community. So thank you to everyone involved. I will report out also on the recent SPAC meeting held where we had a presentation which was quite interesting from Rightfit, which is part of Disability Alliance BC that were there advocating for trying to come up with a way. They're working now with island Health to get an inventory of fully accessible and adaptable units that are around the peninsula and within the Island Health region.

Speaker K · This is something SPAC has been talking about for quite some time to try and coordinate. And so to see this being led by the CRD and the right fit organization. We're really excited to see this. It's something that is desperately needed. And I will just put to Mr. Matanowich on the spot is the central science rep that came up with an idea that given the municipalities have to report on housing for the province, that it would be a simple, or at least maybe not simple, but an easy way to try and capture that not just on the peninsula or within island health region, but across the province.

Speaker K · And I think that was a brilliant, brilliant idea and something probably that could be advocated for even at ubcm. The deaf and hard of hearing center abruptly closed at the end of June. This had a significant and will have a significant impact on the deaf and hard of hearing community on the peninsula. And so we're looking to see if there's ways to try and find support or space for them to continue to meet something similar to the White Cane Club for the visually impaired. And finally, there's been some significant discussion around how the standards are being implemented when it comes to accessibility and especially around crosswalks and how the standards are being actually enacted when they're being created at the site.

Speaker K · And so it was suggested that maybe just an educational session with SPAC in the future from the different engineering departments to ensure that the processes are being implemented, the standards are there, and I'm just going to go out and still continue to highlight the challenges around an intersection at Highway 17, the Pepe highway and Beacon Avenue where the ministry of transportation put the right markings down, but aligned them incorrectly to then direct visually impaired into the street, which was still challenging to try and have it changed.

Speaker K · So great work has been done by this organization and raising awareness. And these three items here specifically, I think the Right Fit component was. I'm really excited to see this hopefully come to fruition through Island Health. And that is all from me.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor Newton. Seeing no other hands, we will move to the next item in our agenda under staff reports 13. 1. The Saanich Peninsula hospital parking lot soil deposit application. I'll look to our director of engineering to introduce the item.

Speaker N · Thank you. Through the mayor, the purpose of this report is to seek council approval for a soil removal and deposit permit for 2166 Mount Newton Crossroad, the Saanich Peninsula Hospital for a parking lot expansion. The hospital requires removal of approximately 3000 cubic meters of soil and permanent placing approximately 1400 cubic meters of soil to expand parking on the property which is not in the ALR and is zone P1. The applicant has supplied the required requirements of the permit, including the items that were outstanding at time of the writing of the staff report. The source location is Peninsula Rock Products in North Saanich and the deposit location is an active mine site on Keating Crossroad.

Speaker N · Hospitals trying to complete construction prior to the rain starting so that they make sure that they get paving done. Staff are recommending that soil deposit application dated July 13, 2026 for expansion of the parking lot on 2166 Mount Newton Crossroad be approved for issuance by the municipal engineer. Staff are available for any questions.

Speaker A · Just to be clear, as the items that you spoke of in the original recommendation appear to have been received. They're no longer.

Speaker N · That's correct.

Speaker A · Necessary. We'll simply remove everything after municipal engineer. So with that, could I have someone move the recommendation? Thank you. Is there a seconder? Any discussion? Any opposed?

Speaker E · None.

Speaker A · Motion carries. Thank you. Moving to item 13. 2, the BC Housing Progress Report on district's HTO reporting period second July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026. And I'll look to our Director of Planning and Building Services to introduce the item. Please, please.

Speaker O · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This. This report presents the District BC Housing Target progress report for reporting period two, covering the period from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026. The report is provided in accordance with the Provincial Ministerial Housing Target Order which requires the district to report annually on progress towards assigned housing targets. Council is being asked to approve the progress report form attached as appendix A and direct staff to submit the report to the Ministry of Housing.

Speaker A · Thank you. Could I have a mover of that recommendation?

Speaker C · So moved.

Speaker A · Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Counselor King?

Speaker K · Yeah.

Speaker A · Just wondering.

Speaker E · Could. Could staff. Sorry. Explain why which housing numbers represent completed homes?

Speaker O · Thank you. For this reporting period, there is 24 net new housing units that have been completed for from 2025. July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026. So 24 units, and that is occupancy permit granted.

Speaker E · Okay. That's occupancy permit. Right. Okay. And are there any that have not yet proceeded?

Speaker P · Yeah.

Speaker A · So under construction still?

Speaker O · Yep, certainly. So in terms of units that are planned or in the pipeline, there is 462 new units and that represents projects that Council has seen. The Hoby Road project being one, and the Verdier Project, CRD Housing project is another one of those. So that makes up the bulk of those. Those numbers.

Speaker E · Okay, thank you.

Speaker A · Okay. Any other speakers on the motion? Seeing none. Any opposed? Councillor Newton.

Speaker K · Opposition?

Speaker A · Councillor Newton. Opposed. Motion carries. Okay, we have item 1411, zoning bylaw update, third report. And I'll look to our community planner, Julie Bull to introduce this item through the chair.

Speaker Q · Following Council's direction, staff reviewed approximately 20 years of building, perhaps records for mobile homes in the district. That review identified about 30 mobile homes, all of which are located on property zoned Agriculture. Mobile homes provide a more temporary housing option that is well suited to farm operations and farm worker accommodation. The proposed regulations distinguish between traditional CSA Z240 mobile homes that are typically installed on pure footings and modern manufactured and modular homes that are installed on permanent foundations and meet the current B. C. building Code requirements, including seismic requirements. As a result of the analysis, and to support dwelling units that meet B. C. building code, staff are recommending that traditional mobile homes be permitted only on agricultural lands and not on rural designated properties.

Speaker Q · With respect to shipping containers, staff considered the feedback received at the public hearing where members of the agricultural community expressed that the proposed limits would not adequately meet the operational needs of larger farms. In response, staff are recommending a revised approach that permits one shipping container per acre on agricultural properties up to five acres and up to 10 shipping containers on properties five acres or larger. Staff are also recommending that a requirement that shipping containers on agricultural land be used solely for agricultural purposes. This aligns with the Agricultural Land Commission policy and provides the district with an additional enforcement mechanism to address non agricultural storage. As shipping containers are currently unregulated in the District Zoning bylaw, these amendments establish clear standards.

Speaker Q · The proposed recommendations for changes have been included in the Council report and can be made without requiring an additional public hearing. Thank you.

Speaker A · There is a recommendation then that covers those items. Councillor Thompson, I will support or, Sorry,

Speaker I · the motions that are recommended in the report.

Speaker A · So you're moving the recommendation?

Speaker I · Yes, I am.

Speaker A · Okay. Is there a seconder? Thank you.

Speaker J · If I may Chair just. There is a table that was referenced in the staff reports. However, we weren't able to pull it up on escribe. So I just want to share my screen briefly, if I may, so that we ensure that that table is the motion that Council wishes to pass.

Speaker C · So.

Speaker J · So it's 1, 2, 3, 3, includes that table and then four, obviously, tonight,

Speaker A · these are largely to do with things like the shipping containers on the properties, for example.

Speaker J · That's right. So these would be the motions inclusive of that table. It just wasn't reflected in the agenda faceplate. So I wanted to ensure that council had the opportunity to have that brought to their attention.

Speaker A · One per acre for parcels under five acres. Council. Councilor Graham.

Speaker L · Yeah, I mean, I've been thinking about this and other items, and one of the problems with bylaws and all regulations in general is they become more complex and more in depth over time, instead of simpler and easier for people to access. What particular is driving these two issues? Have we had a lot of complaints about mobile homes and shipping containers

Speaker A · staff? What information, if any, do we have?

Speaker F · Yeah.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker O · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We have in the past had complaints over shipping containers and basically our response is we don't have any regulations for them at all. So this is putting in some regulations that you know, and certainly, as council knows, we have our agricultural area plant happening throughout next year. So if there's any issues that come up regarding that or revisiting of these specific items, we absolutely have the opportunity to do that. But this just put something in place for the district to allow us to have some regulation. So often they're also used for uses that may not be safe. For example, a storage of gasoline or flammable fuels can.

Speaker O · Can really be a substantial safety issue in a shipping container because there's no ventilation. So things like this bylaw allows us to have some of that oversight over that to be used.

Speaker L · Well, I appreciate that. Thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker L · I guess from my perspective, I'm not in. I mean, I would prefer that this bylaw simplified land use decisions instead of made them more complex. I don't see any justification at all for restricting shipping containers in industrial settings, for instance. It's industrial, it's not supposed to be pretty. I don't really care what they're using it for in commercial settings. I would expect that that's a business purpose and a business use and it's relatively cheap storage structure and there's going to be storage required in commercial settings. I don't understand why we're restricting it in commercial settings. And I would say institutional is probably following along a similar pattern.

Speaker L · In my mind, I can kind of understand the concern around agriculture and residential, but perhaps instead of affecting the actual shipping container, we simply state that it's not used for commercial storage. Activities in those zones would be more appropriate if we wanted to start regulating. So I guess I'm speaking against the Motion. And I would prefer just to see reference to shipping containers either eliminated or in agricultural and residential settings and that it be alternatively agricultural and residential settings, that it not be used for commercial storage uses. And as far as mobile homes, I would suggest that we've really pushed the concept of affordable housing. We have justified a lot of high density construction.

Speaker L · We've proved a lot of projects we probably wouldn't have otherwise if it wasn't for the push for housing and for affordable housing. And I can't think of anything that's much more affordable than mobile homes, except for trailers. And the province really has an issue with trailers. So I hesitate to get into restricting these. My other concern along the same line, if you look at the prohibited uses section of the new bylaw, there's nine prohibited uses versus in the old bylaw there's five. And it just speaks to the ever growing impact of regulation. And I'll leave it at that.

Speaker A · Thank you. Any other speakers to the motion? Councillor Newton?

Speaker K · Yes, thank you, Chair. Just to go back to the comment specific to agriculture and the changes made after hearing the public hearing. Does this then align our use of permitted use with respect to containers with the ALC regulations

Speaker Q · through the chair there? The ALC doesn't limit shipping containers on agricultural properties. But it is something that we heard from members of PAC that they wanted to see.

Speaker K · That members of PAC wanted to see containers limited.

Speaker Q · Yes. For non or for agricultural purpose or. Sorry. Yes.

Speaker H · Yeah.

Speaker K · I just, I'd hate to limit and put restrictions after hearing from, you know, bona fide farmers the importance of these things having on their operations. I have no idea if 10 is sufficient or not sufficient. I would hope that consultation took place to get to where we are. I guess maybe that would be a question through you, Chair, to staff on that.

Speaker A · I mean, staff have provided that information and council had the opportunity for feedback in that we were not satisfied with that. There are further opportunities to amend. Staff will guide us if there is a circumstance where a public hearing needs to be triggered as a result of some change proposed by council. So that's what I would offer at this point.

Speaker K · Okay, thank you.

Speaker A · Okay. Do not see other speakers to the motion as it's in front of us. And I haven't heard any amendments yet. Councillor Peltiel?

Speaker M · Yeah, I tend to lean kind of in the direction Councilor Graham's suggesting here. Just in, you know, trying to convey more straightforward regulations when it comes to specifically industrial and agricultural businesses. I do appreciate staff's work in getting to this point. I'll take a Crack at a notice or. Sorry, an amendment to the recommendation that just asks that we stay silent on agricultural use of shipping containers on properties over 10 acres and industrial lands in general.

Speaker A · So further amendment that would see properties over 10 acres not be placed on a limit and no limit on industrial. Is the proposed amendment. Is there a seconder? Seconded. Thank you, Councillor King.

Speaker E · Yeah, I'm just curious, maybe staff can help House how we determine whether the shipping container is being used solely for agricultural purposes. Like, is there an inspection? Is it by complaint? Is it proactive? Like, I mean, it's one thing to have the regulation, another thing to be able to actually enforce.

Speaker A · I suspect complaint is primary, but I'll look to stuff.

Speaker O · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, it would be by complaint. The reason is we don't issue a building permit for a storage container. There's no code requirements. So it would be similar to a lot of our other bylaw enforcement activities. It's by complaint basis only.

Speaker A · But things like the storage of gasoline, for example, we heard cited as making it potentially unsafe are certainly things that could trigger a complaint and therefore provoke a staff investigation.

Speaker E · So, okay, so then in. In relation then. So one could make. One could surmise that some regulation might be helpful if there's something that's explosive or potentially damaging. But I don't know if that, that. That's not really the regulation, is it? It's not. It's just determining whether or not it's being used for agricultural purposes.

Speaker O · Yeah. The number of shipping containers and the. The use being for agriculture.

Speaker B · That.

Speaker O · That's what's proposed by staff at this time.

Speaker E · Use for agriculture. Yeah. So I'm just trying to weigh whether or not we want to turn a blind eye to the number of shipping containers or the use for agriculture or if we can even determine use of agriculture for agriculture. Like you go and you look in and you see a bunch of gasoline and you. How do you determine whether it's being used for agriculture elsewhere?

Speaker O · Sorry, that. Or personal items, something that's not related to agriculture. Operating the landscaping business as an example. There's lots of different things that could be. I just use gasoline as one example. But there are many other types of uses that could be. Could occur in a shipping container.

Speaker A · Okay. I do not see further speakers on the proposed amendment. So I will put the question and look for those opposed to the amendment. None are opposed to the amendment. So the main motion then, as amended previously, it was the six recommendations.

Speaker J · Apologies, Chair. If I may, one to four, and then we would do five and six separately.

Speaker A · Correct. Yeah. Sorry. One to four. Pardon me. Seeing no further hands, I will call the question and look for those in opposition. Councillor Graham in opposition. The motion carries. Okay. 5 and 6, which is third reading be given to bylaw number 2270,

Speaker J · as amended.

Speaker A · As amended.

Speaker M · So moved. Third reading.

Speaker I · Thank you.

Speaker A · Are you seconding? Okay, Councillor Thompson is seconded. Go ahead.

Speaker L · I've given this some thought and I'm going to. I'm just going to say some comments, just for the record, about that I would have liked to have seen addressed. And I understand the reason for the agriculture limitations on rural property, which 25% in most of the rural zones. But I ultimately can't support that. So I'll be voting against the land use bylaw on that basis. I also believe we've missed an opportunity to not only consolidate the rural uses, but also the industrial and commercial uses in Keating into just one zoning bylaw across that whole area. And I don't think it's a horrible bylaw, but I don't feel that the gains are significant enough for me to support it versus what we're losing in additional complexity.

Speaker L · I really do believe that good governance is based on trying to make things as simple and as easy to administer and enforce as possible. And I believe there's a tendency for bureaucracy just to add additional complexity which isn't really beneficial to the broader public. So I'll be voting against it.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor. Any other speakers? I shall put the question. Those opposed? Councillor Graham in opposition. The motion has carried. We would look for adoption then of bylaw number 2270, as again amended at third reading. Moved. Seconded. Thank you. I shall put the question. Any opposed? Councilor Graham in opposition. The motion has carried. Item 1412 is the Keating Business District expansion or, sorry. Extraction Lands rezoning. And I'll look to our Director of Planning and Building Services to present the item followed by a presentation by

Speaker I · a

Speaker A · couple of other individuals. Go ahead.

Speaker O · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Tonight we are introducing the Keating Extraction Lands Rezoning initiative to council. I'll walk you through a presentation and following this, the landowners or the representatives would like to say a few words. In this presentation, I'll provide some background and policy context for this rezoning followed by the proposed zoning change and development agreement framework. Next, the presentation will focus on key development considerations and the proposals put forward by the landowners. The extraction lands, including the Butler Makati lands and Makati lands, are nearing the end of their resource life cycle. Gravel extraction and reclamation are expected to conclude within the next few years.

Speaker O · The District's municipal yard lands are also included in this process as future planning is ongoing for the that site. In November 2024, council directed staff to initiate a district led rezoning in partnership with the landowners and to explore development agreement options to set the course for future industrial development in the area. Since that time, staff have been working with the landowners on a framework that would allow these lands to transition towards future industrial development while addressing infrastructure, transportation, environmental and community objectives. In 2021, the district initiated an industrial market analysis for the Keating Business District. This analysis concluded there is strong demand for industrial lands in the Keating area with very low vacancy rates and leasing rates on par with some of the strongest industrial markets in the country.

Speaker O · This project would bring additional industrial land to the market which is in high demand. In addition, industrial lands provide an economic benefit to the municipality through higher taxation rates compared to residential, agricultural and rural properties which is important in an agricultural and rural land based municipality. Given this context, expanding the industrial Pardon me. Given this context, expanding the industrial land opportunities within the KBD is an important economic development consideration for the District. The proposed rezoning is supported by existing district policy in the official Community plan. Specifically, Policy 4. 429 contemplates a comprehensive development plan redevelopment plan for the extraction lands as they reach their end of the life cycle in terms of gravel extraction.

Speaker O · The proposal is also consistent with the recommendations contained in the Keating Business District Implementation plan completed in 2017. In short, this transition from extraction uses to light industrial development has been anticipated through multiple planning initiatives over several years. Since Council initiated this rezoning process, staff have been engaged with ongoing discussions with the landowners and interest holders. Key areas of discussion include development phasing, infrastructure improvements, community amenity contributions, transportation planning, and stormwater management. The landowners have submitted written proposals that have helped inform the development framework currently being considered. Many of these discussions remain ongoing and will continue as a Section 219 covenant to enter into a land development agreement is refined.

Speaker O · This slide provides an image of the area we're discussing. So the proposed rezoning would see the lands transition from the I2 extraction zoning and also a portion being RE2 zoning which covers a small portion of the lands, to the updated i1 light industrial zoning which applies throughout most of the Keating business district. The I1 zone light industrial zone permits a broad range of industrial, commercial, office and service uses while prohibiting heavier industrial uses. The zoning regulations in terms of use height, building setbacks and density will be consistent with the majority of the Keating Business District. For the rear or southern district owned parcel. It is proposed to apply a new general institutional zone to facilitate a modernized public work yard while setting aside the northern portion for industrial use.

Speaker O · As a condition of this rezoning, the District and landowners would enter into a development agreement through a Section 219 covenant. This would be entered into prior to adoption of the zoning bylaw amendment. The development agreement would establish long term commitments for land development that would run on title with the land in even if ownership changes. Matters addressed through the development agreement include such things as community amenity contributions, development phasing, servicing requirements, stormwater management, road standards and subdivision considerations. The goal is to provide both certainty and accountability over the long term. The District community amenity policy ensures that new growth contributes to public amenities and the District staff have applied this policy to this proposed industrial rezoning and based on this policy, working with the landowners have put forward an industrial amenity contribution of $40.

Speaker O · 50 per square meter of industrial floor space. The contribution would be collected at the time of building permit issuance. Based on this preliminary build out estimates, just to give Council some sense of of amount of floor area and amenity contribution, the Butler lands could contribute approximately around $3 million in community amenity contributions over the build out, while the Mattie lands could similarly contribute about 1.

Speaker O · 1 million, and those are just high level estimates at this time. This funding could go into an amenity fund that could support Council priorities in the area including active transportation or a food hub, which was previously discussed and is outlined in the staff report Port. These totals include proposed in kind amenities such as stormwater infrastructure, active transportation improvements and servicing upgrades, all currently being discussed with the landowners. All amenity contributions would be secured in the development agreement registered on title. Parkland dedication is a requirement under the Local Government act for subdivisions and does apply to these industrial lands at the time of subdivision. A 5% parkland dedication is required in the form of either a land dedication or cash in lieu.

Speaker O · Given the industrial nature of this site, staff are currently recommending cash in lieu rather than an on site park dedication, allowing these funds to support future parkland acquisition and recreational opportunities in the District, including active transportation initiative to support the Keating Business District. Improving active transportation connections is an important component of this project. The District's active transportation plan identifies future improvements through Cunanas Lane and Mabre Flats or Tekal, providing an east west connection through the area. The amenity fund achieved through this project could support this active transportation initiative. The proposal also does include trail connections to Shawn Heights and Verling to the to the south of the industrial area, as well as a pedestrian crosswalk over Keating to Willow Way.

Speaker O · While the rezoning establishes the land use framework, detailed opportunities for active transportation infrastructure will further be evaluated as future subdivision and development permits. Progress through a Future Process Stormwater management is a key consideration of these lands as they transition from extraction uses to more intensive industrial development. Future development will increase impervious surfaces and therefore required engineered systems to manage runoff and protect downstream infrastructure. This is a requirement of the District bylaws to ensure that stormwater is managed effectively. Staff are proposing that all future development meet any updated municipal servicing standards as we are updating our standards over the next year and that these obligations be secured through through covenant requirements.

Speaker O · Additional technical work is ongoing to better understand downstream impacts and to identify any necessary mitigation measures. Staff are currently assessing the capacity of municipal water, sewer, stormwater and transportation infrastructure. We have consultants hired to help us undertake these studies. The purpose of this analysis is to assess the current capacity and to identify any upgrades required to support the state future development. The results of this work will directly inform future servicing requirements secured to the covenants and subdivision approvals. The District's existing servicing bylaw provides authority to require developers to fund or construct necessary infrastructure improvements to support their projects

Speaker F · now.

Speaker O · Straightening Keating Crossroad Consideration of this this project in 2025, council directed staff to explore the potential of expansion of the Keating Business District onto the north side of Keating Road, Keating Crossroad immediately across from the extraction lands. The straightening of Keating Crossroad was a consideration identified at that time. If pursued in the future, a revised alignment could improve traffic efficiency and safety, create a more cohesive industrial corridor and increase the amount of of developable industrial land in the area. The Butler Concept Plan has been designed to preserve this opportunity and includes construction of the initial portion of a future road alignment on the western side.

Speaker O · However, it is important to note that the broader road realignment remains a separate long term project and the south side of Keating. The lands that are under consideration through this rezoning can be rezoned and developed without the full straightening of Keating Cross Road. As of yet, Council has not directed staff to undertake a detailed assessment of Straightening Keating Crossroad which would include engineering studies, timing considerations and implementation and funding options. While staff can identify the potential long term considerations, the actual scope, cost and feasibility of a project of this size does remain unknown at this time. One of the intentions of the current rezoning process is to preserve the ability to pursue that option in the future should Council choose to do so by having an agreement with the landowners to secure future road dedication.

Speaker O · If Council wishes to further explore this opportunity, direction would be required for staff to undertake this necessary technical and financial analysis and report back with options. Recommendation three in the staff report would be provide this direction from Council

Speaker B · and

Speaker O · now on to the concept plans put forward by the landowners. So the Butler Concept plan illustrates a preliminary proposed development for the Butler lands. Phase one is currently envisioned to include approximately eight industrial lots supported by a new internal road network. The proposal recognizes the importance of stormwater management in this area and this is still being considered through a separate study by the District. The internal road network is intended to improve site circulation and support future transit access throughout the Keating Business District, including a future looped road for transit services. The concept identifies a potential multi use pedestrian connection between Sean Heights and Keating Crossroad helping to improve active transportation in this area.

Speaker O · This is intended as a high level development concept with a detailed design to occur through future subdivision and the development permit process. This is the Makati concept plan. So this this concept plan envisions the site being subdivided into seven parcels with one industrial building on each lot to support pedestrian connectivity. The plan includes a new pedestrian connection from Keating Crossroad to vertical, providing improved access to the District's broader active transportation network. The development would be serviced by an internal private road on its west side which will provide access to the industrial lots. As with the Butler lands, this concept plan is intended to establish a development framework with detailed design and engineering to be addressed through future subdivision and development permit applications.

Speaker O · This subdivision plan illustrates the future vision for the municipal yard lands at a very high level. The existing municipal yard building is aging and no longer meets district long term operational requirements. In particular, seismic and accessibility deficiencies have been identified that support the need for modernization. As part of this project, it is proposed that the southern portion of the site be utilized for municipal yard operations and the northern portion fronting Keating be utilized as light industrial land. Specific details of this development are being undertaken through the Civic Redevelopment Project for the Municipal Yard. In terms of first nations engagement, the District continues to be in discussions with the Wisanich Lands Trust Society who own lands in Seal or Mabor Flats and have a strong interest in stormwater management.

Speaker O · Conversations have also been ongoing with SARTLI First Nation and following this meeting and any Council directions, staff will continue these discussions. The Proposed Rezoning In Summary Sorry the proposed rezoning transforms a long term, long standing aggregate site into a planned industrial area. Supported by the official community plan, the project expands industrial land, supports local employment and Economic growth and includes key infrastructure, transportation, environmental and community considerations. Should council wish to proceed, the next steps could include a referral to the Advisory Planning Commission, completion of technical studies, finalization of a covenant, and eventual consideration of bylaw readings and a public hearing. Thank you and we'd be pleased to answer any questions. And I'd also like to note that the landowners or the representatives would like to say a few words to Council. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you. If there are any questions for staff at the moment. No. Okay. We'll ask for the presenters to come forward.

Speaker R · Mayor Windsor and council members. My name is Peggy McCatty and I am speaking on behalf of the McCatty family regarding our lands at 1681 Keating, Crossroad and Verling Avenue. Our request tonight is straightforward. We respectfully ask council to select option three contained in the staff report. Option three would allow the rezoning to advance without public hearing because it is consistent with the official community plan. It would also allow staff and the property owners to continue working on the community amenity contribution package and section 219 covenant terms. These lands have remained in our family for generations and we care deeply about their future contribution to this community.

Speaker R · For more than two years, we have worked with district staff, our consultants and the other affected owners to advance the transition of these former extraction lands to productive light industrial use. We support the rezoning.

Speaker R · We also accept the proposed community amenity contributions of $40. 50 per square meter of actual industrial gross floor area calculated at the building permit stage. Our proposal includes meaningful community benefits, including a pathway between Keating Crossroad and Verling Avenue, a pedestrian crossing near near Willow Way and water main looping through the Makati lands. We also accept that an appropriate section 219 covenant will be required. Our concern is that the covenant be developed collaboratively and accurately reflect the discussions and commitments already made. The staff report confirms that detailed matters such as road design, building locations, parking, grading, servicing and stormwater management will be addressed through later subdivision development permit and building permit processes.

Speaker R · We therefore ask that the covenant establish the agreed principles and responsibilities without prematurely fixing details that that can only be properly determined through those other alternatives and later approvals. We also are concerned about further delays.

Speaker R · The Advisory Planning Commission will not have quorum until September. However, the rezoning is already consistent with the official community plan and the remaining technical and covenant work can continue while the bylaw advances. Further delay affects our family's ability to plan responsibly for the future of the lands. It also delays the employment, investment and municipal tax revenue that this zoning is intended to support. We respectfully ask council to select option 3, advanced bylaw number 2278 and direct staff to continue working collaboratively with the owners. We believe this is the most balanced and efficient path forward. Thank you.

Speaker P · Don't need my wallet. Mr. Mayor, members of council, my name is Dean Steven Strongitharm. With me this evening is Brian Butler who's in the audience of Butler who is the owner of the what's often referred to as the Butler Pit lands and of Butler Supplies Limited. I won't try to repeat too much of what Ms. McCatty said, but there was a couple little bit of overlap and I'll try to keep to my script except for the very end to try to maintain continuity and speed. The Butler Pit lands, if you include what's referred to as a school site is about 61 acres 25 hectares, although a significant part of it on the southern part of the lands is steep slope.

Speaker P · I was shown by the planner with respect to the purple area which is actually the steep slope which will require stormwater management. The Butler supplies have been on the site in continuous operation for the in excess of 80 years in terms of aggregate processing, concrete production and distribution. As mentioned in the staff report, the aggregates extraction and gravel operations are expected to wind down in phases over the next few years. Although it is intended to keep concrete processing in a smaller portion of the lands for the frustration foreseeable future. I think it should be noted that this rezoning is simply correcting a mistake from past years.

Speaker P · Some 30 years ago the zoning was much broader and permitted both aggregates processing and light industrial uses. This was changed without the knowledge of the affected landowners. And so this and so this has not occurred. So this. If this had not occurred back then, we would likely not be getting going through this process now. We've also noted that our discussions with staff that the straightening of Keating Crossroad is not a prerequisite of the industrial park development of the Butler lands. While the benefits of straightening the road are described in the staff report, it will benefit many other lands, both local and regional in scope and nature.

Speaker P · The application of a community amenity contribution on industrial economic development lands is approached in different ways as there are some municipalities and some local jurisdictions that do not have such fees in recognition of the community benefit that industrial lands bring of promoting employment and economic activity. Nevertheless, we have arrived at an amenity contribution of $40. 50 a square meter. That was done in collaborative discussions with staff included in those discussions was now has been how and where the monies collected would be directed. We note this because we see the amenity contributions. We note this because we see the amenity contributions should largely benefit the Keating Crossroad Industrial Precinct rather than going to a general amenity fund that was referred to on page three of the staff report.

Speaker P · Three final comments regarding the staff report and perhaps some minor changes to some of the content. First, there has been ongoing discussions on the operational needs of the Butler Pit, the timing of the phase removal from the provincial of the provincial mine permits and how that relates to the what is referred to as the school site, which would be on the north side of the realigned Keating Crossroad.

Speaker P · We submitted a note to staff last week that requested the school site, which I've got a legal description be included in the rezoning package and we would like to see this done. I have talked with the Director of Planning and we have a path forward in that regard. Second, as mentioned again in the staff report, the south part of Lot A, which is the most easterly lands towards adjacent to Butler Crescent, is earmarked to continue for use for concrete operations to serve the peninsula for the foreseeable future. The staff report recommends that it be maintained in the I2 zone. While this is consistent with our discussions with staff, the complication is that it is too early to determine the exact location of the future lot line dividing the light industrial lands from the gravel and concrete operations and how that then gets applied to the zoning line or the zoning boundary.

Speaker P · However, I believe there's a simple fix to that that we can confirm with staff. Finally, and most importantly, the staff report recommends that the application be referred to the apc. Now, in deference to the apc, we do not believe that this is necessary as the zoning amendment is really just a quote, fine tuning, tuning and the staff report confirms that no OCP amendment is required. The process leading up to tonight's meeting has been in the works for some time and it would be very helpful to complete this as quickly as possible. Because of that, we would strongly urge council, as my friend Ms. McCatty said, to proceed with option three in the staff report that states direct staff to provide notice of bylaw introductions and that no public hearing be held as a proposed zoning bylaw is consistent with the OCP and that staff continue to work with the property owners to finalize the 219 covenant.

Speaker P · I would just say, just in terms of the one slide that was put up by the Director of Planning with respect to the next steps, I am a little concerned Our hope and intention will be that the introduction of the zoning bylaw that could come in at perhaps the next meeting.

Speaker P · During that time, we would like to proceed with the development and the registration of the covenant and to be broad enough so it's not handcuffing, but enough to guarantee the desires through the planning report and that of the district. But we'd like to get the covenant in place, and we really don't want to spend months from now going through a lot of studies leading to sort of more detailed planning. And we think that that can be covered well in the 219 covenant. So we would urge through council to staff that if council proceeds with option three, that we work immediately with staff with respect to the 219Covenants so that it can come back. I think that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Speaker E · Thank you.

Speaker A · I have a speaker's list starting with Councilor Paltiel.

Speaker M · Are there questions? The applicant or staff? I was going to make a motion, but. Happy to hear questions, if there's any.

Speaker A · If there are questions. Councilor King, do you have questions? Okay, go ahead.

Speaker E · Yes, I wanted to get again the time that the APC would meet.

Speaker O · Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor, we had discussions with APC recently, and unfortunately we wouldn't be able to get quorum until September. And so just no August meeting at this time is scheduled for that reason.

Speaker E · And I wasn't clear as to what the urgency was to get this moving before September. Before that meeting.

Speaker O · I think you heard from the applicants. Staff put our recommendations in place, and it's a typical apc, but we provided the other options as they're available.

Speaker E · No, I understood that. I didn't hear what the rationale was that. Was there a timing issue? Was there something that had to be done before September other than just preference?

Speaker O · I think the applicants may be able to respond to that better in terms of our understanding process. There isn't, but the applicants may want to respond to that question.

Speaker A · It was clear to me what the applicants have said, what they said, but

Speaker E · I didn't hear the rationale as to why the timing concern was there. If there was something I missed.

Speaker A · I don't think it was timing. I simply heard that the applicants say that their preference was that it proceed rather than be referral.

Speaker E · So simple preference. Okay. So, yeah, because from what I've heard, it's not so much about delay as due process. And so, you know, our Advisory Planning Commission doesn't only hear things when official community plans need to be amended, but we actually have an effect. An Advisory Planning Commission to review and provide sober second thought or some advice or some recommendation to council not only again when the official community plan needs to be amended and while I appreciate that employment is awesome is important.

Speaker E · I don't know how it builds a food hub in and of itself so things like. Or other things like other amenities. So the collection of amenity fees is important. But I understand that is being proposed here that the collection of amenities would be collected. I would say I wondered if staff have had a discussion with the proponent about a suitable location within the extraction lands for serving for a food hub, serving locally to produce, serving locally produced and harvested food on the site versus just collecting funds.

Speaker O · Thank you. Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor, very very briefly we did have a discussion around that motion, chaired the motion and discussed it with the. And consultant for the applicant and certainly developing that amenity package in terms of funding and based on the square footage it was preferred to do it through a amenity contribution to it versus a land dedication.

Speaker E · So where would we get the land for the food hub if we keep running out of land but we collect funds.

Speaker O · That's I think the challenge that has been identified with the food hub. So. But certainly that's up for discussion if council so wants to direct.

Speaker A · My understanding though that the Agricultural Land Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture do allow food hubs on farmland. It's not a prohibition.

Speaker O · I would have to look into that. I don't want to get into the details of the researching that.

Speaker A · There were research in the past on this and I'm reasonably certain that they are not in maybe all forms. One food hub type is for example a food bank which might not be allowed but other types of food hubs certainly would be permissible. Is my understanding from previous.

Speaker O · Yeah. Certainly storage facilities to directly support agriculture and variety of those types of agricultural supporting uses are permitted in alr.

Speaker A · Well, it's definitive. It partially answers the question as to what type might be allowed on what zones. Yeah. And where. But certainly Councillor King's point about, you know, on this land and this potential. We heard that the proponent is offering the contribution.

Speaker E · Yes.

Speaker A · And it's whether the council would accept that.

Speaker E · But my preference is the recommendation from staff versus fast tracking or assuming that it's delay when in fact I think it's due process that we need.

Speaker A · We don't have any motion on that

Speaker E · so I'll move motion one.

Speaker A · Okay. Well there are. I have other speakers. Respectfully Councillor, so I'm gonna suggest that maybe we give them the opportunity. Councillor Graham, you had the floor next. And then I have, Councillor Newton,

Speaker O · I guess.

Speaker L · Well, I'll start with I. I'm aware of the. That the i2 used to just roll over to i1 once the i2 was extracted. That used to be. Once the extraction was complete, it would become i1 without going through Council, however, has there been any thought to just simply collapsing the i1 zoning back in. Sorry, the i2 zoning into i1 so as to allow the extraction to continue where appropriate and then just simply if it's. If it's being played out because it's now just a redundancy anyways to just have that now being i1,

Speaker A · you're saying that the mining permit would still be a permissible use within.

Speaker L · Within the industrial lands if there's. But if it's used up, it's used up.

Speaker A · Is that Problematic for other I1 lands in the future? Potentially getting a mining permit or arguing for industrial? Because if you change i1, you change it for everybody. Unless it's site specific.

Speaker O · Thank you. It does. But the mining permit would take precedent over any municipal zoning anyway, so that wouldn't matter as much. I think. Question was a simple map change. Is that the question? Just doing a simple map.

Speaker L · Yeah. Just getting rid of i2 entirely and just take those uses, tag them into

Speaker O · i1 that you know, that's absolutely Council's. Council's discretion. What this does and what's proposed is it gives council and the community some form of coordinated approach to development of the lands. Yeah.

Speaker L · Well, I think we're doing actual planning tonight. I guess on the other follow up would be the school site and the surrounding land beside the school site. That's within the urban containment boundary that I believe is current. I guess it's longer RE2. I guess it's now Rua as of tonight. Would that. I mean what's the status of that. That lands there?

Speaker O · Thank you. Yeah. So the school site, which is where? The former school site. The reason staff didn't include it was really a matter of time. The applicant last week, as you were informed, told us they would like to amend their plan to include the school site. Original. Originally it wasn't included because it was phase three long term. It was uncertain when the timing around that would be done. But the applicant has requested that it be included. Staff have no concerns with having that included in the proposal if council would like to make that amendment.

Speaker L · Okay. What about the small lot that's associated with the school site but is currently zoned rural, but it's within the urban containment boundary and that and I guess potentially Some road right of ways there that I think may have already been sold, but I'm not sure.

Speaker O · Thank you. I'm just gonna pull up my mapping so I know I'm.

Speaker L · I guess the road right of way doesn't matter because we're gonna run it right through anyways if it's straightened.

Speaker A · To be clear, that would have to be based on further counsel.

Speaker O · Direct direction, Council direction.

Speaker A · Not yet anticipated. It was spoken of, but it was clearly articulated that it would be the direction of council at a future date. It's not what's before us this evening necessarily, although it's anticipated. Is that. That's what I heard.

Speaker O · Mr. And this. Pardon me through Mr. Meyer, is this on the north side of Keating, the land you're referring to, or the south side of Keating?

Speaker L · South. Okay, so south side of Keating, just. Yeah, just that little corner or that little weird triangle.

Speaker O · Yeah. Thank you. That's municipal lands. Yes. That's at this time not being considered for that rezoning. It's just for future consideration.

Speaker L · Okay, so we could tag that in if we wanted to into this whole process. Is there any reason not to just tag that into this whole process?

Speaker O · Not really. It comes to mind, no.

Speaker L · Appreciate it. The funds on development, is there any concern that that might slow the slow redevelopment or slow development of these sites? I'm just thinking because if there's a barrier to entry versus industrial itself has a fairly high tax base.

Speaker O · Pardon me, I missed the first part,

Speaker L · so sorry, I meant like, because if we're going to charge because we're. This will be on the build out, right? The 40. The $40. 40. 5 dollars per square meter. Is there any concern that that will basically slow down the opportunity for development of that site in the sense that if people have to pay before they build, might that slow down? I'm just thinking because we've got some vacant lots in Keating, we've got some underdeveloped lots in Keating that have been a source of concern for council in the past. And we have been trying to find ways for people to develop these lots. And I'm thinking that if we put a charge on building, is there a risk that might slow down how fast these lots get built out on? Because ultimately the owners will be, I'm assuming, selling them.

Speaker O · It's a good question. The owners may be able to respond a little better than that than I can. I think it's a matter of difference of upfronting that amenity contribution. And the owners were requested that we don't have it up front. At the time of rezoning that it be at the time of building permit and this could be phased over years. So it might. It was presented by them as the preferred option.

Speaker A · So in a way provides the alternative if council pursues that action because it's then known as opposed to speculative as to what might be expected that there's some more certainty around it which I know there's been efforts around policies with amenities as well to try and clarify what the expectations are. This is a somewhat unique circumstance. So achieving it through covenants is and approach that we can take.

Speaker L · Yeah, I mean I have taken incentive economics before and just the motivate years ago my undergrads in economics but I just think that you tend to want to. I mean as a politician I don't want to leave any tax on any opportunity to tax something available but at the same time I want to make sure that the incentives are created correctly aligned to encourage the build out because the industrial. But that's. The industrial use is a significant benefit to the community and just.

Speaker A · It might be helpful if you. If you hear from the. Because we don't have a. Yeah, maybe

Speaker L · we could hear from the applicants on. On these two. Two points that I've raised in terms

Speaker A · of their plan because that also you. You're speculating on whether they would sell or not and. Yeah, they may not want to.

Speaker L · Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. And the only other thing that I would perhaps comment on because there's a lot of different little. Well, there's not a lot but there's like three other four other zonings in the Keating industrial area and we've heard that the industrial use is significantly short within the region and highly desirable. Is there any thought would there be any problems that still staff could see is simply just taking all the uses that are within all the other C zones for instance that are within the industrial area and tag them into the i1 and just make the entire industrial park or business park. Sorry I1 you're never going to give

Speaker A · up on this councilor, are you Gustav?

Speaker L · I like to simplify.

Speaker O · Thank you and we do too. And I think our new zoning by lab really does simplify our zoning overall. The difference between those the C Z zones permit a higher level of commercial that some of the industrial zones the industrial zone doesn't allow. So retail type uses that serve the industrial. If we just mirrored them and took retail and put retail into the i1 zone it actually might be detrimental to industrial zoning. So this established the sea zones established some more permitted uses. A lot of the industrial uses that are in the I1 zone are permitted in the sea zones as well. So it's almost a additional uses in the sea zones that allow.

Speaker L · No, no, I understand. I guess it's just, it would test that theory that the i1 is in high demand within the region because if it was, then probably the greater risk would be that the sea zones would tend to, tend to become more industrial. But I'll let the applicants speak to those points.

Speaker A · Certainly we welcome the applicant to address some of the questions from the councilor,

Speaker J · if you could press the base button, the light will turn on. Thank you.

Speaker K · Huh.

Speaker P · I'm not very technological through you, Mr. Chair. So we've, we've had quite a lot of discussion with this with both staff and obviously internally. Internally with, with the landowners and, and we have accepted the $40. 50 and particularly because a lot of the amenities that have been discussed. They were all amenities that as I mentioned in my presentation, that were specific to enhancing the Keating Industrial precinct. And hence my comment about not wanting it to go into general amenity fund. And so I think because of that, although not that we want to sound like we're altruistic in terms of saying, yes, we'll agree to the $40. 50.

Speaker P · There are other municipalities that do have CACs or actually, in fact more commonly they're going to be ACCs in the first future. And so, you know, we've accepted that. And over the long term we feel that in terms of that contribution is a reasonable amount and that as I say, if those amenities are kind of linked to enhancing the precinct that, you know, it's, you know, we're accepting that will not prohibit or limit the opportunity to sell parcels of land for industrial development development.

Speaker P · So you know, we did, we have agreed to, we've and we feel comfortable in doing so. The only one comment I guess I'll make with respect to simply making everything i1, albeit subject to a mine's permit will be it then becomes the aggregates, then becomes non conforming. Unless the zoning bylaw says you stay in the i2 until your mine permit goes away and then it automatically goes to I1. That's okay. But if it was zoning everything into I1 I now that. And I'm an aggregates. It's an aggregates operation. I now become non conforming. I may be legal non conforming, admittedly because you're rezoning it, but even legal non conforming has certain implications in terms of insurance and that sort of thing.

Speaker L · Sorry, there's some confusion with my proposal, the idea was to collapse the i2 uses into i1. So the i1 would simply have allow the extraction as well.

Speaker A · That works and that could be a feature of the bylaw. I mean it's, it's not a holus bolus departure. If, if council were to go in that direction, if council were to proceed at some stage, whether it's now or in the future, with notice of the first reading and decides to add that component that's allowable at first reading, presumably?

Speaker O · Absolutely, yes. Council can make amendments to readings.

Speaker A · Thank you. Provides additional clarity for further questions.

Speaker P · Mr. Through your chair, may I add one last comment, If I may. Just a comment briefly, Very briefly. You know we have been at this for 30 months and hence the reason for saying we just like to get on with it is that fact that we have been through a pretty thorough fulsome process with district staff and what have you. And therefore in terms of not going to the apc, not only because it's not, it's consistent with the ocp, but it is a matter that we've been going through this a long time and we'd like to get to the end.

Speaker A · Understood, thank you. Just to be clear, did you have something to add? Because we had a very thorough answer. So if it's repetitive, I'm.

Speaker R · This goes to a councillor comment. In 1987 and it was mentioned in Mr. Strongthorn's presentation, the Central Zoning Bylaw number 465 of November of 1987 already had the provision for extraction conversion industrial I2 zone. So at the end of life of the extraction lands, the wisdom of the council at that time with the OCP and this bylaw determined that the subsequent utilization of depleted extraction area in light industrial would be light industrial uses an automatic conversion.

Speaker R · So we are going back almost 40 years to what the wisdom of that council had put in place at the time. That was as he mentioned, inappropriately or illegally changed without notification of the landowners. And we're have right at the beginning, 30 months ago when we made our initial submission to the staff. At that time our request was to work collaboratively with them to reinstate this bylaw that simplified the entire process without all the extra steps.

Speaker A · Thank you Councillor Newton.

Speaker K · Thank you Mr. Mayor and appreciate the conversation the outset, you know, we talked about the importance of diversifying our tax base to ensure that we continue to preserve and protect our alr lands. And I think this is a, an extension of that. I've spoken in the past around the fixed component to the current, you know, the residential DCCs. My preference would not be to have a fixed amount but to have some sort of ability for it to escalate over time. So to have it tied into at least the inflation rate or at least fixed for a period of some number of months and then again further to encourage it, but just so that there's not any potential for lost costs for the cost of infrastructure.

Speaker K · I was happy to see about the improvements and consideration around transit. I've heard from businesses and employees about the lack of transit up into Shawn Heights. If there's a facility to be able to do that, I think that's, that's great. My question through you to staff on this is has this been already forwarded to the APC for comment?

Speaker O · Thank you through Mr. No, it has not been this item. The only other time APC would have seen this is through the OCP where the policy to undertake this initiative was in there.

Speaker K · Right. And it was a similar consideration at that time.

Speaker N · Correct.

Speaker A · The OCP set it up. It's simply the council then triggered the rezoning allowable under the OCP by a council initiated process.

Speaker K · Right. And further to the conversation around the straightening to Keating Crossroad, you mentioned that some further direction from council would be required. But I'm assuming that regardless of what direction tonight, that part of this rezoning consideration would to incorporate a, a significant enough road right of way to incorporate not only the existing road structure but a component of, you know, active transportation to it.

Speaker A · We saw two things from Mr. Matana which one was the placeholder on the map and then the other was the discussion around the potential active transportation corridor which actually would not be on the road but would be be further to the north. Could you reiterate what you said earlier, Mr. Matanowich?

Speaker O · Yes. Thank you. So with regard to active transportation, what, what the proposal is as, as part of the amenity contribution, the financial contribution that the district could put some of that funding towards the Cunas Lane east to west corridor that is in the Mabor Flats seagull area to from Willow Way and leading into to towards keeping Kunenas Lane to the east.

Speaker A · Just for further clarity, that's above there, there's hydro lines, but the land underneath would be available for that potentially. Is that what we're more or less talking about?

Speaker O · That's what we're referring to.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker K · Right, I'm just making reference to the existing width of roadway plus the width of sidewalks that actually permits bicyclists on sidewalks through the Keating Corridor.

Speaker A · Yeah, well, there's sidewalks already Right. So I'll look to engineering if there's. But I would anticipate if a future road was going through there, the sidewalks would carry on as they have.

Speaker N · That's correct, yeah.

Speaker B · Okay.

Speaker K · And so that right of way would be considered for all of that.

Speaker A · Yeah. I mean, obviously it would come before council for council direction at that time and the width of the road right of way, with those included, would be what council would be asked to approve or not approve. Right. Because we tend to be consistent with our standard. Keating is the standard. So to carry on would be what I would assume staff would recommend.

Speaker O · That is correct. The design similar to what you have now. I just want to emphasize for clarity. So what's proposing through this rezoning and covenant is that the district work with the landowners to secure an agreement to have a future road dedication, mostly towards the east side of the Butler lands. So through this, we would not be getting determined road dedication. We would have some agreement that. And still need to negotiate that. That would secure that in the future.

Speaker L · Yeah.

Speaker O · However, the western portion would be built and constructed by the. By the developer.

Speaker K · Right. We have the covenant is a covenant to having a discussion about coming to an agreement.

Speaker O · I would say that that's the only one element that we really have not, I don't want to say come to terms too, but it is a challenging thing for the landowner.

Speaker H · So if.

Speaker A · If. I mean, it's a simple covenant. If. If council were to further direct that the commitment would be placed in a covenant to actually follow through on that.

Speaker I · That.

Speaker A · That if council so wish to straighten the road, there would be an obligation. That's the point of a covenant, is to obligate not to just make airy fairy promises.

Speaker O · That's correct, Mr. Mayor. If council so directed, that would be something we would action with the applicant again.

Speaker A · And that's a covenant that would be developed if council decides to proceed. So it's not lost, it's that it's been flagged and therefore needs further direction. But it's understood that that direction may come. Fair. Okay. You have further questions?

Speaker N · Yes.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker E · Yeah. Just on the. Just to be clear, is the difference between the recommendation and number three, essentially two to three months. We're talking September.

Speaker A · Well, notice the first reading could be given immediately because that's what it is. So first reading may come back at the next council meeting. May.

Speaker O · Yeah, it could. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council King. It's probably, I would say more like four to five months by the time we get an APC meeting, notify for public hearing. All of those versus the option three, which is in the report, because it's a legitimate option for council to consider is that the Local Government act no longer requires a public hearing for rezoning where consistent with the ocp. What's required is just notification of first reading to the public and then following that the bylaw readings. So it potentially could be completed in two council meetings, you know, bearing the covenant being completed as well.

Speaker E · So the option three could be in two council meetings and option one could be four to five months.

Speaker O · That's. That's what I would anticipate.

Speaker E · Thank you. Thank you. I'd be happy to entertain a motion

Speaker A · if you're so respectfully. Councillor Paltiel indicated at the outset that he wanted to make a motion. I had said that questions would come first and we went around the council table. So in deference to that, I think I should give the opportunity to Councillor Peltiel to make his motion. Maybe different, I don't know. But I'm gonna do that.

Speaker M · Thank you. And in hearing the discussion, I think I have a proposed motion with an additional point that might help kind of get to the heart of some of the discussion this evening, which is I would move option three with a third point added that has staff.

Speaker M · Commit or the district commit that development permit related applications on these lands come to council at the time of DP application or prior to DP approval.

Speaker A · Would they not anyway? Oh no, the DP would be delegated otherwise.

Speaker O · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. At this time the industrial development permits are not delegated. So they would. They would come to council. These types of.

Speaker A · Okay, so I mean you can indicate that, but it seems to be that

Speaker M · I still think it makes sense to have it indicated in the motion. Just it could always be attached to a 219 or something like that. Just for a few further clarity.

Speaker A · Okay, so that is the motion. Is there a seconder second just for discussion?

Speaker M · Option 3 requests or reflects or adopted policy within the Keating business district and the transaction of the lands to industrial unit use. We recently adopted development permit areas or move staff in that direction for industrial lands. While I didn't support that move, what I think that this would do in ensuring that development permit related topics go to the apc, I think it better aligns with the intent of the APC when those go forward. So part, I guess part of my third point there would be that DP related items would be by covenant going to the APC for consideration because that gives the APC the mandate to review project zoning, architectural and site plans, landscaping and Screening and key infrastructure plans at that time.

Speaker M · That's a level of detail that we don't have today and I think it's an important one. And that's a more substantive feedback that we could be asking for at the time of that application. For me, the sense of urgency I see or believe is here is really with respect to moving this forward, not on the CAC capture piece, but because the sooner we detail out internal roads with this comprehensive plan that we've asked for, the sooner we can begin working on rainwater runoff solutions to better negate or mitigate the impacts of the bridge broader Keating District, down Maboor Flats and Graham Creek.

Speaker M · So I do see urgency in outlining that plan because we've heard from the nations, from Peninsula Streams and others that this is an urgent issue that they do want us upgrading infrastructure on. And we to date have not been able to do so because of the active mine extractions. Not blaming them for it. To be clear, it's a broader issue, but it gets captured through the. That watercourse. So ultimately we initiated this process for upzoning nearly two years ago or over two years ago, I should say. We, for the first time in decades, we have the affected owners collaborating with each other and with the district.

Speaker M · And I see that option 3 with subtext that DPs get referred to council and the APC going forward. I think attacks best speaks to the issues that we're asking for and provides homage to the, you know, previous commitments made to by previous councils to the affected residents and owners here.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · Councillor Graham is the secondary. Did you want to add.

Speaker L · I have a bunch of points I want to add, but I think they'd be easier dealt with a subsequent motion so as not to confuse this motion any further.

Speaker A · Certainly motions arising are welcome. Councillor King.

Speaker E · Yeah, I wasn't sure if this motion and this initiative would come as an amendment or as Councilor Graham has suggested that staff work with the property owner to identify and preserve a suitable location within the extraction lines for food. Observing locally produced and harvested foods before. Before the amendment returns to Council.

Speaker A · So might make sense to have it as a motion arising if that's all right. Because Councilor Graham has indicated his.

Speaker E · As a subsequent motion.

Speaker A · As a subsequent. Yeah, we'll call it. Yeah, Subsequent motion is the term we'll use. Okay. Any other speakers to this motion?

Speaker C · Councillor Riddle to option three.

Speaker A · To option three. Yes, that's the motion on the floor.

Speaker C · Okay. Well, I will say I do appreciate everything that has been said here tonight. I appreciate this proposal is consistent with the ocp and it has the potential to generate significant benefits for the community, tax revenue at a time when a lot of replacements are coming due. So I, the act of transportation, I, I have a lot of appreciation for that. I'm not quite ready to go this quickly tonight and I, I understand that this has been with you for 30 months, but for us, we saw it once as an idea to collaborate and then now it's coming back. And while it doesn't have to go to a public hearing, I think there's potential that the neighborhood doesn't really know about this yet. And even though it's in the ocp, it could be still a pretty big surprise.

Speaker C · And we've looked at zoning changes consistent with the OCP elsewhere and still done quite considerable engagement. So I'm. I want to learn more. I think I could use a little bit more meat on the bones to really vision what this is going to look like. Other gaps for me, just the nations. I haven't really heard a lot about those conversations, so that's sort of where I'm sitting now. And I'm happy to move it forward, even potentially right to the public hearing and do that alongside the APC referral, but I'm not quite ready to start doing readings and move it forward into meetings tonight.

Speaker A · Just to be clear, this is not the actual readings of the bylaw. This would be notification. Yeah.

Speaker C · Yeah.

Speaker A · Councillor Newton,

Speaker K · thank you, Mr. Mayor, and appreciate the comments. I'm happy that we're having this discussion around the various options, you know, slightly aligned with Councillor Riddle on this. With respect to engagement from the public. I, again, I can appreciate that this has been, you know, percolating in the background for four years. And again, to Councillor Peltier's comment about having alignment with property owners and the district is good. I do think that having a public hearing component to this would be good and part of, you know, a good due process engagement with our community. I think the comments from again, Councillor Paltiel around the. The critical side of the stormwater management and how that looks is essential.

Speaker K · And I know I'm sort of wandering outside of what this is, but it's part of what we need to make sure and I'm 100% confident that staff is very aware of all of this. But I think it just continues to move forward and incorporating a public hearing into it for the sake of a couple of months, I think that that would be good. Again, from the community side of it,

Speaker L · Councillor Grant, I just need to. I feel like I need to address that one particular point I understand the desire for a public hearing, for desire for more public engagement. This has been planned, there's consistently planned that Keating will be straightened, that this will be an industrial area for more than 40 years. I don't know how far back or when the original planning started for this, but it's a long term plan within the community and I've never heard any significant opposition to that.

Speaker A · I'm going to invoke my privilege here as chair to speak last. Before calling the question, I need to reiterate a point that was made as part of this motion, which is that the dp, which is the actual planning stages, may be a few years down the road. Because at this point we cannot know what is proposed. The appropriate time for public input is when the plans are proposed put before us. The appropriate time to actually get the APC to weigh in is when there is something to weigh in on. This is the land use bylaw change as opposed to the actual bricks and mortar. Councillor Paltiel actually made a very salient point as to what the APC is best weighing in on under the terms of reference.

Speaker A · I really do encourage members of council to be thoughtful and understand that a public hearing would have the same flaw in that there is no plan, there is the underlying foundation, but the actual planning and building and DP is to come and it will only be when the extraction lands are exhausted.

Speaker A · And that, as we heard from the applicants, is a few years down the road.

Speaker O · Road.

Speaker A · So this is not the last opportunity. This is a check in point of something we started 30 months ago. This is the next step. But the important step for the community comes down the road. But we are ensuring that all the things that are happening, including negotiating amenities, is secured. I would say to council, if you do nothing here and this fails, it could be three years. And in three years time it may be that the applicant might be someone else and they may be unwilling. And so the question, as Councillor Graham puts, of something that has been before us in this community for 40 years continues to be an unanswered question.

Speaker A · It is our job to answer these questions and I am quite comfortable supporting this and I hope other members of council understanding that element of it, will actually approve this today, as we've heard, we can also make amendments at first reading if it becomes necessary because we learned something new.

Speaker A · But this council has a lot of accumulated knowledge. I hope it will apply it having begun this process and understanding what it says started 30 months ago. So with that I will call the question and look for those opposed to the motion, Councillor Riddle. Councillor King. The motion carries. Councillor Graham.

Speaker L · I had some following motions that I think are important to capture and just direct future before it goes to staff to finalize. So the first motion I want to make is that we that in the Covenant process that we make sure that the Keating Road right of way, that it will is secured at the time of build out.

Speaker A · So what we spoke of earlier, that

Speaker L · the commitment is solid, that it's solid within the Covenant. But at time of build out it'll

Speaker A · still be a discretion at the council at the time to invoke it. But it will have that privilege.

Speaker L · Yes.

Speaker A · So staff, you can capture that. That is the motion to ensure that. That is the privilege of the council of the day. Second. Thank you. Further discussion on that. Any opposed? None. Motion carries.

Speaker L · Any further arising motions, they'll get increasingly controversial. Excellent.

Speaker A · I expect no less from you, Counselor.

Speaker L · I would like to to include in this plan or agreement that we have here the school site and the municipal site. That's outside or, sorry, that's within the urban containment boundary.

Speaker A · The little road piece.

Speaker L · The little road piece and the Mount Newton school site.

Speaker A · In deference. The first was actually addressed by the proponent. I think already in conversation with staff, but it codified, so I'll accept it. I think it's not going to be a too controversial piece. Is there a seconder? Thank you. Any opposed to that? Seeing none. Continue with your controversy?

Speaker L · Okay. I would move that the uses contained in I2 extraction industrial be added to I1.

Speaker A · Is there a seconder?

Speaker L · Oh, and that the i2 would so cease to exist.

Speaker A · I think you have been skunked on that one. Is there any other motions?

Speaker L · Well, probably not, because the rest involve consolidation of uses. And if there's no interest in consolidating uses into the I1 zone, then probably no point in proceeding.

Speaker A · Okay, I'll accept that. Councilor King, you had a subsequent motion?

Speaker E · I had, yes, a motion. I feel like it's been in the works for a long time because I had previous motion. Notice the motion. It's come trickled way through and staff perhaps have had some of those discussions. I appreciate that. There's the $40. 50 per square square meter amenity contribution. I'm wondering if there might be the possibility to secure some land for a food hub. Because as I mentioned, where is extra land being created and there isn't. And so while we might collect funds, it's going to continue to seemingly be a challenge to actually get moving with the food hub. So I'd move that staff work, work with the property owners to identify and preserve suitable location within the extraction lands for a food hub serving locally produced and harvested foods and report back on that, perhaps through a covenant or other measures needed to permit and secure that use before zoning amendment returns to council.

Speaker F · Okay.

Speaker A · Is there a seconder for that motion, Chair? I do not hear a seconder. Councilor, did you have another motion?

Speaker K · Yes, I'll second for discussion, if I may.

Speaker A · You may.

Speaker K · Thank you.

Speaker A · Seconding. Did you want to further motivate or did you want to motivate Councillor Newton? Either one of you?

Speaker E · Yeah. I didn't know if Councillor Newton wanted to have further discussion.

Speaker K · No, I think it's something that we've been considered and have been talking about for a long time. I'm willing to consider it. And I would almost say that if that's the direction that council wishes to go, that to make that, it's going to be counterintuitive to a motion I'm going to probably make subsequent to this. But to have that be exempt from the amenity contribution.

Speaker E · I agree. I think that it would be one or the other.

Speaker K · And so I would move that if that is created, then that parcel would be exempt from the proposed amenity contribution.

Speaker A · I see what you're saying. So Councillor King had indicated that obviously then a financial contribution would not be warranted. But what you're saying is that there would be no further amenity contribution because itself is an amenity contribution.

Speaker K · Correct.

Speaker B · All right,

Speaker A · I'll take that as inherent in the intent of the mover and seconder then. Is there anything further on that, Councillor Graham?

Speaker L · So my understanding is it would require a donation of land for a food hub. I'm not entirely sure what the motion means. I guess I can get. Well, I can get behind the notion. If the motion means that a food hub would be exempt from the amenity contribution, I can support that. But if it means that the applicant has to identify and secure a location where land is being donated to build a food hub, I'm not supportive of. So I guess I need some clarification as to what the real intent is.

Speaker A · I mean, this was land in the extraction area.

Speaker E · That's right. We're trying to do is secure a food hub.

Speaker L · I understand, but I don't know what secure means. Like is this a market based.

Speaker A · Councilor indicated land in the extraction area would be a contribution, so the land

Speaker L · would be donation donated. And the. Okay. And that's. And the amenity contribution would only be waived for that land that was donated.

Speaker A · That Was my understanding to Councillor Newton's point that that land would not be subject to further amenity contributions.

Speaker L · Okay, I guess I'm speaking against the motion then. And I would support something in the covenant just to have it, that when the land comes up for development, that a discussion occurs with the owners about the need for. About the potential for a food hub and that a food hub, if developed, would be exempt from. From the amenity contribution.

Speaker A · For absolute clarity, when the original motion was moved, as I understand it, staff, a contra financial contribution towards a food hub was what was potentially in the offing. This would seek to change that to the land, which would then be exempt from a further amenity contribution. If you're opposed, simply vote opposed and it reverts back to what it was. Is that fair, Councilor?

Speaker J · That's fair.

Speaker A · Okay, Councillor Thompson, I guess my question,

Speaker I · and it goes through you two staff, in my reading of the report, it suggested that any donation contribution of food hub may impact on the ability to create certain active transportation or limit active transportation options.

Speaker I · Was I reading that correctly?

Speaker O · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It referenced active transportation options, but I guess it is the pot of amenity contributions only so big. And so if we putting it towards a food hub, if we're for example, request requesting land be donated, will that land as a value? I don't know how much land. I'm not even going to get into that at this point. But that would potentially be reduced unless council requests amenities beyond what's proposed and agreed to by the applicant.

Speaker A · Claro.

Speaker I · I think it's clear. So to me, if active. If there are options like active transportation, are we limiting ourselves by. Through this motion?

Speaker A · That is a subjective question.

Speaker I · Yeah, I know.

Speaker A · To which I would say, you know, the same is true whether it's all monetary or monetary plus land that will have a value. If the envelope is so big, then it would potentially reduce if you ask for something else, whether it's land or some other element. So I don't want to. I think I'll leave it at that. I'll leave it up to councillors to decide how they determine what they want to do. Any other speakers to this motion? I shall simply put the question and ask for those opposed. Councillor Graham, Councillor Thompson, Councillor Riddle, Councillor Paltiel and myself are in opposition. The motion is not passed. Okay. Councillor Newton, you have your hand up.

Speaker K · Yeah, I did want to make an amendment or. Yeah, probably an amendment.

Speaker A · There's nothing to.

Speaker J · There's nothing on the floor.

Speaker A · Councilor needs subsequent motion. Oh, okay.

Speaker J · So then

Speaker K · the motion would be that the amenity contribution rate of the $40. 50 per square meter be in effect for 36 months at the time of adoption after which that value would increase at the rate of inflation. And.

Speaker K · Well, yeah, that's it.

Speaker A · I think it's relatively clear. Staff, you are clear on this? Just. I'm going to look for a seconder, but I just want to make sure that.

Speaker O · Certainly clear to us, I think and direction from council on that would be of value for the district.

Speaker A · Okay. So I will look for a seconder if there is one. Sorry. Okay, seconded. Thank you. Councillor Riddle, Councillor Newton. You did speak to this to some degree earlier, but you may have something you wish to add.

Speaker K · So I'll be as brief as I possibly can that we've had contributions that are a fixed amount and have been for I think over 20 years. I don't know what the evolution of this is. We've heard that they would like to get this shovels in the ground sooner rather than later. But I have no control over what property owners choose to do. We've heard that there's existing undeveloped lands within the Keating business district. This may encourage that as well. I would be remiss if this, you know, didn't move forward and in 10 years this value was just. The $40. 50 was insufficient to cover the cost of infrastructure and the needed parts to provide the services for this a decade down the road. And I think we need to be mindful of that.

Speaker A · Okay. Any other speakers to that? Councillor Thompson.

Speaker I · It's the type of motion that I would like to get more information on

Speaker L · before I would vote it.

Speaker I · But again, the rate of inflation. We talk here about a standard rate of inflation versus the cost of municipal service. Rate of inflation. So that would require.

Speaker A · Yeah. So just for clarity, staff, this pertains to infrastructure costs. Yes.

Speaker O · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This pertains to the amenity contribution.

Speaker A · Pardon me? To the amenity contribution. I think there may then have been some confusion because. Because you referenced infrastructure costs being borne by the proponent at the time of DP.

Speaker O · Yes, that's. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That is standard development procedure for the district. If there's a subdivision and there's an upgrade that needs to be done, that's borne by the developer. That's not an amenity contribution factor.

Speaker A · That's servicing in deference then to the mover. There are two streams here. One is the amenity contribution. It's a fair point that the amenity contribution, if the development were to occur some length down the road, the value of the $40 is perhaps diminished. So if that's your intent, if the concern is with the infrastructure costs to support the development, I. e. water, etc. That would be borne by the development at the time of DP issuance, not now. So just getting clarity that the intent is. Is clear there. And Councilor, you wish the motion to stand?

Speaker K · Yeah, it's the amenity contribution part of it.

Speaker A · Fine. Okay. Because I. I did hear you reference infrastructure a couple of times.

Speaker K · I did, but there would be infrastructure for amenities down the road as well.

Speaker N · Fair enough.

Speaker K · It's kind of a moot point.

Speaker A · Fair. Entirely fair. I think we have clarity. I could certainly I benefited from that additional clarity.

Speaker E · Councillor King, are we talking about a cumulative. Increase in inflation or.

Speaker A · I believe the way I interpreted the motion is that once 36 months had elapsed that the inflationary rate would be applied to from then on, not retroactively over the three years. But I guess

Speaker K · I think that would be the intent.

Speaker A · Yeah. I think one thing that could run concurrent to this is Councillor Thompson's amendment. I'll call it to ask for a report supporting the proposed covenant because I think there is additional information required as to how it would work that council would benefit from. So I'm going to accept your amendment.

Speaker I · I was going to do it as a motion to defer, but that's okay.

Speaker A · We'll have the report. Why wouldn't the report just come back with the covenant? Because we're not actually approving the covenant. We're approving the idea of developing a covenant which could include a report and then council could ultimately determine how it wants to apply that. If you want to defer, I won't argue.

Speaker I · I prefer deferral. Getting a report from staff on the fine.

Speaker A · I accept the motion to defer pending a staff report on greater clarity. Is there a seconder? Thank you. Any further on the deferral? Seeing none. Any opposed to the deferral with the Stafford?

Speaker K · I'm opposed.

Speaker A · Okay. The motion carries with Councillors Graham and Councillor Newton in opposition. Did I miss anyone?

Speaker O · Can I add, Could I ask a piece of information on option one, Staff included. Number three, which the council directs staff to report. Report back with the preliminary assessment of the estimated cost, time and consideration of potential funding options for future straightening of Keaton crossroad. Now that is separate from the rezoning. It's a study that the district had initiate looking at long term implications and future planning of that corridor that was not included in option three. So I just wanted to highlight that for council in case of something Council went to action.

Speaker A · The question that I have here is that until you're at the exhaustion of the gravel extraction, in, in any event, it's a moot point. So even if we direct it now, that report is likely not coming back to the council until the extraction is substantially finished. So it could be years. It might not even be the next council, who knows. So, I mean, if we move it, I'm okay moving it. I'm just aware that it could be a number of years. Do you not agree, Mr. Matanowich, that

Speaker K · it

Speaker O · may look to my colleagues beside me to comment on that?

Speaker N · Fine, thanks. Just give me a second here. That would be essentially,

Speaker A · yeah, if you do the report now and it's four years from now, the costing is not going to be very useful.

Speaker N · Well, it would actually highlight the items that would be required for class. It's not as simple as just a simple road straightening. There's actually quite a bit of earthworks that need to be done. There are some sort of.

Speaker A · Okay, staff. I'm going to put you on the spot, the two of you, and I'm going to say, should council do this, Is it your recommendation in the moment that council authorize this, knowing that there's some uncertainty to it? You're not going to be penalized for giving us a recommendation?

Speaker N · Normally I'd say yes, but given the discussion that we've had tonight, I would say it's okay to hold off on that.

Speaker L · Councillor Graham, just a question to staff. Would it be useful not to have a cost estimate, but engineering review of what would be required to build out that road so that we have a baseline of what works would be needed in the future? I don't think there's any point in costing it, but perhaps just would that be helpful?

Speaker N · Thank you. That was the original intent of that feasibility study. So yes.

Speaker L · Okay, so perhaps instead of moving that, I'm going to move that.

Speaker A · Perfect. Is there a seconder?

Speaker K · Wonderful.

Speaker A · It's been moved and seconded. I don't think there's need for great discussion on this. I'm simply going to put the question. Any opposed? None. Motion carries. Are there any subsequent motions on this item? Seeing none, we move on.

Speaker A · Our next item is. Yes. Items of correspondence, if anyone wishes to raise any. No. A motion to close the meeting under section 91E and 92B. Is there a seconder? Any opposed?

Speaker P · None.

Speaker A · Motion carries.