Mission, Texas

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. last week with ample time to review it ourselves and so we 've had a chance to look at what you're going to present today. Okay excellent thank you very much. Then we will we will be as expedited as possible. So yeah just just want to begin by setting a little bit of the groundwork. So we've approached this plan thinking of healthcare as something that happens not just exclusively inside the walls of a hospital or a clinic but that health and wellness begin long before a patient ever walks through those doors. It begins in the streets, the public spaces, in the neighbourhoods that we build. So today we are talking about the the future of the health and wellness district surrounding the hospital but we're not just presenting the land use diagrams and zoning concepts we're really talking about trying to lay a groundwork, a physical groundwork for a true ecosystem of care. It's a neighbourhood that is that is thoughtfully designed so that it has the power to do much more than simply accommodate growth but act as a magnet for innovation and a catalyst for human well-being in people's day-to-day lives. So we think that that is attainable by attracting by establishing a vibrant mix of housing of active green spaces and services and seamlessly integrating medical services within this complete community. With that we can build an environment that doesn't just treat illness but actively promotes daily wellness. We really think that this is a unique opportunity today to shape the built environment and to create a healthier, more connected, more connected, liveable district. So just a quick overview of what we're going to discuss. So we'll quickly touch on the project timeline, walk through the specific community challenges and aspirations that we heard in our engagement thus far and then we'll present the two land use concepts, the healthy heart and the wellness spine. Finally, we will compare the two concepts and review the initial feedback from the public that we've heard in regards to both of those. So in terms of the timeline, we launched this project in early 2026 looking, doing background research and case studies to begin. Then we moved into engagement that started with, as you I'm sure will remember, the council workshop that we did in March. Building off of that council workshop in April, we did a workshop with interest holders and with city staff and followed that with a, with a public online survey followed by a public open house. And the open house had a short survey attached to it as well. Now we are at the point of plan development. So we want to, we want to present these, these draft land use concepts and get council's feedback so that we can spend the summer working on a refined plan and then policy development. Just quickly touching on what we heard, again, you have the what we heard report. So you have much more detail of this in your agenda, but I just want to go over a couple of quick highlights of the report. So, so, so when we, when we did the engagement between all of the different interest holder groups with council, with the public, we uncovered quite a few shared priorities. So across all groups, it was really the establishment of medical and wellness services near the hospital that rose to the top of the, of the shared priorities. But that was supported with a strong desire to incentivize walkable communities, to build affordable housing so that, that healthcare workers would be attracted to the area and to create a complete community for existing and future residents. We also heard that the community highly values the area's existing proximity to healthcare, even if those services are incomplete or limited at this time. And that there was an appreciation for the area's natural assets, including both city parks as well as less formal open spaces. Additionally, there were challenges that were raised and the largest, and I think it's pretty common when, when doing an area plan. But the, the main challenge that we heard was around parking and, and traffic. But also around, and I think that this can go hand in hand with a community that isn't currently walkable. But the residents also noted the shortage of local shops and gathering spaces, which limits the area's sense of place, but also increases that, that need for, for driving to, to, to day to day amenities. And looking ahead, future aspirations for the district focused heavily on expanding local care holistically, creating high quality public spaces and managing parking efficiently and ensuring that we don't exacerbate, exacerb ate existing parking challenges. So these priorities, the integrating of essential services, the planning for diverse housing, solving mobility constraints and creating a complete community, really helps set the groundwork for the two concepts that we're going to be presenting today. So these concepts are still high level at this stage, as I 'm sure you've noticed by reviewing the material. And what we're really looking for here is direction on the general thrust of the land use plan. So that the further detailed work on policies, incentives and other key plan components can occur over the, over the summer or once the land use direction has been confirmed by council. And with that, we will jump into the first concept, which is titled a healthy heart. And this is a radial concept that positions the hospital at the central, at the centre of an entire neighbourhood. And I'll walk through that now, starting with our big moves and then looking more in depth at the high level land use plan. So our big moves, we have six for each, each concept. They start with more land use oriented big moves and then move into big moves related more to open spaces. So in the healthy heart, of this, of this concept is the creation of a proposed activity hub. And in this activity hub, we envision a neighbourhood hub that creates a distinct sense of place, but also features vibrant streets, with retail at grade, service amenities, offices and housing above that retail. And with this concept, that, that activity hub is located right near the hospital, at the intersection of Heard and B ukert avenues. This puts the two sort of focal points of the neighbourhood , the hospital and this activity hub together, side by side. The second move is the, what we call the buzzing heart. This is the areas of slightly lower intensity, but that still have interspersed retail and at grade residential. And these are the, the, the not quite as active areas, but still quite active areas that would surround the activity hub. Here, retail integrates with ground oriented residential uses and we get a vibrant sort of secondary core, directly adjacent to that main hub of activity. And then from there, move three radiates the intensity out wards in a more circular manner. So density and activity radiate outward from this buzzing heart and transition more smoothly towards quieter and predominantly residential periphery areas, further from the hospital and from the activity hub. Moving into the open space moves. The key focus of the open space in this concept in the healthy heart is the wellness loop. Now this is a defining feature, a continuous green circuit within the neighbourhood that connects Mission Memorial Hospital, the activity hub, Windebank Creek and Kinsman West Park and would allow for walking, jogging, cycling, other activities, both sort of through shared streets or through pathway systems connected to the existing green spaces. Moving on to the, the location of proposed parks. Now these are very high level so we haven't, we haven't looked at specific parcels that, that could accommodate a park. But just looking at areas where we think that green spaces make the most sense if they are going to be introduced into the neighbourhood. And in this healthy heart concept we really see those as falling along that wellness loop, essentially creating a necklace of open spaces. With a primary open space close to the hospital and paired with a smaller pocket park near Windebank Creek. Finally, and this will be the same in both options really, but that is the introduction of POPS or privately owned public spaces or public plazas. And these are much smaller spaces often introduced as part of a larger comprehensive development. And these would really be, you know, corner plazas or small areas with seating that would anchor key pedestrian nodes and gateways. And they would sort of fall into the larger parks and open space network. So bringing it all together, the map here as we get into the high level concept itself, it really illustrates that relationship between the hospital, that central hub and the network of green spaces. I'd like to note here that we are not creating new land use designations. We are using the currently existing land use designations for the, that were drafted for the OCP. And what you can see here is with the neighbourhood centre, that is that mixed use centre of retail, potential office and residential buildings, in the sort of purplish red. And along those frontages in this designation that those purple lines that we see, these are areas where we would expect to have retail as a mandatory use at grade. In the secondary areas that sort of buzzing heart, those lighter intensity, but still relatively intense areas located, just buffering this activity hub. We get the blue along street level. We see these as areas where retail would be permitted or home office, live work would be permitted. And where a project does not include retail at grade or home office at grade, then we would expect to see eyes on the street through at grade residential uses. And that could be a front door of a townhouse style development with apartments built above. As we get away from the sort of core of the neighbourhood, intensity drops down into predominantly residential, smaller scale apartment buildings and townhouses, sort of reflecting the land uses of the adjacent neighbourhoods. Now we'll move on to the second concept. So the second concept is the wellness spine. And this has a different organisational structure. So that's where, you know, a lot of these concepts ultimately will share a lot of similarities, but it's really in the structure of how they're developed that you see the greatest differences. And where the healthy heart was based on that central activity hub, the wellness spine is a more linear concept. So with that, we'll move into the big moves and the primary big move. And that's main differentiator is the shifting of the activity hub. So that, that centre of activity. For the healthy heart, it was closer to the hospital. In the wellness spine concept, we've moved that activity hub north to the intersection of Heard and Seventh, and adjacent to Kinsman West Park. This would establish a northern anchor to the neighbourhood , with the southern anchor being the Mission Memorial Hospital. And that leads into the big move number two, which is the formation of an urban spine that connects those two anchors. So this pedestrian friendly neighbourhood, High Street, would be similar to the sort of buzzing heart, the activity node around the activity hub in the previous concept. That is a node of retail permitted, but not mandatory. And where there isn't retail, it would be ground-oriented housing. That spine, we would foresee having wider sidewalks, better for accessibility needs, especially being located close to the hospital and the seniors housing in the area, creating that pedestrian friendly, pedestrian oriented connection between these two hubs. The third move, that is the corridor based intensity. So whereas in the previous hub, we saw the intensity of uses and residential density decreasing in sort of a circular manner, here we see it as a bit more of a linear transect. So the highest density located along the corridor at Hurd Street, and then decreasing as you move into the blocks to the east and the west. Moving to the open spaces and the three big moves related to public open space and green space, the major difference here is that we have introduced what we call the green connector, as opposed to a wellness loop. And this really is to correspond with the north-south alignment of that retail high street on Hurd Avenue. This would be an east-west connector of multi-use paths and shared streets running from the west all the way through the neighbourhood and connecting to Windobank Creek and the hospital. We have also adapted where we foresee new parks going as a result of this green connector versus the looped path system. So in this option, and big move number five, is locating the parks a little bit further to the west with more of a gateway park closer to Wren Street and a sort of a pocket park, almost expanded sidewalk system near the hospital on Hurd. And similar to the first concept, we, with big move number six, we see the introduction of privately owned public spaces and plazas being a key feature for comprehensive developments, and also the other way to create areas of respite at key pedestrian nodes. So bringing it all together, and again, we're using the same land uses that already exist in the OCP, that have been developed for the OCP. And so we have our neighbourhood centre, that sort of key area of activity where we see retail mandatory at grade, potential office space and residential built above. That is this dark red, with the purple lines being that mandatory at grade retail. This is the sort of heart of the neighbourhood located at the gateway to the neighbourhood, with the intersection of Hurd and Seventh, and providing activity across from the park, and giving that sort of shared living room to the residents in this activity hub by their proximity to Kinsman West Park. From there, it's a retail permitted, otherwise residential at grade with active frontages, all the way down Hurd Street and connecting to the hospital , giving that vibrant high street feel, and that pedestrian orientation. And again, from there, we move out to these lighter orange colours and yellow, where it is predominantly residential, with a mix of small- scale apartment buildings and townhouses. We see a location, again, of that sort of key park, that larger green space, at the western gateway to the neighbourhood at Renton Street, and connecting to our green path. I'll just quickly go through comparisons. I think we've touched on most of them already, but just a quick summary. So again, concept one, the healthy heart, we have that activity hub being placed sort of immediately adjacent to the hospital, whereas concept two, the wellness spine, pulls that to the north and creates that secondary anchor to the neighbourhood. The core structure, again, we have the healthy heart has that sort of buzzing sound, sort of buzzing central area, versus the pedestrian- oriented high street or linear urban spine, that connects the two anchors with the wellness spine concept. The intensity radiates outward in concept one, whereas it runs linearly along the corridor, and tapers down from that corridor in concept two. Whereas the concept one relies on that continuous wellness loop with the necklace of open spaces, concept two, the wellness spine utilizes an intersecting east-west green connector through the neighbourhood and connecting to points west. So these plans ultimately represent two distinct concepts. Many elements, as I mentioned earlier, remain consistent. There's the desire to create open spaces that connect the neighbourhood and provide areas of respite. We want to increase amenities for daily life and increase activity at street level. We want to increase housing for different demographics, for families, for seniors, for potential residents at the hospital. And we really want to create a hub of health services that, coupled with opportunities, for example, the new educational opportunities through SFU's medical school could lead this to be a hub of innovation, as well as an area that doctors may want to relocate their offices to. And students or recent graduates from SFU's medical school might find an appealing neighbourhood to live and to work at the admission memorial hospital, expanding the ability of the hospital to meet the demands of the community. You've probably seen this in your review of the package and we've gone over it, but just again, looking at the two different concepts and looking at that, how they differ in particular where they 're concentrating activity. And finally, just want to touch on the brief feedback that we've had based on our open house, where we presented these two concepts to the community, as well as a survey that could be filled out either in person at the open house or was available online on Talk Mission as well. With what we heard from the community was that the healthy heart was valued for the central wellness loop in particular, but some also liked the idea of keeping the core activities of the neighbourhood close to the hospital. Hand in hand with that, those who didn't like that concept as much raise concerns that this radial approach and this concentration of activity by the hospital could lead to increased traffic. And also, the wellness fine was also to increase traffic congestion through an over concentration of activity. The wellness fine, on the other hand, was appreciated for distributing amenities, potentially easing traffic flow near the hospital. Although some still preferred the condensed amenities of concept one. There was also, there was quite a bit of feedback related to the wellness fine itself and that neighbourhood high street and how that sort of reflects what has been successful in downtown mission, creating that one linear corridor of activity for the neighbourhood. With that, that will end the presentation. Really just wanted to give a quick overview as I know you 've had time to look at this package and that really we're here today to hear your thoughts on these plans so that our team can refine a single preferred concept to bring back to Council's consideration in the fall of 26. And again, that may not be one or the other, it could be taking successful elements of both. We've tried to create two concepts that structurally are different so that we can sort of compare these different attributes but ultimately understand that it could be a consolidation of the two ideas that becomes the preferred approach. Thank you. Thank you. Before I open it up to comments, I'm going to see if anybody has any questions. Because I know I do. Before I give comments, I'd like to make sure we're asking questions. Councillor Hamilton, Councillor Gill, Councillor Plekis. And we will go around and get comments afterwards, everybody. So right now, just leave it to questions, please. Councillor Hamilton. Thank you, Mayor Hornton, Mr. Bourne. You mentioned in the concept two, I believe, just to confirm, that there'll be wider, wider sidewalks and better access for better accessibility needs in concept two. Is that correct? Thank you, Councillor. Yes, the idea is that with the increase of activity, whether retail or residential frontages on Herd Street, that we would see that as an opportunity to create wider, more pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and sidewalks that would , you know, support both more pedestrians, but also the, those with accessibility challenges who would be walking those sidewalks to get either to the hospital or from the hospital back to housing or to amenities nearby. I like that idea. Just another, for clarification, when you say complete communities and you mention affordable housing, is that market rent? At this stage, we haven't delved into the policies yet. So, you know, I think the idea is that we want to create the type of neighbourhood that provides opportunities for affordable housing. Once we have the general land use concepts settled, we will start working on the policy development itself. And with that goes hand in hand with incentivization for various forms of affordable housing and, you know, having discussions with staff, with the community and Council to understand what level of affordability is really needed for this neighbourhood. Thank you. Thank you. I've got Councillor Gill and Councillor Pleckes. Thank you, through the Chair. Thank you. When I look at, I think in the wellness spine or in the whole plan, it says opening up more park space. I guess the question is who's paying for that? Is it, are we re-designating land uses and then the municipality will be, you know, acquiring those as we do in , up in Cedar Valley? Yeah, you know, again, there it's really a discussion with staff once we get the concept settled and how do we want to approach the development of new park space and whether that is coming through amenity contributions or if there is, if there are future park spaces allocated in the budget for this area. And in hand in hand with that are these, these POPS or these privately owned public spaces which are, where access is guaranteed through, through Covenant for the public, but they are on private property and they are, they are created as a part of a comprehensive development and so that is essentially an exchange for, for the, the permission to build the, the more intense development. Okay. And I guess I didn't read that wrong. So it is to read, I guess the wish is to re-designate private lands into, into park park land in the OCP. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Correct. I guess my second question is with some of the concepts we 're seeing with the current OCP that the city had adopted, is this adding additional density on top of the density, the level of density that's being offered in the current O CP? The, the line use designation for this area is, is quite broad and, and that's because it was always anticipated to, um, have a more refined plan. So it, it gives a, a static, uh, density, I believe is a 3. 0 FAR across the whole neighbourhood. Um, and it gives it one simple designation of health and wellness district. And that was always intended to be a, a placeholder for more, uh, refined, um, uh, policy work. So we're not looking at exceeding the density anticipated or the, the neighbourhood. What we're really looking at doing is allocating it, uh, more strategically across the neighbourhood into, um, uh, lower density, peripheral areas and, uh, higher density, um , hubs. The mapping is changing a bit, correct? Correct. Yes. Okay. And I guess my next question is, I know Councillor Hamilton did touch about, uh, wider sidewalks and I, I do like that idea, especially for folks with mobility issues or mobility , uh, scooters. But I guess my question is, can you tell me or walk me really through what's the difference in the current policies we have as we see redevelopment? There is a dedication that the developers do have to give and make those sidewalks wider. Is, is it just the same policy or are we asking for a little bit more? Uh, on Heard Street, we'd be asking for a little bit more and that, that is, um, you know, I think it, it can be seen right now, um, where the bus stop is, uh, on Heard in front of the, the BC Housing Project. We really do see that, that wider sidewalk that is partially so that the bus stop, um, has more breathing room so that people, um, have more space to wait, but also so that that doesn't interrupt the flow of, of pedestrians moving along the sidewalk. So this would be, um, unlike in other parts of the neighborhood where the, where there are often right now, no sidewalks at all. There, we would be expecting developers, of course, to be building, um, to be building sidewalks, the, the sort of regular width sidewalks, um, in those side streets. On Heard, we would be asking for a little bit more of a, uh , of a, of a, of a dedication for the, the wider sidewalk. And with, uh, the opportunities for spillout zones so that you could have a couple of tables in front of a coffee shop , for example, um, as well as still having, uh, the sufficient space for the mobility scooters or a walker, um, or people waiting at a bus stop. Okay. I guess just my last two questions, um, and these are the overall questions. First is, as we're seeing so much, um, policies that are being envisioned to be changed that affect development or affect, um, private owner rights. Um, can staff walk me through what the consultation process looks like for that or has there been any consultation with , with the development community? Um, so I think the important thing to remember here, these, uh, councils put, um, uh, looking at two conceptual, uh, options here. And really the details that you're speaking of that a lot of councils brought up is something that we would, we would look into or work through our normal process. So, yes, there would be consultation and that the questions around engineering and, and, you know, how much dedication, all those things will be worked out. I think right now is just the high level concept is, uh, what we're looking for. So I think what's being asked, just to be clear, Councillor Gill is saying, is there room for this to now be shown or at some point do you have to be shown? Or at some point to be shown to development liaison committee and similar groups? Sustainable housing committee. I, I don't see why, um, if council gives us some direction, why we wouldn't go to the, uh, development committee. Okay. You can just stay seated and raise your hand because there 's a microphone. So go ahead. I wanted to, um, add that, uh, for, for the stakeholder workshop in person meeting that was held at library. Uh, we did have some developers who actually participated in the discussion and gave feedback, uh, like the, the corner of, uh, her and seven, the current developer who's, who's actually having a project there. And then a couple of others. Uh, we'll still go back, uh, with a refined version of the concept plan, uh, to the community in September. Okay. I guess I'll, I'll leave my comment, um, as, as we move forward to the comment section, because I might have an idea on, on how we can get just broader, um, consultation with, with the development community. Uh, I guess my, my last question is, is the overall question, um, as we're seeing, um, parks spaces being considered and also trails being considered, is that there also going to be a financial component of, of, of this report or, um, of a future report? Mr. Stewart? Um, I'm assuming there probably will be, I guess the question will be whether it's development paid for or whether the city will have to contribute. Mr. Stewart? I think that's the question that Councillor Gill is interested in and probably all of us. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Plekis and then, uh, Councillor Davies, did you have any questions? I'll go after Councillor Plekis then. Councillor Plekis: Uh, thank you. And I did have a similar question in regards to the cost, uh, uh, comp, comp, for the city, uh, as Councillor Gill. My question is, you've indicated, uh, one of the strengths in the report is, um, the convenience and natural assets. You mentioned parks and that people appreciated. I'm trying to understand, could you define what you mean by the natural assets? What you mean by the natural assets that people appreciate within this current area, the hospital area? Um, so, so the Kinsman Park, which is basically, uh, connecting the, uh, the, the spine, spine, wellness, spine concept. Uh, because I think, uh, people use it a lot. There's a school that's in, within walking distance as well . Uh, also the, the natural area that's, uh, I think it's southeast of the hospital itself. Uh, some of that area near the creek itself. So some of those spaces are already natural assets that are there in the area, which are strengths. I, I gather from that would indicate there's not to, in any way through development, we lose any kind of the natural assets. That's one of the ideas they want to retain that. The second question was, it talked about parking. There were comments in the pause of that people liked the idea of free parking, but at the same time, and the current parking situation. But as you look at future development possible and, uh, and more amenities or what we might call, um, medical services in that area, parking becomes a critical concern. Was there any thought how that might be captivated in, in future development? How we, how we make parking become, you know, uh, less critically? And I, the other, and I, and I have a third question, but, okay, does anybody know how we can do that? Or is it thought through? Are they staged or too early? I think that's, we'll let staff answer, but I think that's also valuable as a comment, Councillor. And we'll get to that later on as well. But, uh, um, Ms. Acharya, do you have an answer to that? I just wanted to say that parking came out as a concern in the, in the stakeholder workshop that happened. And, uh, it will be, it will have to be, um, uh, sort of tackled with, with refining the, the, you know, like a parking strategy that will go, that will have to be sort of part of the refining of the land use plan itself. Uh, other than that, uh, I think, you know, I've discussed the transit options, which are minimal and, and the connectivity of the hospital to the, um, to the, the clinic , the mall, uh, where the urgent care center is. So that, that has been identified as, as a challenge already. So parking, uh, improvement will have to be a consideration within the land use plan. One of the other questions is, in, in looking at these two concepts, is whether or not you looked at other communities who have a hospital hub as well, and how they managed to fare out and increase in their hospital and services around the hospital. And I, you know, uh, I don't know if there's been an opportunity to do comparative, you know, I've recently had a couple different hospitals for service and, and the parking was a challenge, but how about other resources around those hospitals? How would they branch out from the hospital itself? Do you have a chance to compare, to compare notes? Is it safe to say that there really isn't anybody doing anything quite like this? Uh, I think some case studies were done by our kiddies, so they could probably add to some comments there. Yeah, yeah, you know, what we're starting to see is, is this idea of a, of a hospital district starting to become more popular. So Abbotsford is looking at doing something similar, and in IMO, they have a hospital plan as well. These are recent plans, and so they haven't, we don't know what the results are from them yet, because they are, you know, they're a little bit ahead of where we're at with the health and wellness district plan, uh, here in Mission. But they are still quite new plans. And so, you know, and especially with the market conditions having slow development in both of those communities, we haven't really seen the results of what those plans, um, have produced. Uh, on a, uh, a bit of a higher density, um, and more, uh, um, more downtown oriented, uh, plan. In Surrey, they have created a, uh, an innovation, uh, hospital innovation plan near, near their hospital, uh, near King George, uh, station. That has seen quite a bit of success in bringing both educational institutions, um, as well as, uh, as well as, um, healthcare and other innovation, uh, businesses. Uh, as Harry is showing here with his, with his screen, these are the four that we looked at. Um, of course, you know, the new St. Paul Hospital at Vancouver is, is under construction, um, different context, but it is bringing, uh, um, quite an increase in, uh, hospital adjacent services and innovation. Um, the Surrey health and technology campus that is, uh, become quite successful. So they are not completely built out yet, but they have built a substantial amount of their phases. Um, um, questering. Yeah. As I mentioned, the educational uses, the professional, uh, health and, and technology, uh, innovators. Um, the Nanaimo, uh, hospital area plan, the Abbotsford health campus, I think are very comparable, um, to what we 're working on. And again, those are, those are a little bit too new right now to, uh, to see what the results are. But they, you know, it's, I think it's, it's giving the indication that, that, uh, this is becoming a, a popular idea. I think Colonna was also looking at doing something similar . So, um, you know, it's, I think it's still a bit of a wait and see what, uh, what the results of Nanaimo and Abbots ford's plans are. But they, uh, this is a, this is an idea that is, that is picking up momentum. Thank you for that information. Again, I think there's one difference between some of those in our own, which is that in some of those cases, the land is owned by the public realm. The St. Paul's realm in particular, they bought it with that intention. And so it was quite a difference from a neighborhood plan than something where people are planning their own land. Uh, thank you. My questions have to do with essentially the , the values and principles that were used to arrive at the two concepts. Um, I have a particular one or two that I'm wondering if entered in, but maybe just talk about what was the lens that resulted in these two concepts. Um, so that, uh, actually here, do you have the, uh, the materials from that, um, the interest holders and the council workshops? Um, so it really was, uh, it was rooted in, in a lot of what we had discussed in our, in our council workshop in March. And we'd, we'd, we'd gone through the prioritization exercises with, with council. And we, um, so it's. Okay. So it's. We did those prioritization exercises with the interest holders as well. Let me, let me, let me change my question, Mr. Bourne, not to, not to take your time. As I've got those priorities from the three groups. What I, what I was referring to is more, uh, the land use principles, um, that you've applied here. Because you've got sort of a hub model and a spine model. And I think many of us have been doing this long enough to see that that comes up frequently in any kind of land use designation. And I'm just wondering at the why, why does that show up so often in a neighborhood plan or either or both of those? Yeah. And I think it's, it's really the, the difference of, of creating that, that one key center of activity and having, um, you know, having the, the neighborhood really be built around that sort of one core area. Um, that, you know, it might be a little bit easier to quick start, uh, the activity hub, for example, if it is located adjacent to the hospital, if we're really concentrating the activity versus the, the spine. It's, it's more about creating that, uh, that high street. It's really about creating that central neighborhood street , um, instead of that, uh, that, that specific core. It, with the, with the active side streets, it's really about the high street. Um, is that almost, um, you know, historic main street model, the, the streetcar suburb model, that idea of you, you have the linear core. Um, people know that that is where you go to, um, uh, to, to go to the shops. Um, they know that that's where the highest intensity is going to be. It is sometimes easier to put more, uh, intensity along a busier transit corridor as well. I think, you know, sometimes that can be problematic when it's a very busy street and we're, we're putting all of the sort of new housing along a busy street. I think with, with a street like Heard, it is, it's busier than most streets in the neighborhood, but it's not a, a really high traffic, high volume street. And so I think that there is a, um, you know, an opportunity to create a high street there that is both, uh, focused, that really defines the neighborhood, um, but it doesn't, uh, reduce livability for potential residents who are going to be living there. Thank you. Um, just add to, to Cameron there. One is primarily focused around movement. So that's the wellness spine and connectivity and trying to connect people across a neighborhood. Whereas the other one is primarily focused around creating a destination, a place for people to come together, together, to interact. And that's what you see with the healthy heart. So two different approaches to the land use planning. Thank you, Mr. Linford. That's very helpful. So my next question is a bit out there, which is what would it look like if our health and wellness district was less focused on a map? You've talked about hybridizing or choosing one of these. I think it's important for us to plan the public lands. But what if we were not nearly as prescriptive and didn't include similar to what we're doing through the rural mission strategy, which is more based in performative measures than a pres criptive map? Is there a rationale where that might make sense for us? Um, and so by that, uh, just, uh, for clarification, do you mean something that is a bit more, driven by the goals and the policies as opposed to the designations in the land use itself? Precisely. I think it's an interesting question. I think it is, you know, right now, just with the way that area planning is being done, I think it's the map provides predictability. People know what they are able to do with the land. Um, that, that certainty can be beneficial, I think. But, uh, you know, if it's, if it's more policy and goals dependent, there's a, there's more flexibility from, from the city's, uh, perspective on, on what the ultimate development outcomes look like. Um, and I think, you know, seeing how an area develops, I think there's, there's benefits in flexibility to see what may or may not work. I think the, the map sometimes, because it is prescriptive, it does feel a little bit locked into place. Um, you know, I think regardless, we're going to have a, a large stable of policy recommendations and policies within the plan, as well as incentives. So that's going to be present regardless. We are, are going to have key goals, um, and that, that relate, that those policies relate to. Um, you know, defining the, the whole neighborhood plan on, on the, the policies themselves. I think it's, it, it, it is an interesting approach. I'm, I'd be interested to hear what the, uh, um, what the, the development community and the, the residents have to say about that as well. Yeah, I'll, I'll hold my comments on that, but you can guess where my comments are going. Yeah. And I'll ask you one more question that'll even more tip my hand in terms of where I'm going. Mm-hmm. The public engagement said that people were really concerned about land value. I know we hear that from developers all the time, too, that if we go ahead and we create something that tells everybody , this is where you can build this thing, you just drove the value of it up so high that nobody can come into the market and do it. Mm-hmm. Especially if you're making people give additional park land or you're taking away some of the land supply for parks or you're asking for larger, um, pathways for people. So, what I want to know is how has the feedback you received on land and development costs, um, affected the way these maps were drawn and these policies were, were drafted? That really is, you know, putting much of that, uh, much of that intensity where it would drive up land values higher, um, in the, in those areas that we see as being, um, the most logical places for the gateway to the neighborhood at Herd and Seventh or, or near the hospital. Um, and having less, uh, aggressive changes in the majority of the neighborhood where, um, the land value impacts would be, would be lessened. So that's moving east-west, um, or in the, the Healthy Heart concept, north and south and, and towards those adjacent neighborhoods. Yeah, I, it's difficult not to comment on that. I would, I would simply say that doesn't address the issue of maintaining land value. It just makes some people winners and some people losers. Um, in any event, we'll turn to, I'll have comments later on, um, based on that, but I'll turn to my colleagues and see if they have comments. Starting with Councillor Davies. Not, uh, comments. I have a couple of questions. Okay, questions first. Okay, yeah, sounds good. Um, in, in the outline here, there's no concept, I, I guess , for, for parking. Um, and health districts always require, in some form or other, a healthy amount of parking for, uh, for people that are both staying there permanently, staying there short terms, et cetera. How would you envision, uh, parking being worked into these concepts? That's, uh, so we have our transportation, um, uh, engineer within our office engaged for the next phase. Um, so she's going to be looking at, uh, parking strategies and, and providing policy recommendations. That will be looking through, uh, the sort of hospitals parking needs as well as, uh, the residential. I think, you know, the, one of the key, um, it, it can be a bit counter to creating the complete community. But I think in an area like this, where, where the hospital is such a demand driver for vehicle traffic, I think, uh, sort of key component of that is going to be ensuring that the, that, that, um, residential uses are providing sufficient parking as well as retail. Um, potentially below grade on a, on a larger project so that we don't have the spillover of, of residential, um, uh , additional residential parking that can't be maintained within the parcel itself. Spilling over onto the streets and then competing with the, um, the hospital users and their, uh, their, their inherent demand for parking. The, the other, you know, the other element, um, with TDM or transportation demand management. I mean, I think we want to create as many, um, opportunities for less vehicle traffic, whether that is creating the walkable community and walkable, um, retail nodes, um, more bike parking. The, the, the, the other pieces and it's, you know, it's, I know it's a bit out of the hands of, of, of, of us and our policy recommendations and of the city is, um, trying to create the environment that can increase transit service and make it more desirable for BC Transit to increase the level of service, especially with such a prominent, uh, trip generator, like the hospital in this area. But that does require more, more residents and more, uh, potential demand. Uh, thank you. And, uh, and you kind of segued nicely into my next question was there's no real definition in this, uh, on these concepts about public transit. And really tying into what the mayor asked, if, if you weren't locked into what is a, uh, a street map today, you know, what would an ideal transit system that is designed for a health hub, what would that look like? What would that feel like? What would that feel like? That can be received as a comment and, uh, from what I'm noticing, just nodding there, but I would say that probably it fits in with something that I was saying, which is, we probably don't want to put those on a map as much as describe the desired performances that we have. So, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Well, I see, um, I have a question on civic resources, um, in this concept here. So, from time to time, the city is going to want to have, um, a portion or, or space in a facility, such as for a, an add-on to a youth center or, uh, the ability to add a little art center or something in, in here. Nothing in this concept today outlines any civic usage. Was it that not, not considered or is that something that would be considered later? Would that fit in with what you meant by a privately owned public space? Are some of those leaseable by the community for those purposes? Uh, yeah, that I think, you know, as, as part of, um, and again, that is something that we'll look at more in depth, uh, once we have a direction on, on how the land use plan looks itself. Uh, when we get more into the policies, yes, I think that is something that, that is important, especially in this area, is what, you know, what is lacking, what is needed, uh, especially from a community use perspective. And how can that be attained through something like CACs, um, uh, you know, a, uh, a deliverable, a turnkey facility as opposed to, um, and, uh, in kind contribution. Okay, my last question, um, complementary businesses or usage types, is that developed at the next level down, you know, such as whether it's a research or technology or a supportive type health, health zone and what type of uses those would be? Uh, yeah, that's, oh. No, never mind, I was just checking to see who was gonna answer. Okay, um, yeah, if staff wants to jump in on this as well, by all means, uh, we would be looking at it in the next level down. Uh, we have our, our economic development team who will be looking at incentives, uh, for certain types of business and, and how we can, um, create a framework that can attract the types of businesses that are desired, that are complementary to the hospital and desired for our health and wellness district. Thank you. Thank you. we'll open it up to comments. I'm itching myself but I'll wait to go after others. Councillor Gill, sorry, you said you want me to go first? What I like about the plans, the concepts, is that you have understood that what we're aiming for is healthy living, not healthcare only. And so I love the fact that you've created something that does countenance, livability and healthy lifestyle and would be a premium neighbourhood in which to do business or live or visit. I would love us to move away from the idea of a prescript ive map. I agree with the public's feedback about what they liked about heart and spine but not either one of them alone. I don't think that the map currently leads us to answer two questions that I really have heard already from early indicators. The first is how do we make sure that the people who don't want to move don't see themselves priced out of the market and I think if we control where the only type of dense developments that can happen are on the hub or in the spine , we do that. I'd rather let the market be innovative and find ways to mix uses within the neighbourhood. I see that in lots of places I've travelled to. I can think of examples in the Fraser Valley where that is the case. And so to me the map should identify the green spaces, central locations that are known now. But I for example have had inquiries, you had Mr. Tour there it sounded like at your open house and he's obviously looking to develop that property. He's more along than a lot of others but he will understand the pro forma and he needs to be listened to. Similarly was approached last week by a development company that owns an assembly of property across the road and has a very, I would say Mr. Pitcaathlete was an exciting project that will address many needs including healthcare housing, seniors care and a campus of care ecosystem as well. So I would rather we not prescribe to people that those have to be on Herd Street because otherwise those people on Herd Street who don't want to move are going to be taxed out because their property value is going to go up and the people who may want to sell on Scott should be able to do that or Bukert or whatever. So the second thing is, and again I really, really like the idea that we describe performance outcomes. And going to something that you guys were in the room for the other day talking about the Lougheed corridor, when we talk about incentives I don't think council has been keen to think about tax breaks as incentives. I want to be able to come up with a formula that says to somebody, yes, we'll apply a parking strategy to you because you're approaching affordability or seniors housing which likely require less of that care. Or you're building in a handy dark bay or you're doing something that makes the neighbourhood truly well serviced by transit and pedestrian use. So to me it's really about being able to say to somebody, we're going to allow you to have less concrete poured to build a parking garage and more to build a floor of medical offices or a new home for hospice. I think we really do need to pin down the formula and I think Councillor Davies' question around parking and I think Councillor Plekis asked this as well, we need transparency for people. That neighbourhood to me doesn't have the exact same issues as Cedar Valley does. Cedar Valley is a hot mess when it comes to parking. Here we're starting with something that's going to change dramatically and we can build in thoughtfulness about that from the very beginning and think about the future. Just back to maps for a second, I have to say, and this is a general comment to our staff, when I think about the way maps have affected our community , I have to say I think they're very often counterproductive . I get asked by everybody from the mom and pops up in Steel head all the way to the racetrack to waterfront landowners to Stave Heights to Silverdale. They all come and say, well when we drew those maps there were things we didn't know. We didn't realize we were going to find water under the ground or the market conditions were going to change or transit isn't available. So I'm actually hoping that in the end we can move a little bit more towards describing what we mean by a living document. So saying yes, there's a map, but telling a future council why the map shouldn't freak them out and why the community shouldn't be freaked out by it either. I get people who come and they say to me, how come my property is on this map? I didn't get asked that and the answer is really difficult because people don't understand the difference between a designation and a rezone. Councillor Gill's question about parks is really, really valuable to me. I'm guessing where he's going but if he's not going here I will. If we ask too much of developers we're going to kill this idea. And if we tell people you can't have your property it's going to be a park, we kill this idea. So I'd like us to utilize the existing parks as much as we can and improve them. I'd like us to use the ravine as much as we can as an environmentally sensitive area. That's available as a beautiful spot for respite and hiking and exercise and so forth. To me, rather than go out and absorb a bunch more park, I'd improve the parks that we have and really minimize the amount we need to give up land in this fairly constrained district for green space. And I'd also think about two other things in those parks that are really important. Councillor Elias isn't here but I know she'd put a thumb up if she could hear me talk about whatever's built there needs to be accessible. And in particular we're thinking about people who might have dementia. We're thinking about people who might need to take respite because they've got an elder in care. So making it a place where folks can go and sit, can take their elder for a wheelchair trip down the way, as well as where they can sit no matter what the weather's like. Up in Cedar Valley we've seen a great demand for covered socialized spaces. And I think that would be a better thing for us to do than just keep building parks. Councillor Davies' question around spots where we'd have public art or art and performance spaces. I'd love that as well. So yeah, those would be my comments. I think if I had to pin down which one I like more, it's the spine. But I don't love either one and I don't think we need to lock into a branding. I think that's what I see almost happening here is every map I see these days is based on a hub or a spine. And I think here we need to leave room for innovation and market forces to do their magic. Anybody else? Councillor Gill. Thank you, Mayor Horn. Thank you, Mayor Horn. And through the chair. I think for me, you know, creating that health hub, I'm excited because I genuinely think this will attract more healthcare services to the area and also unlock opportunities. I think that's why we're doing it. But I think some of the concerns for me right off the bat where I am getting very concerned is first is we're looking at, you know, opening up more parkland or more trails. There's there and also having wider, you know, sidewalks. I think in theory, it's a great idea. But there's also a lot of smaller parcels in that area. And a lot of folks that I do hear from that are building the multifamily, whether it's a Schmoo product or anything, they say, look, it's just unfeasible even in the current market conditions or with some of the performers that they 're doing. So I need a better understanding of say, OK, you know, when we're doing consultation with development, you know, developers, where do they sit? You know, is this because it could be great on paper. But if if no one is going to execute this plan, then it's it's just a plan that's going to collect dust. And that's my concern. And maybe there's an opportunity at least at the, you know, at the very minimum to go to the DLC and say, hey, look, this is what we're working on. What are your thoughts? I guess my second concern is that I think that's the most important thing. Concerns are just the financial component. So if we are going to ask, you know, whether it's trails or parks, how does this fit into the overall budget? If it is going to be paid through development, I'm guessing these development cost charges are going to go up. So I want to I need to understand, you know, what happens there. And then I guess my last thing is just communication and engagement. I think I think the consultant and staff are on on a good way. But I just feel like the broader community doesn't understand this enough. And we kind of not sure if something could come back to us or where staff can kind of say, OK, let's go back to the drawing board. How do we get more engagement or more consultation and get the community to at least weigh in or be aware of what's going on here? Because the average citizen I've talked to, especially in the couple of weeks, not one person has brought this up with me. So I think Mr. Stewart had something to say around DCC's and then what I'll do is maybe raise your question more as a potential for direction. Mr. Pitkaffley will introduce him into the conversation. Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, the DCC bylaw, it's quite vague or it's very broad, the sense that really it's just park projects in general. So really it's not actually a case where DCC's would have to go up more case of council prioritizing if this was where you wanted parks to be over another area of the city based on cash flow, development, revenue coming in and where we apply it. So it's probably more about prioritization than actual raising DCC's. Okay. I guess I appreciate that. And I guess probably that would be the question that I would like to see is if we are going to prioritize it in this area. And I'm not sure because I haven't heard from every other councillor if this is a priority, but what do we miss out on? I think what we'll I think what we can maybe do with that feedback is make sure that we understand this through a lens of what we'll prioritize. And so from my perspective, the ultimate aim here is to provide this neighborhood as a way of ensuring we have better safety, sorry, better health for people in the community. And if something is going to be a catalyst to that, then it probably rises up. But I think it goes to what I meant about performative lenses, right? So if somebody is coming to the door and they're saying, we 're going to bring an amenity as part of a new construction that helps you with that particular aim, then council should hear it. That's that would be where I go. Now, the second thing I wanted to raise, and I think it's something we can add as a resolution before we leave here today, is to just simply ask that staff refer this to the DLC when they're next ready, as well as provide some speaking notes and suggestions for at a future time for communication to keep the public up to date. I think that those drips along the way will be valuable. What are your thoughts on that, Councillor Gill? Yeah, exactly. And I think in -- for one of the plans, I think it was a rule mission strategy where we did those short videos. And it'd be nice to just do -- to do drips of those as this progresses, not like long videos, but to do shorts, to say this is where we are, this is what we're doing. I'm going to come back to you and give you a chance at the end of this to make a resolution to that effect. They don't need to be quite as detailed on the videos, but I would say if you -- if you move DLC referral and communication strategy, I'm sure you'll get support. My speakers are Councillor Gill -- oh, sorry, Councillor Plekis, Davies, Hamilton. I'll make it quick. I do appreciate the last few comments in regards to DLC and getting the communication out. I -- when I looked at this, I did prefer the option of the Healthy Heart and only -- and because, you know, most of the agencies are focused -- the current service model is around the hospital, you know, the Cedars, and we have the Hospice, and we have Pleasant View, and we have the Farmerslave Drugstore there. So that's all centered right around that block or two, within a block or two of that. So it meant to me that obviously you're saying a hospital hub centered around the hospital. The second thing that struck me with the other -- the spine -- is 7th Avenue is the main east-west corridor, and it's sort of like in some ways not detached, but it is critically important to the whole community and people just drive through it to get the west end of town and turn down rent to get out of town. So I didn't think it would create other issues. And when I look at that particular corridor right now, it's -- right now it has other amenities or services on it, but it doesn't mean -- it doesn't focus -- bring its attention back to the hospital. People can completely miss it and just keep going. So that was a concern to me. It's away from the hospital. The other thing -- I hear what the Mayor is saying about how land values can be affected by decisions, policy decisions, but you know, if you want desired outcomes, and you talk about walkable green spaces, protecting the green areas, and you want certain types of housing options in that area, you need to look at purposeful policies in order to achieve that. And that may be challenging because it may mean that in some way down the road, five to ten years down the road, what the neighbourhood looks like today is going to be different. I do agree with the Mayor. Creative ideas are really critically important, and I think we could certainly -- that should be certainly thought of, how people can bring ideas to the table that are creative. And something unique, something that really stands out and doesn't necessarily have to be on the Hurd Street or even 7 th Avenue or whatever can be within that residential area. How do we build the area up and bring something to the area that really makes it attractive for other people to develop or live in? That's what you want to do at the end of the day. I am concerned about green space because we simply only have one park in the area currently, and I agree with Council Gill. How do we move forward on potentially another park when there is no park west of Kinsman Park? There's nothing on the other side of Wren either. So that's a concern overall. I am concerned about individuals building in such a way as that they leave no green space in the front yard and they 're just a parking lot. And whether or not we continue to allow people to back their cars onto Wren Street is a desirable option at the end of the day. Should be looking like much like Cedar to main thoroughfare down the road. Should we be finding ways to develop out in such a way that that can be avoided at all costs. So I think it's important we build out the area, but also it's going to be challenging to convince people that in the long run things are going to have to change. When I drove around there the other day, there is no sidewalks within that residential area. So it doesn't make it as easy and people are traveling through there to get to the hospital from Scott all the way over to the hospital and they come off Wren. So this traffic is moving through there and they're using it as a by street. So that's my first comments. Thank you, Councilor. Before I go to Councilor Davies, let me just make sure you and I were communicating similarly. I think I heard something similar from you to what I was saying, which is that we should be identifying on our maps what we need, what our spaces are and having strong policies that describe what's possible, but not necessarily have every specific lot. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I thought that's what I was hearing. I don't think we should be prescriptive. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Davies. Thank you. And I'll try to keep it brief here. I, I, I, uh, initially I gravitated towards the heart to heartbeat concept. It was, uh, you know, when I, when I originally had thought health hub, it was, you want to be, you know, supportive, have a supportive environment around our hospital was really, uh, what the model I was thinking. Um, I really appreciate the, the work that went into both concepts because both of them brought different types of value in different ways that were, uh, really neat. Um, I do agree with Councilor Gill's concerns that that development consultation is key because, uh, we, we could build it, but they might not come. And, uh, and it's important that, uh, you know, we're, we 're designing something here that not just local developers, but regional developers may look at and go, that's something that we want to support. Um, communication engagement absolutely will be key. And it's been really, really quiet on this one. And, uh, and it should be actually pretty exciting to the community as it's really, really, you know, that hospital is so key to so many people in this community. And they don't even know we're going through this work. That being said, I really would like to see an outcome based concept. All right. So these are the outcomes. And I think Council's been pretty clear as to what we'd like to achieve and how that looks, you know, in, in, in sort of a document. And I think you said central neighborhood, you know, really kind of just painted the, you know, the areas, but didn't really firm things up. Something that's policy driven and allows the maximum amount of creativity. So develop the development or healthcare industry can come and be really, really excited to bring something that may be kind of out of the box in anywhere else. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Hamilton. Thank you, Mayor Horne. When I listened to my colleagues speak, I think we're going to end up with a hybrid model between the two concepts because neither one of them is, is, uh, you know, we'll just merge the two and come up with a, uh, you know, option three, but when I look at the, the feedback from participants, I mean, I'm, I'm always looking at some of these comments and, you know, who's our target market going to be for the housing? They talk about seniors and they talk about, you know, folks that have mobility issues and we need to listen to that and capture that in, in whatever model that we're going to put, you know, in place. So, um, yeah, I think we'll end up with a hybrid model. I think so as well. And I think a hybrid plus also I'm hearing is a fairly common theme that we need to address within the policies ways for people to show innovation and, and achieve goals that may not necessarily be depictable on a map. It's an innovation district. Yeah. Yeah. I think the innovation is a key idea here. And I do think we really need to hear what people say about some of them will want to live in the area because of the very things we're doing. Right. I mean, there's people there right now. I would argue we are getting a strong response from all but one group. And the developer community is definitely talking about this and Fraser Health and the Ministry of Health are definitely talking about this. What we haven't heard a lot from and this is always a concern to this council is people in the neighbourhood. And we, we just don't, we cannot just quietly assume that they're, they're all happy. There are little indications here that people are, are, are concerned about things. Some are excited, some are not. But I think the vision needs to be clearly communicated. Um, Councillor Gill, I was going to come back to you to make a motion. Do you want to make that motion? Yeah. Uh, through the chair, I'll ask that, uh, staff refer this to the development liaison committee and also, um, provide a communication strategy. Okay. So we have a seconder and then I'll ask Ms. Charya, you had a comment. I wanted to clarify a few things. Uh, there is an engagement strategy that was developed by Archadis, which has been reviewed by, uh, our communications staff. So there is a, so there's two streams. So one is creating awareness within the, within the, uh, and we heard clearly these things in the first meeting when the visioning workshop was done with council, that people living in that area should not sort of start fe aring and thinking that, oh, we have to move out. Oh, land use is changing. You know, I just bought the house or things like that. So there's, there's that ongoing communication to sort of keep them informed about the project. And then there's the other one, which was basically saying that, hey, we have the open house. By the way, we have the survey. We want your participation. Uh, so both these things are active. We have just begun. We have done a few things. Um, I also wanted to let council know that I actually did about four or five trips in the area, met the businesses that are existing right now there and, and invited them to the stakeholder meetings, uh, to the open house. So like physically going there and meeting each one of them , the dental office, the life labs, the pharmacy, uh, you know, and some of the seniors places as well. I went and visited them. Uh, so those efforts were done to make sure that people come to the open house as well. So communications wise, we are, we are like trying to do our outreach because this is an important topic for everyone. I've also reached out to first nation folks. Uh, counselor Campbell was, um, hands on on this. Uh, he and one of the acting health managers with the local nation, uh, they were coordinating, um, um, a meeting with all the health managers from all the nations. Uh, we did not get too much response from other nations, but tomorrow we have a meeting with the local nation. Uh, you know, two folks from them. So we are doing, we are continuing that as well. I also went to all the, um, the, um, downtown businesses to invite each of them, the restaurants, the cafes, you know, all the public places, shops that are there in, in, in, and invited them to the local. Uh, unfortunately we got about 15 folks at the open house. We didn't get too much of response, but a lot of efforts were put in from staff to, to actually continue, uh, you know, making sure that people know and they are aware of this. Okay. Perfect. I think those are all good steps. I would say, uh, what I hear from Councillor Gill earlier in his comments is to add to that, the, the one meeting place that people really are leaning on, which is our social media. Um, and something as simple as, um, mailers to the neighborhoods at periodic times. I think of this from a marketing lens, drips and literally the rule of three or the rule of six. We usually try to hit people. Like how many times have you sent somebody out to something , something out to somebody and they'd said, they'd never heard of you, but you sent them something three times already, especially during the summer. Um, and I think that it's very helpful to hear what you just said. I think an update as we hear back on this on the numbers of people versus the number of outreaches. One of the things that tells me is that communities voting by not attending and to some extent that's a good news story, but it can also be perceived as they haven't had a flag yet. And so people sometimes come out later on. So we just need to continue doing that. I think the motion is still a valid motion. Um, Councillor, did you have something further to say? Uh, thank you, Mayor Horn. And I agree with, with, with your comments and, and I do appreciate that. I think the direct, uh, outreach is, is, is working well. Um, and it's great that you're connecting with businesses. I think one of the things I do here, um, especially when we 've done our water metering program is they, they, they, they do like the grassroot communications. And I think sometimes we get lost in the corporate communication, but it'd be nice to say, you know, a, to do those short videos to keep people up to date, whether it's just a real, as people are scrolling, but also just going to maybe a farmer's market. If, if it, if it, if it can be built into the, into the existing budget to say, hey, look, we're here. Um, today, if you've got questions, come ask us. But if we're, if we're at places where naturally people are , um, I think it will work well. Cause I think you're doing great with the businesses, um, and the mailers will get the residents in the area. But let's also go after the everyday person. Yeah, I think one of the most important things, and I'm going to give you four talking points. The most important things is for us to have extraordinarily simple talking points that we can be using. The first is that this is an effort to try and strengthen healthcare in our community. The second is to make the neighbourhood a more livable neighbourhood for people who live there now, for people who choose to sell and/or who choose to sell and others coming in. Third is that we're going to be routinely asking people for their opinions along the way. Um, and then the fourth is that we're getting expertise from others along the way to help encourage innovation, um, in this area. So I think we really need to let people know, uh, and we as council need to have these simple talking points so that we're out there, people can talk about particularly that number one, that this is an effort to attract more healthcare professionals, make the neighbourhood itself a more suitable place for developing places like maternity clinics, seniors care, that sort of thing. Um, otherwise people will worry not just that their land value is going to go up, but that we're going to build a bunch of, uh, shelters in the area, for example. So we need people to sort of capture the vision. Okay, anybody else on this one? The motion's, uh, on the floor, so we'll call the question. All those in favour? Opposed? Thank you. It's carried. Uh, Ms. Acharya, Mr. Bourne, Mr. Linford, anything further that you need from us today? I just had one more comment. I had a conversation with the Fraser Health, uh, Mr. Amir and Mr. Jodaf, they came in person for the stakeholder workshop, and I did bring up the conversation about the parking and the challenges around Mission Memorial Hospital, about the parking, because in the, in the, in the stakeholder workshop, there were people from the hospital, there were people from the, um, the, the developers, and everybody, a few of them who, who are from the area who actually operate, uh, and parking seemed to be one of the issues. So, I did ask Mr. Joseph and Amir if, uh, Fraser Health looks at, you know, these parking, uh, like, do they do analysis with other hospitals? And they said yes, they've done with Abbotsford and they've done with other hospitals, but they haven't really looked at Mission. And I said, this would be a good time just because this plan is being developed. And they verbally promised me to say that they will take a look at, uh, parking strategy and area around Mission Memorial Hospital. I, I think we probably need to have an important and urgent offline conversation about that, Mr. Pitkethley. I think there's some other things afoot that you should probably, uh, be aware of, uh, before furthering that conversation. Um, the, uh, the other thing I was going to say, and I should have thought about incorporating it into Councillor Gill's motion, but I'll just ask it as direction. If you would please work with Jason Payne, uh, to do a similar presentation on this with the Mission Healthy Community Council at an upcoming meeting for their input as well. Um, any other committees that we haven't thought of? I think those are the two main ones. Yeah, there's a crossover there between sustainable housing anyway. So as I'm at, when I get finished here, I'm going back upstairs and working on the priority list that the community, that the healthy community table is working on. And I think one of the things that they need to hear is that this work is happening. It's one of the key areas. So if there's nothing further, um, I want to thank everybody for the progress we're making. And we hopefully we'll have another update here in the next little while. Uh, is that a motion to adjourn, Councillor Davies? Seconded by Councillor Plekis. All those in favour? Opposed? We're adjourned. Thank you. When is he going to come? Yes.

Mayor Redekop: It's a meeting for the City of Vision from June 22, 2026 for the purposes of discussing the Lougheed Highway Corridor Concept Plan. I 'll call our meeting to order and ask for a motion to adopt the agenda from Councillor Plekis, seconded by Councillor Hamilton. All those, oh there are no changes I'm assuming. Mr. Pitkeffley, is there everything we are dealing with here today? I believe that's everything . Mayor Redekop: We just have the one item. Mayor Redekop: Okay thank you. I'll call the question. All those in favour? Opposed? We are on to new business. It 's passed. And so with that, Ms. Acharya I think is our ringmaster this afternoon and is going to walk us through, is that correct? Mayor Redekop: Good afternoon, Council and thank you for this opportunity for a special council meeting to discuss the Lougheed Highway Corridor Concept Plan. The purpose of this special council meeting is to present Council with the three land use options for the corridor and obtain direction from Council on the preferred land use options, as well as address the questions that Council had on the April 7th Council meeting. We will present three land use options. Option option one is status quo, option two is focused, and option three is hybrid. And this includes graphic analysis, showing the visual implications, impacts, pros and cons of each option, as well as well as some ideas on a robust implementation strategy that will need to be developed, which can include certain effective incentives, non-financial or financial. Staff developed the land use options and sought help from our consultant, Arcadis. Mr. Gong and Mr. Bone are here from Arcadis. They did most of the graphic illustrations, as well as the pros and cons analysis. And for this initiative, as far as staff is concerned, three documents laid the foundation. So the Council's strategic plan, which is, you know, which outlines the strategic focus area three, which is industrial and commercial expansion. The 2023 employment land strategy , which is on a 20, for a 20 year span from 2021 to 2041, and the official community plan itself. One of the actionable items under Council's strategic focus area is to conduct a review of the OCP to determine priority planning areas for industrial, commercial and institutional development. And through this initiative, we are actually tackling that. So this is the outline that Council endorsed. So this is the outline that Council endorsed. Basically, the low heat corridor area, study area has two precincts, the western, which starts from Nelson, up to the western edge of downtown, and the eastern precinct is from the eastern edge to the Duny Tunk Road. And the downtown area is excluded. So this is the outline that Council is excluded. employment generating land uses within the corridor, divers ify the municipal tax base for future. January 19, there was a report which had detailed analysis of phase one inventory analysis, which outlined the constraints, opportunities, and other items. April 7, there was a report that actually identified the vision goals, land use analysis, summary of findings from the public survey, and an online proposed policy document that has just started being drafted. Today we are doing this special council meeting to also address council's question and walk you through the three land use options. Just to understand the context, the western and eastern sections of the corridor are anticipated to be different. There's a lot more employment opportunity options in the western sector just because of the location and the accessibility. And then there's no change proposed in the industrial land uses, which is the southwest, which is this area existing. Option one is status quo, which is basically not going to trigger any OCP changes or zoning changes and other policies. It currently allows mixed use with residential as a primary use. So the potential that ground floor commercial with a lot of residential above still exists in the option one, which is status quo. In the option two, the focused option, which is the recommended option by staff based on all the graphic analysis, as well as the analysis of how much residential and employment generating units or areas will be created with this option. Some new OCP designations are proposed. The intention here is to limit residential as an accessory use south of Lougheed and then mixed use with residential north of Lougheed. There are some projects that have happened on the north of Lougheed and the trend sort of continues with mixed use. Option three is a hybrid, which is a compromise between the option one and two, and it allows the developer and investor to match non-residential and residential density. This is option one, which is status quo. I also have the hard copy here. If you would like that this hard copy be passed around, we could do that, because sometimes it's hard to zoom into this. Would you like that? I think it's fine for now and we'll see whether people have questions and if we do, we'll authorize folks to kind of get them out of their chair. But because of the fact that it's difficult for the public recording to happen with that right now, we'll just see if it's necessary later on and let you proceed. Okay. So the hard copies are exact replica of what you see on the screen there. It does identify certain existing uses that may not change for a very long time. So things like the Walmart superstore, the temple, the temple, the best Western hotel, and things like that, the pet food manufacturing in the industrial area. So these changes will probably not change for a very, I mean, these land uses will not probably change for a long time. So they have been identified. You can call them constraints or you can call them fixed assets, but they have been identified for ease of understanding. And the OCP designation and the zoning and everything that is identified in this map, it actually, like the neighborhood center, the employment, major commercial, neighborhood center, and a range of residential designations. This would allow for a significant amount of residential development within the corridor, because residential is always a preferred land use by most developers. The consultant has prepared the tables that we'll go into a little bit later. That's the west part, and this is the eastern part. Again, there's a lot of existing OCP and zones that allow for mixed use, but mixed use does not mean equal employment generating and residential. It could mean 80, 90 percent residential and a little bit of commercial. Again, this is just a snapshot of the existing OCP designation, employment, major commercial neighborhood center, and urban residential, townhouse, mid-rise, all kinds of uses that are allowed. Proposed OCP designations, no changes, and the zone includes a wide range from industrial, commercial, residential, and has specific FSRs within the zones that are permitted within these designations. I invite ARCIDIS staff to sort of go through this. They have done some graphic representations of the massing itself. Thank you, Mr. Atchariah, and thank you, Council, for your time. As mentioned, we have done some studies on these proposed land uses and the three different options. So what we have done is we have masked out what do these options look like. If we follow the OCP, we build out fully, essentially, excluding those few land uses, as were earlier mentioned, that are unlikely to change. So what does this look like at full build out? Under the status quo, under the focused option, and under the hybrid option. So here we can see the building footprints of the status quo massing on the west side. So if you look, you can see that the area around the industrial park remains under the current OCP designation, largely reserved for employment. But the rest of the area developed up to its full capacity under the OCP and the allowable FAR is relatively dominated by residential uses. That is shown in the yellow color, with the only employment in those areas being ground floor commercial. We can see the actual massing itself. So this is the build out. So not to say that these are the most realistic building footprints or that this is what it would look like. And again, I would like to caveat the fact that this is not necessarily aligned with what the market reality is right now, of how much development capacity could be built under current market conditions. This is looking at a full build out. So this is really a capacity analysis of what the OCP allows. As you can see here, with the 3D massing, there is quite a bit of residential development that would likely be built in this scenario. And again, this is assuming that areas that allow for residential, even if they do allow for employment as well, are likely to be built as residential. As that is what has historically been the norm across the province that when developers are given the opportunity, they build residential, not employment. So we do see that that purely employment area along the very western part of the west part of Lougheed corridor stays as employment. The rest is largely commercial with residential built above . The east side is a little bit more tricky. You can see again, sort of if you look to the western most part of the eastern, this eastern part of the Lougheed corridor. Very similar to the west, that's largely residential above commercial built form. The further east, a few employment buildings, a few single family homes that remain as per the OCP. That area is a little bit trickier just based on the flood plains and the dikes. There is not necessarily going to be a lot of development in that area. Most of the action is going to happen to the west. Can you go back one slide please? Yes. To clarify, I don't want to get a bunch of questions asked here, but I just want something to clarify. You have a green section shown as park there. I believe that's the lands owned by LMS Society, which is no longer park, or at least there's an understanding it's not going to remain park. So that's inaccurately mapped, I would say, at this point. We can update that to reflect the current land use designation and remove that from park to commercial. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And so again, here's just a look at the massing. We've looked at the building footprints. Now this is what the massing would look like. Again, we have some employment closest to the river, in the closer to the floodplain areas, and then quite a bit of what we would anticipate to be residential over commercial. Okay. Just to gain a point out just because it's very, very important from the perspective of relationships with local First Nations. None of the area you've got designated as park is park. I think some of that is heritage park under our land back agreement, but much of it is Pequelish First Nations reserve, and is a shared reserve. The area to the, to the, of this picture, those certainly are those lands of the Pequelish First Nations, and the agreement, but the green area is heritage park, which is still currently owned by the Fraser Valley regional district under lease to the city. Right. So there's some parts that we need to be particularly careful about when we're doing this thing. Absolutely. And we'll work with staff to ensure that we have park areas accurately mapped as park, and, and, um, uh, First Nations land accurately portrayed as, as, uh, territorial lands. Uh, this is just a zoom in on a very specific, um, area. So, uh, just looking at, um, sort of specific zones within the corridor, um, under this status quo scenario, and what does that, that look like, uh, and it's massing a little bit more zoomed in. Um, again, to the, to the, the west, um, uh, it is still employment, likely to remain light industrial. As you move further east and closer to downtown, it becomes , um, outside of a few remaining, um, unlikely to redevelop anytime soon employment, uh, um, facilities. It is mostly commercial on the ground floor and residential , uh, built above. This is on both the north and south side of Loughyat Highway. And just, uh, stats, I won't walk through all of these numbers. Again, this can be distributed for, for review, but, um, just looking at, sort of, the high level, what does this mean, um, if it's built out to capacity? Under the status quo option, uh, you'd see the employment would represent about 36% of the, um, uh, square footage or , or square meterage of, um, all developed areas, uh, whereas, um, closer to two-thirds, 64% would be, uh, would be residential. That would be, um, a base of around 16,000 residential units if, if the community benefit, um, additional FAR, um, is, is used. And, um, um, just a bit above 17,000 residential units. Again, not likely to be what is built, but what there is capacity for, um, versus about, uh, 637,000, uh, square meters of, of employment capacity. And I'll hand it back to you, Ms. Achiraya, to discuss option two. Thank you, Mr. Moon. Just a summary of status quo option and the impacts. So, um, there's a loss of strategically located lands for non-residential uses. In the report, there is a map that shows the resident, residential designated areas. Um, and that's like more than 85 or some percentage which is outside of the corridor. So, any 63% added within the corridor would be in addition to already existing residential designation outside the corridor. So, loss of strategically located for lands for non- residential uses. Residents, residents continue to commute for work outside the city. Approximately 70% currently commute, um, out, um, for their jobs. Risk of permitting mixed use developments with ground floor commercial and several floors of residential above. Uh, there are no amenities in the southern part like the parks, schools, uh, any other amenities that are needed for residents or future residents. Uh, minimal public transit options, uh, to support residents or employees or visitors, uh, who, who would come , uh, as new residents into these, uh, units that will be built. So, this, these, this is just a summary of the impact if, uh, it is left as status quo and, uh, if the, um, other options are not considered. We, sorry. Uh, so option two, which is the focus, uh, it's called focused. Uh, the reason, uh, is, uh, is, uh, basically to see, uh, what can be done about, um, enhancing or improving the quantity of non-residential uses. Uh, the current employment designation would be changed to employment industrial. So the, the, the, there are through three new designations, um, essentially all of them start with employment because the focus is to, to, uh, increase the employment options. Uh, so the, the current employment designation would be changed to employment industrial, which is the industrial area. Uh, besides the name change, nothing really changed. Uh, nothing really changes in that area. It currently does allow, um, non-residential uses, industrial and all other uses. Uh, it allows residential as an accessory use. So that will remain. Um, and, um, most of the uses there would be generally the industry, of industrial nature. Um, and, uh, we have seen some new, newer developments recently. The, um, except for the, like I said, except for the designation name, nothing else has changed. The employment major commercial, which is this area here, uh, is proposed to change, uh, to employment commercial. The purpose of the name change is to reflect the need for more employment generating land uses and focuses on attracting higher paying jobs. Uh, there could be a variety of, uh, non-residential uses that could be permitted in this designation. Uh, and the details will have to be worked out. But this is a high level conversation. And to focus on employment generating land uses as a principal use with residential use allowed as an accessory use only. What that means is residential will be allowed probably one caretaker type, type of a use per, per commercial or other kinds of uses. To encourage non-residential land uses within, within, uh, this area, uh, the FSR could be increased from two to three FSR. Uh, just to maximize, uh, the non-residential uses. It's just a suggestion, but these details have to be worked out in terms of what kind of zones will be actually suitable. Um, and, uh, what kind of zones and, uh, other uses, which are all not because when you look at non-residential uses, sometimes people just think of retail. And it's not that it has a lot of options, right? Um, like offices, like institutional, like all kinds of uses that are in the non-residential. Um, the next change is this one, which is right. Uh, downtown and little bit, uh, below, uh, below that as well on the southern side. Uh, this is the existing neighborhood center designation and it's changed to employment business. Uh, the intention here is to support all kinds of non- residential uses office, institutional, retail, uh, with residential again as an accessory use. Uh, the area is the closest to the downtown where permitted residential densities are the highest. So this will complement, this designation will complement the higher density residential that's within the downtown area. And it'll, it will, uh, sort of, uh, sort of work well with the existing densities that, uh, that are in the, in the downtown. Uh, next, the name commercial is proposed to be changed to, this is on the northern side. So there's a difference there, the hatched, hatched one and the full one, the hatched one is the lower density based on , um, you know, the, the constraints, site constraints. And then the other one could be higher density. Uh, the commercial designation is proposed to change to lower density mixed use and higher density mixed use to reflect the fact that residential is permitted as a principal use within both of these designations. Uh, the distinction of lower and higher density is due to topography constraints. The distinction, um, is, uh, is, uh, is also due to parcel sizes because of the, a lot of smaller parcels that need to be either consolidated or have restrictions in how they could be developed in terms of access and the location itself. Uh, this of course needs ground truthing, which is not, which has not been undertaken. Uh, after a high level look at the contours through existing mapping, the parcels proposed to be designated higher, uh, higher density mixed use. Uh, those properties that have limited site constraints and would likely be able to achieve a higher density. So again, these will be called mixed use with ground floor, retail or office or any kind of non-residential uses and then residential above. Uh, same with, uh, there's minimal changes again, uh, at, at the Eastern precinct, you see right next to the downtown area is that, uh, designation, which is, uh, the business commercial. Uh, and most of the other areas, uh, do outline, uh, lower density mixed use. Uh, and if you look at the table, this actually explains, uh, the existing OCP and the proposed OCP and, uh, high level, um, mention of the existing zones and what could change. Uh, or if there are any new zones that need to be created as the development applications come in, then that's a possibility too. But this is a, this is just a snapshot to show, uh, how these OCP designations change and, uh, what kind of compatible zoning is needed for the changes to happen. Do you want to greet us? All right. So, uh, back to look at the, um, the same areas, um, undertaking the same study, the same massing study and capacity analysis, but now looking at the focused option. So already we can see in the building footprints, uh, where is the status quo? Um, there was a lot of yellow on the, uh , the, the overhead aerial view, uh, which was the residential. There's considerably more blue on this one. And that is the employment uses. So the industrial park, again, it stays relatively, uh, the same between these two options. Um, but then as you move a little bit east of there, you see that a lot of, uh, a lot more employment, uh, uses over commercial, um, concentrated south of Lougheed Highway. The residential, uh, building footprints, that sort of orange yellow is, is, uh, to the north of Lougheed Highway. Um, more, uh, adjacent to existing residential areas. And so we look at the massing, um, tells the same story, but, uh, but you get a little bit more of a sense of what does this look like for employment uses if built to capacity. Uh, more, um, multi-level, uh, employment, whether that is laboratory, high-tech uses, light industrial, stacked light industrial, potentially over, um, over-red commercial uses as well, especially along the highway. And then the, uh, the residential, yeah, really being sort of concentrated to the north of the, of the highway and adjacent to existing residential areas. Also a bit of a gateway cluster, um, as well in terms of higher density employment uses, uh, just north of Lougheed Highway and at the very sort of westernmost edge of the study area. Looking at the east, um, a little bit more, uh, again, employment to the western sort of edge of this eastern portion. Uh, more employment, um, along the corridor over, uh, over commercial. And then, um, a bit more residential north of the highway as you move further to the east. Again, areas near the river don't really change that much just due to the development constraints of the hazard lands . And here it is in, uh, 3D massing as well. Again, a bit of, uh, a bit of, um, residential, uh, anticipated just to the north of the highway, but otherwise much more of an employment-dominated corridor. Here looking at the same sort of focus areas that we looked at the massing of the, uh, of the last, uh, the last study with the status quo. Um, light industrial, again, remains, uh, relatively the same. Um, but as you get a bit further east and along the, uh, sort of, heart of this, this corridor, the development turns to a bit more high-intensity employment uses, whether that, again, whether that is office, uh, whether that's lab space. Um, you know, light industrial that might have, uh, uh, less intrusive uses. Um, the sort of office light industrial that we, we see becoming quite popular. And again, it can be over commercial. Um, and that is, uh, that's sort of more along the, uh, the , the center part of the corridor study area. And so if we look at what this means in terms of statistics , uh, unlike the first option where it was about one-third employment, uh, uh, uh, uh, square meters, um, in terms of built-out, uh, capacity, uh, with two-thirds residential, this is about three-quarters employment, um, capacity with about, uh, one-quarter of the, uh, uh, built floor area being residential. Again, capacity, and that would be at full build-out of the corridor. Uh, what that means is, um, uh, just considerably more jobs opportunities. And I'll pass it back to Ms. Atari to, uh, discuss the third and final option, the hybrid. Thank you, Mr. Bourne. Before I go to the option three, I'm going to summarize the impacts for option two. Minimizing residential development south of Lougheed, except where designated as a principal use, which is mostly in the north, north of Lougheed, in the mixed use. Promoting a variety of employment generating users. Uh, there's a, there's a very, um, elaborate list of what those non-residential users could be. Uh, diversified tax base based on increased, uh, employment generating users. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. Uh, diversified tax base based on the, uh, employment. the development permit guidelines, or we could use the newly created DP guidelines as well. Servicing on site parking and access will need to be designed based on site-specific constraints. As Mr. Bone alluded, 76.7% of lands will be dedicated to employment-generating uses, and only 23% will allow residential uses. This is resulting in around 6,200 residential units, assuming an average unit size of 810 square feet. And this size was looked at through some recent projects that have happened. If the unit size changes, then the residential units will change. If density bonusing is applied, another 855 units will be added. So overall, the percentage of residential would be much lower, like 23%, compared to status quo. Let's go to option three. Option three is more of a compromise between option one and option two. The current employment designation would be changed to employment industrial, which is, again, just a name change, which is the industrial area. No other changes would occur there. Residential is already allowed as an accessory use. The employment major commercial is proposed to be changed to hybrid, which is basically all in this area. The purpose of the name change is to reflect the need to match residential and non-residential land uses. This option allows the developer to have a creative solution where they try to match the density or the FSR of the residential with the non-residential uses within the designation. This option allows for a higher percentage of non-resident ial land uses than status quo. So it's like 52.4% and that status quo allowed 36%. And then it kind of allows the residential to match, which is like 47.3%. Again, the FSR could be increased here from two to three FS R so that you can have a little bit more density on non- residential uses. The next change is the existing neighborhood center designation, which is next to the downtown area. It's again going to be hybrid. The purpose of the name is to reflect matching of residential and non-residential. Again, support all kinds of non-residential uses, but with an intention of matching it with an equal amount of residential. The name commercial is proposed to be changed to low density mixed use or high density mixed use, which is similar. That is proposed in the option two. The distinction again for lower and higher density is due to topographic constraints and existing parcel sizes and the location itself. Same with the eastern portion. The portions that are right next to the downtown area would be hybrid. Again, they will match residential and non-residential density within that designation. And a few others have remained lower density mixed use all along. This is a snapshot of existing OCP designations and what has changed the new designations and what kind of zones would be allowed in these designations. And if there are suggestions on how if there is certain types of uses that need to be added to diversify, similar to what is proposed in option two. Back to Arcadis. Thank you. Okay. So for the final massing analysis and capacity analysis, we 'll take a look at the hybrid option and what that looks like in terms of a full build out. So as you can see, it's a little bit more mixed where we have the employment uses mixed in with residential as well. So this is sort of a true mixed use community where there's office over commercial. There's residential over commercial for the core of the study area. And again, the industrial park remains the industrial park. The way that we've modeled this out is in sort of separate buildings. So imagining a mixed use office over commercial as well as sort of separately residential over commercial to get that 50/50 split. Developers could choose to do that in a stacked fashion instead. Ultimately, what it means for the stats is going to be the same. This is just how we've modeled it out for the visual representation. Here's what it looks like in the 3D. So as you can see, the orange-yellow and the blue multi- story buildings, a little bit more intermixed with one another. Again, still more residential to the north of the Lougheed Highway in both option two and three. That is anticipated. But then to the south of Lougheed Highway, it's more of a mix of the uses between the office, the commercial and the residential. Same goes for the eastern side. A mix of both residential, more residential, sort of closer to downtown, and then more of a mix of office, commercial and residential further to the east. Same here again in the 3D massing. Looking at the zoomed-in areas, the same areas again. Number one doesn't change. That's sort of static throughout all three options. So in areas number two and three, we can see that more mixed neighborhood with residential buildings interspersed with the commercial. As well as some, we are showing some stacked buildings here . You can see the idea of commercial on the ground floor, then offices. Often these would be, for example, a doctor's office or physiotherapy, something like that, on the second floor. So in the next floor, we have a lot of residential buildings. And then on the south of Lougheed Highway, a little bit more of a concentration of employment uses, but still mixed between the three different uses. What this means for stats is much closer to a 50/50 split. So looking at the full build-out, capacity for the number of square meters built would be about 52%, just over half employment, and just under half of residential, 47%. Giving about capacity for 12,000 residential units or an additional 500 if developers maximize their community benefit bonusing. Just looking at, just to give a visual review of the three options in comparison all at once, as we've gone through them separately. So you can really see the difference in that, how much more blue there is in the middle one. That's the employment lens versus number one in particular, but even number three as well. And really how number three sort of crosses the two with the mix of residential uses and employment. That 50/50 split, I think, is fairly apparent visually in the capacity and massing analysis. So, same story for the eastern side, just a bit less to look at here. So, this is just to summarize. We've walked through these stats, but again, about one- third employment, two-thirds residential is the capacity split for option one, the status quo. About three-quarters employment space to one-quarter residential for option two. And then option three, so 50/50, the true hybrid. Just looking at the central part of the corridor, this is where we anticipate the most action to happen, because there is the most amount of sort of developable area here. Yes, that is in between Way 11 and the industrial park. So, in that central area, just to the south of Lougheed Highway corridor, we get the sense of what these options look like. Again, it's always going to be a bit more residential to the north of Lougheed Highway. And then, it's really the split to the south where the biggest and most dramatic changes happen, with option two being a very jobs and employment-oriented option. Option one, the anticipation being that when given the chance to build one or the other, developers are going to choose residential. Can I pause you for a moment in that graphic? Yes, of course. How did you arrive at the yellow as the future developments in downtown? It looks like you have projected, and the reason we didn't include the downtown in the area is we weren't projecting dramatic changes in built form there, but it looks to me like that's exactly what's depicted here . So, my colleague, Mac, here I did most of this modeling work, answer that question. Yeah, thanks. For this particular view, since we have the downtown area in the background of this image, we look at what's allowed under the current OCP designation , and using the maximum allowed density, I believe 6.0, and model the potential future of the downtown area. The intent was to showing what's the potential heights and volume and capacity, instead of this study area, what's the background, what's the context. Thank you. And I'll just move on to another comparison chart, and this is looking at, again, just that central area to the west of Highway 11 intersection. And this, we can really see the split in this central area. It can be quite dramatic with option one, the status quo showing about 75% of the buildable area being anticipated to be residential, 25% employment, almost 100% employment in this area for the option two, the focused, that little bit of residential. Comes with a caveat, that's those caretaker units, or the one unit allowed per building, under the employment designation. And then with the hybrid option, again, about 50/50, 50.3% employment, 49.3% residential in this area. Looking now at a pros and cons analysis. So we, just based on, on sort of objective analysis and, and assumptions within the industry, and under planning principles, of what we see as the pros and cons, or the sort of neutral elements of each of the, the three options. So, using a bit of a traffic light, uh, model here of, of the cons being in red, the pros being green, and then, uh, neutral, um, is yellow. So when we look at the preservation of employment lands, if , uh, we've grouped them to, I'll just lead off with that, we've grouped them into, uh, um, into a couple, uh, categories. So employment, housing, uh, infrastructure and investment. And I'm starting with the employment piece, um, as that is, uh, sort of a focus of this corridor. When we look at the preservation of employment lands, of course, the status quo option comes in the lowest there, with, uh, the least amount of land preserved exclusively for employment. Um, at full build out with, with what we would anticipate, um, for the employment lands there, would be about 14,000 jobs, uh, versus option two, which has the highest amount of employment space, generating 36,000 jobs, or the capacity for 36,000 jobs. And then the hybrid, uh, coming in between at about 20,000 jobs, uh, capacity of, uh, of floor area. That means, uh, the, the maximization of an employment tax base is, of course, lowest in option one, of course, highest in option two, and, and in between, um, in option three. I think this is an important one. Um, the third is residential land speculation. So when there, uh, when residential uses are permitted within employment areas, it often leads to speculation of the land for residential development, which means that the land prices go up reflecting that residential use, which makes it much more difficult for employment specific, uh, uses to be built, because employment lands, exclusively employment lands, are often valued lower than residential lands, just based off of the, the margins that, that developers find between those uses. So with option one, we would see, uh, the highest amount of land speculation, um, which would likely mean increased land prices, making it more difficult and less feasible for employment uses to be built. Uh, that's versus option two, where we would see the lowest amount of, of land speculation, simply because there just isn't that much land that would allow for residential development, except north of, uh, Lougheed Highway. Um, option three said medium here, but, you know, I think it would also just be, it is medium, because we would really be forcing that 50-50 split of, of employment lands, but you would still see some speculation because residential is still allowable, that would drive up land prices still, and it would still make it more difficult for employment uses to be built. Uh, cross-subsidization, this is the idea that, um, it's easier to get employment lands built, if there is residential permitted as well, just because there is that higher, um, margin, and so developers can be more likely to build the, any mandatory employment, if they have the residential to sort of subsidize that. It would be, um, you know, under option one, does allow residential, it would probably be the, the highest amount of cross-subsidization. Um, what that means in terms of the type of employment land being built, you know, it doesn't necessarily mean office, it very well could just be commercial at the ground floor. It does make it more likely that that would be built because of the, the, the residential that would be built above it, but it may not be the type of employment, um, generating uses that, uh, that are desired. Less of that cross-subsidization for option two, um, and again, much more of the, the cross-subsidization potential on option three. Uh, the final under the sort of jobs and productivity, uh, comparative analysis is the construction costs and the efficiencies. So we would see, um, this is really based on, uh, how, how much it costs to build the, the, the potential developments under these scenarios. A single-use building is cheaper to build than a mixed-use building, um, especially when you start to mix uses of commercial employment and residential. So under option one, uh, medium, you know, the, the, the, there's not as many efficiencies, it's not as many single-use buildings, but it is something that, uh, is a pretty standard built form, which would be residential over commercial. Option two, much more employment-specific buildings. That it's very efficient. It's a single-use building, um, that is, uh, that's easier to build. It's cheaper to build and it's, it's, uh, it's much more efficient. Option three, the hybrid, again, because it's, it's requiring, um, much more of a mix of employment and residential uses in the same buildings, it is a much higher, uh, cost of construction and, and lower efficiencies. Looking at, uh, comparison between housing and growth. Um, of course, option one, it has the highest amount of housing capacity, um, because it would, we assume that most of the, the land would be built for housing. Uh, option two, a medium amount. There is still a pretty decent amount of, uh, housing potential under option two. It's just all north of the Lowheat Highway. Option three, again, quite a bit of housing, uh, capacity, um, based on that mixed scenario. And, uh, neighborhood mix of uses. It's, uh, a fairly mixed use neighborhood in option one, but a little bit residential dominated. Um, more single use in option two, uh, really separating those uses, um, with the, the vast majority of the corridor being for employment with some residential to the north of the highway. And then, uh, very mixed use in option three, as we are truly mixing the uses either in building side by side or within the same building. Uh, compatibility or incompatibility of the land uses is an important consideration. When we think about putting certain types of employment and , uh, residential uses together, um, light industrial in particular can cause, uh, complaints of nuisance when, when it's built near residential that can make it more difficult to build those types of employment generating uses. And so we would see more, uh, incompatibilities between the land uses in, in option one, just because we are putting a lot of residential in areas, uh, adjacent to the industrial parks. Um, and in, in the other light industrial areas near the low heat highway. Uh, very low incompatibility for option two, because again, we're splitting the uses quite significantly. Um, not much in terms of a, of a mix of uses. And then in option three, uh, quite a bit of incompat ibility, because really we're putting all of those uses together in the same areas on the same sites or on adjacent sites. Uh, I think this is an important point as well. Um, this is sort of the, for want of a better word, the, the cannibalization of housing growth. Right now, um, uh, I know Mission's working on the health and wellness district plan. Um, the waterfront plan is new. Those are, those plans are looking at new areas for developing housing in Mission, um, um, in these, these strategic locations, uh, to further the city's goals. Um, if we allow a lot of housing along the low heat corridor, does that then take away some of the demand from those, those sort of concentrated neighborhoods where the new, these new plans are either in, uh, in, um, being formed right now or have been recently completed. Uh, in option one, just because we would expect to see so much of the land being, um, developed, if it is going to be developed for housing, that could reduce the demand in these, in these other neighborhoods. Uh, option two, that is not likely to be the case because again, there's just a much more limited amount of residential, uh, um, allowable development sites. Um, option three, a bit medium. There is still quite a bit of residential that could be allowed along this corridor, but it wouldn't be as much as, as in option one. Uh, the next pro and con, clear land use designations. Uh, this is just really, you know, how clear is it for, um, how clear is it, uh, for, for anybody looking to develop in this area, um, on what they're allowed to do. The status quo, it's, it's an employment corridor, but it allows residential. What does that mean? How does that, um, how does that look in terms of development? It's not necessarily the most clear. Uh, same with option three, the hybrid option. It's, it's a , it's a bit tricky to, um, to develop around that split of the sort of 50-50 employment in residential. Whereas option two, it's a very clear land use designations. It is, um, uh, it is employment in one part of the corridor and it's residential in the other. Uh, residential adjacent to hazard lands. Um, when we have the residential, uh, to the north of the Lougheed Highway, it's much further from the floodplains. Um, industrial uses or employment uses aren't as at risk as residential uses, um, for, uh, for damage if there are 100 year floods or 500 year floods. Um, in the other two options, we would anticipate seeing more residential development to the south of the highway, closer, uh, to these, uh, these, these floodplains. Uh, finally, community amenity contributions will, of course, be higher when we allow for more residential. So, highest in option one, lowest in option two. That's a net, that's not a net number. That's, you're on the revenue collection, not the, not the expenditure side, because residential costs more procedures. Exactly. And, and we will, uh, the next, uh, the next set of pros and cons, we'll look at exactly that. And I think that's, that's a key with pros and cons, there are trade-offs. Um, so, yes, the, there would be a greater, um, amount of contributions anticipated under option one, but as discussed, that would, um, also lead to more expenditure . And so, we, we get into the, the third category, which is the comparison of infrastructure and municipal investment costs. And we can jump right to that, uh, with 16, because I think that's a really good point. Yes, we would anticipate seeing more CACs or ACCs under option one, but because this area is not currently built for residential, um, there would be a considerably higher amount of community amenities that would need to be built in the area to sustain a residential population, um, parks or community centers. Uh, as of right now, that's, that isn't prevalent in this area because it is not, um, it has not been, uh, historically a residential neighborhood. Whereas option two, those amenities don't really need to be built, um, if it is a largely an employment corridor. Uh, moving back up, we'll go to, uh, the increased congestion along low heat highway. Uh, we, we know that, uh, residential and commercial uses generate higher traffic flows, more cars coming in and out, shopping, going to work, taking kids to school. Um, and so, if we have a greater amount of residential units along the highway, and particularly to the south, uh, we would expect that those intersections along low heat highway corridor would, would get considerably more congested. Um, with option two, uh, it's predominantly just employment uses and employment uses. Yes, they still generate traffic, but to a much, uh, lower, uh, degree as residential. Um, there would be more delivery trucks, perhaps people coming to work, but that is , um, you know, um, in the morning and then leaving in the afternoon. It's not the, the all-day, um, traffic, uh, patterns that we see with residential uses. Well, I'm going to suggest, I think perhaps, because I know there's, um, I detect itchiness up here. I think your graphic is doing some of the work for you that you don't need to walk through quite as step by step so that members of council can ask questions. I'll stick with what we said and have questions come back later on, but I would suggest we cond ense here and try to, because I think it's self-explanatory what's on the screen. Absolutely. So yeah, then we'll just, um, quickly brush through the, the last ones, which is, uh, streamlining of goods movement . It's going to be much, much better under, uh, an employment-specific use and not, uh, not having the challenges of, of large trucks and residential vehicles. Um, the final piece then that I'll touch on is infrastructure upgrade requirements. Again, it's going to be lower with employment uses. Um, residential uses would require considerably more, uh, upgrades to, uh, the existing capacity of sanitary water, sewer. Uh, and then, uh, just, uh, we've gone through the 3 D, um, uh, graphics to look at what this, um, what these three scenarios would look like in terms of, uh, uh, capacity build out. Um, we just have a couple, uh, renders as well so that we can see this in a little bit more of, uh, uh, lifelike, um, scenarios. So, with option one, seeing that residential development. This is a, uh, specific site. I believe it's a car dealership, uh, built, um, along the highway recently. So, just looking at this one site, what does this look like built out to full, uh, density under the three scenarios? Option one, you can see the residential use with commercial at grade. Um, option two, this is the same density, uh, the same FAR, but, uh, with only employment uses. Um, and then option three, that hybrid, we have it split here, uh, residential, uh, commercial at grade building with a small office building, um, sharing the site. And then, uh, here's just looking at, um, a bit of a, uh, more zoomed out perspective of what does the neighbourhood look like under these, under these scenarios. It can be, um , you know, it can be attractive as a residential neighbourhood. It could be attractive as a, uh, an employment neighbourhood as well. Um, we're not proposing what, what it looks like in terms of streetscape enhance ments. Uh, but, um, we just want to show that, um, you know, those enhancements can happen, uh, with a residential neighbourhood, a mixed neighbourhood, or an employment neighbourhood. Just, uh, street level view. And we can, we can circulate these so you can have a, uh, uh, have a look at, um, at what these, these can possibly look like in, in terms of the rendered views. The residential office and the mixed. And I'll hand it back over for the implementation. Just wanted to wrap up this, uh, option three with the summary. Uh, this is a compromise. Residential and non- residential users will be almost matching. Uh, it is high, it is going to support higher residential development potential within the corridor. Uh, a little bit lower, uh, lower than the option one, which is status quo, but higher than option two, which is the recommended one. Servicing and on-site parking access, all these need to be, uh, assessed, um, site-specific, uh, with site-specific constraints and conditions. This will, uh, this option three will also need OCP designation changes and zoning that's compatible. Um, I have Mr. Crawford who's going to take us through some , uh, considerations for the implementation strategy because whichever option that's chosen needs a very robust implementation strategy. Uh, that includes not just non-residential or residential incentives, but also many other, uh, focused things like, um, supporting specific kinds of employment, uh, uses through, uh, through marketing, through, uh, like, as a destination. If people choose city of mission, what would, what would they choose for? So, uh, uh, over to Mr. Crawford. Well, I'm going to actually suggest something and that is that I think we are, uh, at risk if we do that of having debate be about two things at one mixed time. And so I'm going to suggest that we hold off on the implementation presentation and then there'll be questions subject to that. But just in terms of what's been presented so far, I think it would be wise for us to pause and let Council ask questions. And then we'll have Mr. Crawford come up and talk implementation, answer those questions, and they will deal with recommendations. Does that sound okay with everybody? Councilor Hamilton, you had a question? Well, I do. Thank you, Mayor Horne. I guess my question, and I think I've asked this question before, but it is to the east side, say from, from Manson Road to Dudney Trunk. So when you say it's a low, low impact for, uh, traffic, I mean, I, I don't agree with that because on any given day right now, before anything's done, it's, it's hard to even access the highway. I'm going to turn that into a question just because I have the same question. It's hard to keep it. And so for us in order to be able to deal with this today, a preferred options. I think there are a few carts that may be before horses. And one of them is when are we going to know what's possible from a transportation perspective, especially on that east side. Because what we're presented with today is a bunch of land uses that we may not necessarily be able to have, including mixed use residential development on the north side, on the north side of the east end, if that makes sense. Is that your question? That's right. I think for the report, I mean, it sounds like there's no money in the budget provincially for the highway at this point in time. So, you know, maybe the cart is before the horse, but I just, I worry that enough planning, we need to put enough planning into that north of the, north of the highway going east from Manson. So let's, I see that Ms. Croix kind of here right now to answer, but I think the question from Council is what's the order of this? What happens if we go through this, we give a preferred plan, but we end up hearing what we believe instinctively to be true, and that is that there are certain safety issues that will not resolve in that highway for some time. So based on the preferred land uses that Council chooses today, we would take that information and we will be completing more engineering analysis to determine what improvements are going to be. What improvements may be required, but again, this is the highway seven, so it would be up to the ministry's jurisdiction, but we would. Well, let me see if I can parse that and I'll go back to Councillor Hamilton. Essentially what we say today in concept will be ground tested against engineering things, including traffic, and if it turns out that there isn't a line of sight or feas ibility for some of the projected uses, it may change what we are seeing as a concept today. Is that accurate? I'm really -- this is very confusing for a lot of reasons, and one of the questions that I had is the same. How are we to say we like the idea of, for example, option two has some purple crosshatched areas that are meant to be mixed use? We've had people come and ask us for that, and Council has universally said we're concerned about residential on the highway, whether it's mixed or whether it's pure residential. We don't have an answer to that question, so I don't know unless the plan that we're hearing today will be revised based on further analysis. How do we say yes to something without knowing that? Mayor Tory: I just offer a suggestion. So based on what I've heard today, there's not a lot of changes to the eastern portion of this plan towards Hatsik, which I think this is focused on. So the previous transportation master plans would have taken in the potential land uses for that. So the transportation master plan is reflective of the land use policies that Council adopts. So we have to understand which direction Council wants to go in terms of land use so that we can provide the engineering and the traffic impact analysis on that. The reason we want to focus that is that we don't want to do three different scenarios for transportation, et cetera. I think we can probably manage the engineering portion of it. We just need some direction in terms of land use. Mayor Tory: Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, Mayor Horne. So to Mr. Paquetteley, this isn't land use again, this is the highway. And I know we're sort of getting into the regional district area as well, but I know Director Castle is very adamant that we start advocating to the province for that whole area. Mayor Tory: I think the advocacy part is self-evident. No matter whether this becomes industrial, residential, mixed use, we know we need to do that. And I think the province has even said that now that the W ANIC section is done, that's sort of what they have next in mind. But I disagree with something that I think I heard. I think that this needs to be based in engineering practices that are beyond the technical expertise of this or future councils. If I don't know the significant implications of something being purely employment land, like for example retail, in that north section of the eastern leg, the Hatsik area, I 'll just say for shorthand. I cannot sit here and say today, yes, I like concept B or I like concept C. I could if I heard staff saying the next steps include testing against those assumptions. If it comes back and it's clear that residential uses are not likely to be safe there in the short term or in the 15 year term, whatever that is, then council, whatever council is going to be here probably is going to want to hear that. There's a number of things in this today that are assumpt ive. And for me, they create real difficulty in saying I like part B or I like part C. Councillor Hamilton, anything to add to that? Right now, thank you. Okay. Councillor Gill. Thank you, Mayor Horne. I guess through the chair. I do feel like that as well. But I guess my concerns are is if we do move to, you know, we do pick an option. Are we going to get any clarity from the ministry of where they are with expansions? Because even if engineering says, you know, we can make these technically or because of constraints, we can make this option work. I will still be challenged if an application comes forward, whether it's residential or mixed use or even industrial without the expansion of the highway. So is this what the ministry is asking for us is to do this planning work? I think I can answer that question. Mr. Crawford is out of the room. This is our own initiative. The South Mission Transportation Plan has been issued and it is not funded. We do not have a line of sight in terms of when it will be developed. But I think we -- I think you're right, Councillor, that whatever uses are there are going to have implications for traffic. And so we'll have to think about that. I think it's slated and needs to improve if nothing changed along that corridor right now. And so we know we have industrial questions, as you've noted, as well. But this is our work. Their work was being done just because Mr. Crawford, as well as Mr. Summer and myself, went and did some advocacy based on the fact that this has been something that's been an issue for our community for more than 50 years. Yeah. I guess why I raise that is because, you know, if we do greenlight any plan, I'm sure there's developers, and we know there's developers waiting in the bush right now to write to -- ready to go. I think it's almost like it's almost like it still doesn't allow -- for me personally, give me comfort until we see, you know, something being funded from the ministry side. But that's just a comment. I guess my second question is, I know when we started this work, for me it was because this area is so unique that it 's connected to highway and river, I wanted to see us maximize the use of industrial lands. Hopefully to create jobs because we know there's a tremendous amount of homes being built on the hillside and in Mission Core. But when I look at option two, there's the lower density still quite a bit on the highway and higher density. And then I look at the employment business side where the green is to say, well, there is no homes in that. So was there any consideration or what was the math used to say, hey, we're not going to make that employment industrial? I think there was some consideration in terms of what would be suitable because the central part would be more suitable for all kinds of non-residential users that are not necessarily industrial. But they could be high tech and they could be offices and they could be institutional and they could be a variety of things. But industrial users have certain needs and certain impacts , higher impacts. And that was felt suitable only in this industrial area where it exists right now. So that was the logic behind. Doesn't mean that the light or high tech offices in supporting industrial users couldn't be in the middle part. It just means that the heavier industry and industrial and the ones that have higher impacts would be located in the industrial area. Okay. I guess for me, when I looked at employment business, whether it's high tech, it's a great buffer between the employment industrial and residential. But when I looked at the mapping on option two where it says employment business, there's not really any residential closer to Lloyd Highway and Highway 11. And then when I looked at even on the lower density towards Outlook Village, there's -- especially on the front end, there's no really homes there as well. So I just thought that would be, you know, employment industrial. And where we'd use employment business was where the buff ers would be needed between homes and industrial. But that's just a thought. Thank you, Councillor Plekis. Thank you, Councillor Plekis. Then I'll go and I'll check with others after that. Thank you for the presentation. I do agree with the earlier comments about Lougheed Highway . My question is -- two questions. And knowing that the corridor strip between Cedar Valley and downtown -- Cedar Valley Connector and downtown, you've indicated the opportunity to do higher density residential. But most of that is located on the backside of Lougheed Highway on the north side. The way the picture is drawn, it makes it look like commercial or employment would be right along the highway corridor. And it would be -- it would be right on the corridor itself . So there's no -- so like buffer area, what we call a -- you rise up to higher density behind Lougheed Highway. Right now we have about hundreds of units being built off L ougheed Highway in that area, right? But in the front of Lougheed Highway are small retail commercial type enterprises along Lougheed corridor. So is it something that one would still have low density commercial retail -- retail on the front line of Lougheed Highway? And the density or the higher commercial would be behind that -- the street behind that. In other words, the map doesn't -- it doesn't show me that everything would be buffered. The highway, when I saw the diagram, it's high density all along the corridor. And right now we have low density retail commercial on the Lougheed corridor. We have a mall, strip mall. We have all sorts of that kind of thing, which is -- so are we -- are we seeing that the future doesn't want to -- we don't want to offer that in the future, will not be retained in the future? You're referring to the southern part, right? I'm talking about the mid part between Cedar Valley Connect or and -- and downtown. Downtown. Downtown. Yes, right in there. So I think currently it does allow mixed use, which is, you know, higher density residential above retail or above offices. The difference here in the option two or option three is we want to minimize the residential portion and increase the non-residential portion. I understand that. And obviously it makes a lot of sense to retail closer to downtown -- residential closer to downtown. But underutilized properties in the frontage of Lougheed Highway is a concern. We have properties that communities try to get away from the strip mall mentality. And I would think that what -- obviously we need to incentivize if we want to do that. It was mentioned in the report, possibility of doing that. But I see that because Lougheed Highway is a critical corridor and the only corridor on the east side of the Fraser River, and a lot of people travel through it, there's a tendency to think that retail -- low type -- retail is considered to be attractive to put there because people want to stop and get something and get going where they're going. And my concern is when I look at the diagram, it doesn't show that on the diagram. It shows that we're going to go higher up, more vertical on that corridor. Is that why I'm reading that right? I think this may be a question also for Mr. Croft or Mr. Sommer. But in essence, what you're seeing is a representation of what could be built at its maximum density under each model . And so if you were to think of hybrid number three, you're talking the Brentwood or Oak Ridge as they have been rede veloped, which includes residential. If you're talking about option two, you're talking about much more commercial density, similar to a mall that has underground parking and so forth unless parking concessions were made. The reason why I ask the question -- thank you for clar ifying that -- is because do we then -- we looked at the increase in the number of zones that you 're going to offer. Do we restrict the kind of usages that are currently there? Because we have numerous gas stations along the corridor. Do we start restricting those things? That particular zone will not be permitted. And I wasn't clear on the type of zones that you were going to increase to. So I didn't have the clarification what those zones included. And that was my question was, are we going to be able to see what the new zones would include, what they would not include? Because we see broad zones offer all sorts of things. Mr. Sommer, do you want to handle this? So is the intention to rezone, people can be non-conforming , compliant -- or can continue if their zoning changes as long as they're already established, correct? Yeah, absolutely. If I may, this might help Council. Is really right now what staff are looking for is we've got three concepts. It's not really about looking at the massing, the details. That's all going to come. What we're looking for is does Council think what's currently there -- Is that the direction we want to stay the status quo? Are we looking at increasing our employment commercial lands or are we looking for a more balanced approach? Because I'll tell you right now what we're seeing in development services. Right now the OCP, yes, it does speak to industrial, commercial, low heat highway corridor type uses. But what we're getting in the door is because the OCP doesn 't explicitly guide developers in that, we're getting all -- many of the applications we're getting in the door are predominantly residential. And the reason being is the return on investment in residential is much more immediate than the longer game with industrial commercial. So really what we're looking for is Council to give us some direction on where they want to go with this. And I think the comment -- I think it was Councillor Gill brought up the MOTT and what their plans are. We're not doing this in isolation. I know that Ms. Croy, she has some understanding what the ministry is looking for. So our plan's going to be built around that. I think we should be able to come back with some ideas around the impacts. of the status quo, of the balanced approach or the focused approach. So I think really what we're looking for is we're at an imp asse right now, staff is. We want to make sure we're on the right track. And I think what we understand from Council's goals and objectives, they'd like to increase the industrial commercial tax base. I was just talking to the Director of Finance and right now our residential tax base is roughly 90% and the residential tax revenue is about 73% residential. So we're trying to bring a healthier balance to that according to Council's goals and objective. I appreciate all that because I was seeing my concern was that when we look at the Lowheek Corridor, there's a lot of underutilized properties there. Absolutely. And if you're looking at the new people, it may bring in new people and say, I understand what you want now and I'm willing to bring it forward. That makes sense to me. Yeah. The only other question I had was you talked about the number of residents in option two, 6,281 residential units, but then you could add more of the density bonusing. Is it a consideration that that may not be something you want to encourage density bonusing in that particular area? Because we have so much opportunity to build residential as pointed out. I think that's under implementation. So let's hold on the conversation about that until after. And that's where Mr. Crawford's presentation and I think others would probably- Okay. That's all the questions I have right now. Go ahead. I'm going to jump in and say I'm a little confused about where we are process-wise. Mr. Summers' comments help a great deal and I had hoped that the simple answer to my question is that, you know, as we've put forward a concept plan today that if the ground truthing and work shows that the map needs to be changed, it will. I'm going to pretend that that's what I heard because I know that is the actual answer, right? The reality is that we have to keep this simple. If the people who are up here representing the community aren't getting clear simple answers, then how are we going to explain it to the community? And right now it's not hitting that mark from my perspective. I think when you see maps and the maps show things that are green and pink and blue, people think you just rezone their property. And what we're doing today is I wouldn't even use the word endorse. We're asking staff to focus on or to pursue one of these options at a conceptual level. And there will be further work done with engineering, with incentivization if we get some guardrails around that. But I think what's missing here is just how are we communicating. There are some things in that presentation that were very helpful. The green lights, red lights, yellow lights. But there's a lot of detail that kind of is a little bit far down the road from where I am and I think members of the community are. So I'm going to ask some questions that kind of look at that. And I'm not sure whether council will feel comfortable today to say to move on and maybe give some guardrails around that or whether council will say we have more information we need. I will say one thing and that is that I know what I don't want and that is option one. Right? I think what happens when you're in my job right now is that we have people come in and some of my colleagues on council have been with me for these meetings. And people come in and they speculate in the greatest meaning of the word. They have purchased a piece of property, they got it at a deal and they come to you and they say I know this was zoned and this is the OCP as neighbourhood commercial or commercial highway commercial but I can't make money at that so let me build 12 storeys of condominiums. And Councillor Gill will remember one meeting where I said I'm sorry but the OCP is not designed for you to make money in five years. That's not what it's about and neither is this plan. And so I really don't like number one and I have concerns about number three just because it's not as clear. And so I don't care if we don't go for number two or if we go for number three but I really think we need to make sure that whatever the product is, it's clear and ends this business of people buying bargain basement properties and hoping that they'll twist the arm of whoever is up here to make exceptions. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. So I think that's the question. We haven't received any responses. We will connect with them again in September. The idea was to come back. That's asked and answered. That's good. I will say I know that the DBA has changed since we first heard from them that this was something they wanted actively to be involved in. They had a different type of model, different staffing responsibilities. I just wanted to make sure we have actively reached out to them and that we continue to do that. So I appreciate that that's happened. One thing that is here in a soft way is the impact of jobs and taxes and so forth. I would really like to see anything that comes back to us in future demonstrate some of the things Mr. Summer just was touching on. Impact on taxes, average job value. We should be able to compare the scenarios based on number of jobs, but most importantly an index of average job value. I would rather have, and I'm sure most people in our community would rather have one more doctor office than 72 places selling fast food. Right? We want living wages. We want jobs that benefit our community, that sort of thing . I mentioned what I -- the question that Councillor Hamilton asked about traffic safety is critical from my perspective. Do we have in-stream applications, particularly on the south side of the low heat highway, asking for mixed use? I know I've been approached by a couple of developers. I don't know if they formally have put in, if they've only come in and done pars, but do we have anybody who's asked right now on the south side to have a mixed use development? I formally requested. Yeah, we currently have two applications that would fit that criteria on the south side of low heat. Okay, and that's a concern for me because essentially what we haven't heard today is any way to look at whether or not we would be wasting those people's time. I can -- I think I may know of one of them, and I'm not sure about others, but I think we really need this information to include impacts on current applications. And I don't want to get into too much today because I don't want staff to be put in an uncomfortable position, but I don't know how recent these applications are, how far people have proceeded. And if we make a decision today that throws them all that they've been doing under the bus, that's a challenge. Okay. Back to my question about the DBA. On option two and I think option three, the area currently in what's called Mission Hills, the area where Wardrop Street and so forth is, you have depicted it in green. This is the area that's across from fruits and greens and stream is built a building there and so forth. And it goes up past the Lougheed corridor into areas that are currently residential and maybe well suited to multif amily because they're within walking distance if you take the stairs to Central Elementary and so forth there. And this is part of the reason I was asking about the DBA stuff because this is where they, I think, were most interested in making sure that we were building things that were going to interface well with their area. This neighbourhood, I think, will be particularly of concern to them. But perhaps I'll just pause and ask, why is that area painted as green and on the south side too? And can you give me, I'm really confused by what we mean by employment business. Are we talking about having purely professional institutional uses there? Or is that an area where there's some mixture possible? I think the employment business designation is anticipated to have a variety of non-residential uses, which includes institutional offices, retail, any other kinds of uses that we have a list of. Mostly to support residential that's around it. And there's a lot of residential that's going to be within the downtown area based on the designation, OCP designation and density that's permitted. And anything that supports, it could be personal services, it could be any kind of non-residential uses. And again, the intention in option two was to minimize residential because you have residential very close by in the downtown area. And in the option three, it's a hybrid, which means there's an option of matching residential and non-residential. Yeah, I guess what the reason, I'm challenged because I'm sort of thinking of a hybrid of the hybrid, or the hybrid of option two. That's the challenge that I have. And similarly, I'm going to ask about a few specific places along map for option two on the west side. The green is shown on Nelson at Lougheed Highway. And so if I'm understanding correctly, what's proposed would be offices for professionals from ground floor all the way up to the top. Is that correct? With residential as access reuse. Like -- Sorry, it's business employment, so it's not residential, right? Business employment will support higher paying non-resident ial uses. Right. My point is simply that that is meant to be entirely like professional offices, lawyers, accountants, professionals, you could have a daycare in there, that sort of thing. So it seems to me very isolated from the rest of the community where I would typically expect to have those uses . So I'm just wondering about that choice, as opposed to the blue area where it's employment industrial or commercial highway. Yeah, so I think the intention of the employment business was to support the residential density that's very close by . So it could be any kind of non-residential uses that are supportive. And there's a huge list. Okay. We really didn't go into details of what kind, but we could bring that back if you want. So is that -- is it possible for a building or for a use in that area to combine commercial and business? Yes, absolutely. So you could have ground floor retail, which is, you know, the typical. And then you could have a variety of institutional and other uses above. So that's currently employment business. I think a lot of clarity needs to be provided on this area. I'm looking at Nelson right now. I'm looking at the farthest western point, northwest of the western diagram. And so it's an isolated parcel of property that would be -- no, furthest to the west? The other, the other, the west. The west. Where the green is? Furthest to the west. Yes. I think there are some constraints, like -- I think that's a mistake in my perspective that it's there, or at the very least that it's not identified as commercial on the bottom, business on top. And I think that would probably be an appropriate use throughout this. And it's not as clear in this document. Sorry to get into the details, but genuinely speaking, I was surprised to see on that property immediately to the right of what you were just pointing at, that there is an area that is not considered to be part of the Silver Creek Parkway. I was very surprised that that looks like it's designated potentially to be within the Lowheed Corridor. It doesn't have anything of green, blue, or other use. And I don't know whether or not this is intended to be acquired as part of the Silver Creek Parkway, ultimately, or what its intention is. It's pretty wet there, and it would make sense to me that it would be a part of the parkway. But do we have an idea on that one? Sorry, do you mind which area, Mayor Horne? Immediately to the right of that green portion on Nelson, if you look on the map, you'll see that suddenly the line that outlines it goes around that area that's wetland there . Yeah, that is part of the highway infrastructure. I think it's part of the right of the low heat highway, if I'm not mistaken. I see. To me, it doesn't matter that it's part of the highway. I think it should be the line should go straight there. It's clearly part of the Silver Creek Parkway. I know that's a minor detail, but if it confuses me, then it can confuse others as well. And then finally, not to bring up something that may sound like sour grapes, but without an economic development strategy, I really don't understand how we can project the absorption needs that we have. Residentially, the argument about cannibalization of residential is extremely apt in my view. And we heard mention of the waterfront. We heard mention of residential in the downtown, but we didn't talk about Silverdale. We didn't talk about Westminster Heights or Stave Heights, I should say. All of those areas are meant to develop first. So I absolutely understand the idea that we've projected our housing growth. We have a housing plan, but we have no up-to-date strategy that understands whether we appeal to tech, whether we appeal to professionals, and what we'll need to do to get there. Whether it's enhancing collaborations with educators, whether it's building information technology under the ground, whether it's focusing on logistics networks, attracting compatible businesses, producing incentives, or just being able to talk about our demographics in a way that demonstrates people will be able to locate here because they'll have enough clients or enough employees. All of that stuff is part of an economic development strategy. And this, to me, right now, deciding we're going to build what this green built form is, is wings and a prayer stuff. We don't have any idea, and I hear from developers right now, that they're not keen to build things for lawyers and accountants and so forth because there's just not the absorption for them. So I think until we have that, we're really in a challenging position here. And maybe Mr. Crawford will be able to speak to that when he gets a chance to come up here in a moment. All of this stuff is part of what I would need to know to understand this. I mentioned a couple of examples where major redevelopments have happened. The Brentwood and Oak Ridge. And they are ones right on the exact same highway as this, and the other one is obviously on a very major street, on Oak Street. And they have been what they are because they include residential. And people have found innovative ways, including in the downtown core near BC Place and Rogers Arena, to airspace things like schools, to have parks and amenities built right into buildings down there. And so some of that needs to be known by me before I know which of these plans I like the most. So I'll pause and phrase that as a question. Do we have any data, any information at all that has informed the way that we're looking at options two and three? No. So to me that's part of, with Mr. Crawford returning to his role, that's part of something I would hope he gets a chance to ramp up on. I think that's part of a future council. A future council will need to determine exactly how that's done. If there's not an economic development strategy, I would hope that we will give Mr. Crawford an opportunity to say, here's what data pictures we need more of to help figure that stuff out. But I'm just a little bit worried about the order here. I'll go to check with Councillor Davies and see if he has any questions and then I'll go back to Councillor Hamilton who looks like she has one. No, I appreciate the questions Council has. I agree with your feedback. There's overall some gaps, but I think, I guess the one thing that maybe it could come back with that would be nice to see would really understanding the flow. I think we can, we're planning all the ducks around one corridor and I'm having a hard time understanding how those areas are going to align and connect and move along each other. And that's a bit of a gap that I see in this right now. What I ask is, I know we're being recorded, but has anybody been taking note of some of the questions today? And I'll tell you why I asked that and that is that I'm wondering if we might end up having to defer to get some questions answered. And so we may have to go back and vet the notes later on, the minutes later on and just go through them. But there's been a number of questions here and I don't know whether or not Council will feel comfortable with option two or three today or whether we'll end up deferring . Back to you, Councillor Davies. Thank you. I mean, one example I'd look at is industrial use in Gill Avenue. As that grows and the amount of either institutions or office increases, you know, is our thought that all this traffic and business moves on to the low heat or is there a better way? Are we going to go through and over the railway to move to this other industrial or institutional area versus going on the highway? You know, using the higher access that there currently is, does that become formalized in some way? You know, how do these interconnect is really the question I've got. So I've got some questions here that I'm going to summarize later and we'll see if Council feels these need to be answered today. I have these not in any particular order, but just based on my memory. Flow and interconnectedness, absorption rates and projections for economic development, tax value, job value, traffic safety implications, in-stream applications, DBA input. And there may be others. Councillor Hamilton. Thank you, Mayor Horne. Through to staff, I guess I know this is a long-term project, a vision, but I worry about just the vibrancy of our downtown. Currently, because every time you drive downtown, there seems to be another vacant building. And so I know it's economic development under their umbrella, I would think, but what are we doing to revital ize the vibrancy of downtown? So I just listed that as a question that we should be looking at DBA input and impact. So I think that's another question that will need to be thought of. Councillor, anybody from staff wish to add to that? Councillor Gill? - Thank you, through the chair. I guess the only thing Mayor Horner would add to that list, and I'm not sure if it's possible, but I made the comment to see more employment, industrial lands, but I do understand the Brentwoods of the world have that nice flow and there's not dead spaces because of residential or because of mixed use. I'm just wondering if maybe staff do come back, is it possible or if we go too heavy into the industrial, then we'll just have dead spaces after four o'clock or five o'clock, so I'm just gonna put it as a question to see if something staff could think about. - I'll summarize all this later on, but thank you for that. I've just put dead spaces, that's my question. Excellent. Okay, I would propose at this point that we listen to what Mr. Crawford has to say. I think what we're likely to end up with here is ask staff to come back with some further answers. That's what I seem to be hearing, and to give some feedback. So Mr. Crawford, if you come and give us a little bit of input from your perspective, that might help answer some questions, but it might also lead to a few more things we need to sort of check off as you come back. Okay? - Good afternoon, Council. I think it may be -- so what I'm going to be talking about next is -- first of all, I'm going to try and address the question that was asked in April about the use of potential incentives to encourage development along the Low Heat Highway corridor, focusing on both why you might want to look at incentives and then how that might actually be implemented. But before I do that, I thought it might be of value to just talk a little bit about the implications of each of these scenarios on one particular area, because I know this is the area that's driven a lot of conversation, and that is the area in yellow. And I can go back to slide 14, I think, actually has this -- the best -- oops, sorry. - Yeah, it's backwards. The little buttons go the opposite way of what you think. - Thanks, Christine. Thank you. There we go. Okay. My apologies. And so if we focus for a second on -- this yellow area, what I wanted to point out here is -- this is the area that's typically getting a lot of pressure for residential development. If we focus on the different scenarios within this particular area alone, if you look at the existing -- the designated land use capacity of this area on its own, you could potentially build up to 4,900 units here. And that is equivalent based on the average per unit occupation of 2.8, 2.9 people per unit of close to 13,700 people. That's approaching densities similar to Cedar Valley. And so that's what's causing a lot of stress from a staff perspective as we think about amenities and planning for that area and all the other reasons that have already been talked about. If we look at this area specifically from the recommended option 2, focused, then you're focusing strictly on employment generating opportunities with accessory use residential only. So one unit per building. And then under the hybrid, you've got a mixture. So your mixed use developments primarily are standalones. But that takes your 4,900 unit count today down to 2,700 units. And so now you have 7,500 people instead of 13,000 plus at the maximum designated capacity. And so I just wanted to point that out as a potential example as to why we are so focused and have been having conversations on this area for so long. Now I'll jump to my comments. I'm going the wrong way again, Berkeley. Okay, excuse me. We have to have a staff training session on pointer use. It's been a while. So as I mentioned, these slides are going to talk about the use of, the potential use of incentives to encourage development along the Lougheed Highway corridor, focusing on both the why and the how you might go about doing so. And so in short, of course, the city can choose to use incentives to incite development alongside, along the Lougheed Highway corridor. And that would include fee reductions and potential tax exemption bylaw. And this could be specific in specifically designated areas to encourage development. However, under the current zoning, particularly on the south side of the Lougheed Highway, as I've just spoken to, those projects would likely support projects with significant residential content. So that's the point that Dan was making. And that's not really the priority or intended outcome for the area from a staff perspective. If council wishes to pursue incentives, we would suggest that option two focused is the strongest fit because it prioritizes very scarce employment land that we currently have. And it could be structured to apply only to qualifying employment-oriented development or even specific business types, as Mayor Horne has pointed out. We may want to be very specific on what we're trying to attract. And all of this because Mission's challenge is not weak, weak market demand, especially for residential. It is really about the limited supply of service, accessible, development-ready industrial or employment land. And for that reason, the best case scenario from our perspective is to not have broad subsidies along the corridor, but to make sure we have a very targeted approach and support for the land and the best use outcome that we actually want to achieve, which we're proposing as option two. We see it as the strongest employment-focused scenario of the three. And it's recommended because it provides the greatest opportunity to both maximize employment, well, maximize employment generation and development potential in the community. So the five points that I've put on this slide reflect that rationale. First, it's all about protecting that scarce serviced employment land. Second, we are addressing the real barrier, which is project deliverability rather than demand. And third, it prioritizes the most effective tools, including accelerated approvals, regulatory certainty and infrastructure coordination, which may have more impact or equal impact as fee reductions and tax exemption incentives alone. Fourth, we are improving the viability for more complex employment-focused projects, including stacked and higher intensity forms where site constraints can otherwise push proposals towards residential uses, which we've just talked about. We experience it all the time when developers push for more residential because they say their projects simply aren't financially feasible otherwise. And then the last point, fifth, is to ensure any public support that we might put in place is firmly tied to behaviour change so that the incentives are only used when they deliver development that would not otherwise proceed on its own. So, the next slide shifts from rationale to implementation. And the core message here is that a focused pilot should remove the barriers that we've identified first, targeting only qualifying projects and measuring whether the incentive package actually changes the outcomes. So, the expected benefit change for a developer is more straightforward. This results in faster municipal decisions, reduced soft costs, reduced carrying costs and, of course, timing risk for the developer. It also reduces fees, more so upfront to help close some of those early financial gaps that developers typically identify. And then you have potentially a time-limited TAC exemption which can be used for selected areas and specific purposes where there is a demonstrated financial viability gap or a measurable public return that we're actually trying to achieve. And so, the staff report emphasizes all this in that the non-financial incentives such as fast tracking, pre-zoning, servicing coordination and just clear guidance overall are especially important because they do shorten the timelines for the developers, reducing their carrying costs in general overall uncertainty that they are typically bumping into today. And so, that makes the accelerated processing as part of the incentive plan a really strong lead-in tool while the reduced fees and tax exemption considerations should be framed as limited to certain areas, targeted to commercial and industrial only, perhaps even specifically focused on types of sectors or businesses we might want to see. And of course, all of that should be evidence-based rather than just an automatic or blanket application to the area. The proposed implementation schedule there is just a sense of timeframe, isn't obviously rigid, but it's simple and staged and it's all about getting direction and criteria setting from Council, which we're hearing some of that today. Where am I at here? Followed by, of course, policy and by-law drafting. I think it's very important that we put a marketing and communications plan around all of this work. Again, specifically targeting what we're chasing or wanting to see in our community. We would do a pilot launch, application processing and performance tracking, and then review and adjust periodically or certainly after the first year, of course, with Council's participation. Eligibility and eligible areas need to have performance tracking and should be tied to public outcomes, such as some of the items that Mayor Horne pointed out. Total floor area built. Number of jobs. I think type of jobs is also critically important. servicing readiness and servicing readiness and delivery timelines. So, all of this has been pointed out. It aligns very well with the corridor concept plan. Next steps, which include incentives, disincentives work, some of the engineering coordination and other internal work that need to be considered, as well as additional stakeholder engagement, which we're also hearing today, and then all of that will help move us toward implementation. This is a very high-level summation of the five-year value of financial incentives using a couple of recent examples, real examples in Mission, including a commercial building and industrial building. So, very quickly, for the commercial building in the first row, we have a pre-development land value identified here at around $9 million, and a new construction value of just over $20 million. The outlined incentive package or a proposed incentive package would be applied to the new construction value only , so not the pre-development value. And under a new five-year tax exemption program, the municipal portion only would forego about $487,000 over the five years that's been outlined to incent the specific form of development we want to see. This would apply 100% tax exemption in years one and two, 75% in year three, and 50% in years four and five, when it then normalizes. Thereafter, based on this example, the city would collect roughly $135,000 per year as a baseline number, and then, of course, any subsequent annual increases thereafter. The exact same process applies to the industrial building. The second example resulting in $800,000 in foregone municipal taxes during the five-year tax exemption example shown, and then subsequently quite a bit more, quite a bit received in perpetuity thereafter. But again, these are both high-value examples that have been recently been built in our community and represent large values, and I think if you're trying to incent that type of actual development, it's a good way to demonstrate how you might achieve higher commercial and industrial presence, as well as the jobs that go along with it. So the key points is that the incentives would only apply to targeted employment generating uses, and we can be very specific with that. The tax exemption, of course, is on a sliding scale and can be adjusted as Council is comfortable with, out to a 10-year program if desired. It would only apply to new construction, and these fee and taxation reductions would be paired with acceleration tools like the Fast Track program. And then, of course, a whole marketing and communications package would be wrapped around this as part of the overall incentive package itself. Excuse me. So just to wrap up and summarize why incentives might be considered, you've seen some of this in the presentation already. You may wish to consider targeted development incentives along the Lougheed Highway to help remove servicing, accessing, access timing and financial feasibility barriers so employment generating projects can actually proceed in specific areas, because these are our mission's strongest opportunities for industrial and commercial expansion. They're lands that are serviced and ready to go. And, of course, this approach directly supports Council's strategic focus area number three by protecting scarce employment lands and helping to divers ify our tax base. And, of course, it also reduces commuter dependence, helps improve the social lives of those that are our community and the family lives, and increases local job opportunities in retail, commercial and industrial sectors. I think that's probably enough for me on that topic and I 'll turn it back to Murseika. Mayor Redekop: We have questions for Mr. Crawford before we have Ms. Acharya wrap up. Go ahead, Councillor Hamilton. Councillor Hamilton: Thank you, Mayor Horne. I have a question on stakeholder relationships within the L ougheed corridor. So, who are the stakeholders other than First Nations, the provincial government, or South? Like, who would the stakeholders be? Mayor Redekop: Charia? Mayor Redekop: Yeah, I think it's probably a question for -- So, all the businesses that are there, I think there are about 300 businesses within the corridor. But they are -- you know, the owners are not there. Most of the times it's just employees. We tried reaching out and we haven't received much. But I think the plan was because July and August are challenging months to sort of have public engagement, we were hoping to get back in September with the stakeholders who -- existing businesses, business owners, and any other folks that are impacted. Mayor Redekop: I would hope that our stakeholder group included landowners, not just the business owners. Yes, they have. Mayor Redekop: As well as, in the case, for example, of the mobile home parks, there are some residents who would definitely need to be consulted with. Councillor Hamilton, does that answer your question? Thank you. I've got Councillor Gill, then Councillor Plekas. Councillor Gilles: Thank you. Through the Chair, I guess my first question is just regarding incentives, is -- I know I do and I have made the comment of we want to get in the business of incentivizing via timelines. Do we have enough manpower capacity at the staff level to do that? Or is it really we got to -- Mayor Redekop: Summer? Mayor Redekop: -- give the building permits, financial side of things? Mayor Redekop: It's probably a question for Mr. Summer and to some extent Mr. Stewart, because there becomes a point where there's enough revenue coming in from development to increase the capacity. Mr. Summer, I'll let you start that. Do we have capacity right now if we do have -- if incentives were to bring in significant number of commercial, industrial, or other business development? Mayor Redekop: Well, we would love to see that. Right now, we definitely have the capacity to do that. But as it would grow, as you mentioned, we would -- depending on the degree of applications coming in, the magnitude and the complexity, you know, we may be looking for support on that. But I think maybe from, I guess, a revenue perspective, that might be different. Mayor Redekop: Yeah, well, I see this twofold. If -- right now, the question would be purely capacity. If we were to have more growth and bring in more fees, are there people we could hire in the short-term and the long- term to do the work? The next piece then, of course, if we're waiving fees, who 's picking up those costs? You know, so it's sort of a two-prong question, I guess, depending on how we approach it. Mayor Redekop: One of the questions I'll get to is the business casing of this. And I think council -- again, whatever council is dealing with it needs to know if you're waiving five grand today, but you're making two, 50 grand five years from now, that's good business, right? So I think that's one of the things that's remaining to be known. Councillor Gill? Councillor Gillil: Thank you. I guess I'm more interested to learn on how does that look like? Is it -- if we were to say, hey, look, we want to incentiv ize that if you had this application and we're going to make this a priority, we're going to, you know, have target timelines available, but is it existing staff that are working on files that would drop other files to work on this? Or is it kind of like the fast lane where they have their own lane, but their own designated staff person? Mayor Redekop: Yeah, and that's a good question because right now we're going to be coming back to council shortly with the end review or the one-year review of the fast track program and asking council if they wish to continue that. Mayor Redekop: Yeah, but aside from that, commercial, industrial, any type of development that has a community benefit, affordable housing, that type, I do know Mr. Pablo and his planning team, they do put those at a priority. Mayor Redekop: In that case, what typically happens, yes, some of the other work, which is considered, I guess, less of a priority, to use that word, is, you know, slows down a bit. But really the focus is on industrial. And I think council's seen that with our turnaround on industrial commercial development applications. Mayor Redekop: Yeah, and I think Mr. Crawford, part of what you're describing -- come up to the microphone, Mr. Craw ford -- Mayor Redekop: Yeah. Mayor Redekop: -- is saying that part of what he would be doing as implementation is taking a look at the business casing of different options, including fast tracking certain types of development. Am I understanding that correctly? Mayor Redekop: Yeah, for sure. And so in partnership with the planning department, what I was going to provide is an example of how this was done with the downtown incentive program. So very similar program, a little bit tighter scope, but that was managed collaboratively between long-range planning and the economic development office. So you're bringing the economic development lens in addition to the planning capacity. And then you've got all this additional support behind the scenes to help with the processing and management of the applications. Mayor Redekop: And even to some extent, your office's job has been to help people navigate. So for example, councils -- Mayor Redekop: Promote it. Mayor Redekop: What's that? Mayor Redekop: And promote it as well. Mayor Redekop: And promote it. And so a lot of what you've done has been a translator between planning and new businesses. Mayor Redekop: And in some cases, utilize the opportunity to connect with the mayor's office for people who have questions at that level as well. So Silver Hills Bakery comes to mind as one where we did that right from the very beginning. And you played the role of essentially navigating them through all of our channels and making that business -- making it possible that business to come here. Mayor Redekop: And that's just one example. So I think they can sort of be augmented further, Councillor. Mayor Redekop: Yeah. Mayor Redekop: No, I appreciate that. It'd be interesting to see how this works at the staff level too, because I know many staff are obviously feeling the pressure with, you know, other applicants saying, you know, we want to get moving. We want to get moving in these uncertain markets. But when I look at the downtown incentive program, I also remember an application, but, you know, it was residential, mind you, that was shot down because they were using the downtown incentive program. So it'll be interesting to see how this moves forward. Mayor Redekop: Thank you. Councillor Plackis. Councillor Plackis: Yeah, a couple of questions. Interested in comment under the goals, and a couple of comments under the goals. Consider supporting amenities for residents, visitors, employees. If individual businesses move down, whether it's commercial or industrial, or not providing amenity contributions, how do you see that coming to play there? Is it just through their fact they're providing amenity through employment? Is that the benefit they're providing? Mayor Redekop: I'm not sure I'm understanding your question , Councillor. Perhaps you're... Mayor Redekop: One of the goals of this under attachment B says consider supporting amenities for residents, visitors, employees, employers. I'm just trying to understand how they would be providing amenities through that, how would we be doing that? Mayor Redekop: Okay. Mayor Redekop: Yeah. Mr. Sommer? Mayor Redekop: Maybe the way I would respond to that is, you know, right now our ACC's, our amenity cost charges, don't capture the commercial industrial. But again, rezonings are part of Council's discretion, and I'm sure that Council would identify gaps in that. And maybe in the future as part of this, there could be some changes as well to policy and the bylaws in that regard. Mayor Redekop: I think as well, Councillor, this Council has already done this in many cases where somebody has said we're going to build a multifamily, but as part of what we 're going to do is we're going to contribute some space that will be used by not-for-profits as a shared space. Or we're going to invest money in some bathrooms at a local park. So there may be other ways that that can be done, but I hear that as part of what we might incentivize. Mayor Redekop: The other part of it is, you talk about incentivization, is to reduction in tax-pacation over periods of time. One thing that we did downtown is we spent a lot of money in revitalizing downtown, I think at a tune of over $4 million. The question is, there are some things here that need to be improved upon. We talked about there's no public spaces in the Lowheed corridor. There's no, you may need to put some bus stops and you may do a number of things. Is it possible, part of the incentivization is that we invest some dollars in that area to enhance the integrity of the area so that it invites investment down there. Mayor Redekop: I've made a note of that question as well. I'm assuming it is possible. It's part of what I'm going to ask about as well. So that's a good question. Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Redekop: The last question is ensuring the range of parcel size called consolidation of parcels, or is there a way to incentivize individuals to consolidate their land parcels to get a better footprint for the community in a way, get better built product? It's always a bit of a challenge because I think sometimes we've gotten in the business of disincentivizing people coming forward, which is not really kosher if they want to come on their own. Does anybody have an answer to that question? Is there a way to incentivize people assembly? Mayor Redekop: Well, you're right, Mr. Mayor. We are facing that challenge all the time. I know Mr. Pueblo and the planning department, we're always encouraging land assembly, which offers more opportunity for a better product. You know, oftentimes when you're dealing with, you know, the size of property, their proposal is bigger than the land can allow and there's, you know, variances and so forth. But maybe the option in the future would be policies that, you know, planning staff can hang their hat on and say to them, you know, listen, we don't believe this could be supported unless you assemble some of the neighboring properties. If the word gets around, that may actually force some of these individuals to cooperate. I think right now there's a self-interest for many property owners thinking that, well, I don't need my neighbor to do better. But maybe there's policies that we can encourage that. The challenge we've had with that, and I have no problem with us asking staff to look at that, is that that's also in many cases just had the opposite effect of saying, well, I know my neighbor won't get what he wants unless he acqu ires me. And I'm going to jack the price up because of that. So it's kind of had some major challenges. I know. And the reason I asked that question because we were waiting upon, I think it's in the report, a land use study or lands from the regional district and coming out in a couple of weeks. And the question is whether or not there are certain types of investment we want to see in the downtown that requires a certain kind of certain amount of land in order to make it become real for us. That's all. Councilor Davies. I think you just want to comment on the goals for F, you know, is the word consider supporting amenities. And it would almost be stronger to say identify, you know, what would be the right amenities for an area that produces the highest possible quality of employment area to work and play. Yeah, I've got that as one of my questions here based on that. So that will be part of what I reflect to Council if we ask -- I think we are moving towards deferral with some questions. For Mr. Crawford, I have a few questions. And again, these will probably show up in the record as things that are product of deferral. But I'll just ask them and you may have some initial thoughts today. I'll start by saying I'm asked all of the time as recently as last Friday, I think, or Thursday, about providing tax incentives to businesses or even investing in businesses. People fundamentally don't understand that cities are not allowed to go and say, hey, we like you, so we're going to give you a tax reduction. And I think it's difficult to communicate to the public as well sometimes why you're doing that. But I think it's about associating this, if you can be clear for me on this, you're allowed to identify particular areas where tax incentives apply to rejuvenate the area and to attract certain type of business. But you have to leave a fair amount of room, is my guess. Otherwise, you're going to be accused of incentivizing or providing a benefit to a specific business. How does that work, is the question. So that's very true. You can't be overly specific. And I think we're clear on -- we can clearly identify what opportunities we might want to pursue. But under -- you know, legislatively, we can't put tax exemptions in place just willy-nilly. They have to have justification. Typically, you're doing that through the creation of an improvement area, a business improvement area or something similar to a DBA. Brownfield renewal, where you have contaminated lands, you can apply tax exemptions to areas like that. In addition to heritage or historical value, you can apply tax incentives to areas that can hold that designation as well. And so, this particular incentive consideration could -- would probably mostly apply to brownfield renewal, where you have industrial lands or commercial lands that require site remediation. And then, of course, we have business improvement area focus as well, where we're trying to incent specific types of businesses, for instance. Yeah, and I think there'll be -- that just raised another challenge, Rich, is if we don't include the downtown, there's some certain areas in the downtown where, for example, we've seen recent demolitions and so forth that people might want to see develop there. And if it's starving one area to incentivize another, that will not be popular. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. And then I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. And I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. And then I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. And I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. But I think there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. And there'll be a lot of people that are going to be able to do that. And if we were to suddenly say, hey, we're going to create incentives all around your neighborhood, including your property for maximizing development, we're just going to hit them harder on the tax bill because their property is going to go up under BC assessment by a larger percentage. But there are brownfields just a few doors down that as well as properties that have historically been challenging because of their hydrogeology, for example. How generic does our map have to be? How generic does our map have to be? Can we go along and identify properties that we know have been challenging for quite some time and have a map of those properties? We can. We can. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I need some time to do that. I don't need you to do that right now, but that's one of the questions I'm going to ask you to do as a result of this. And I don't think we should limit it strictly to the area that we're looking at here. If they're in the downtown, I think we should break our rules for enough of this to say we're allowing incentiv ization of those properties too. Not breaking our rules as in our regulations, but as in our terms of reference for the scope of this. When it comes to incentives, if a council later says, yes, we want to have incentives on brownfield areas or under developed areas, I think there's no way a council is going to say, we're going to do that up until we reach Grand Street. But on the east side of Grand Street, we're not going to do it. So I would say what's good for the goose has got to be good for the gander across the whole length of this when it comes to incentives. I'm presuming that when you come back with this, you'll present this as sort of a menu of options that include certainty and timelines for development, waiving of fees, waiving of fees partially. I think if it comes as a whole package, it's going to be harder for the council to parse. Is it true that you'll come with something that looks like a bit of a menu? We can. Okay, that would be good. And I think councillors Davies and Plek has raised one of the questions connecting it to amenities, connecting it to amalgamation is worth investigating. But to me, one of the other ones is how specific can we get about the type of employment? And I have two thoughts here. One is I think we'd all love it if tomorrow we had more doctors coming into our community. And that type of profession might be just an example. Daycares are growing right now, but that was an area a few years ago where we really needed something. And then things like thresholds of the amount of jobs per square foot or that sort of thing, or the amount of job value per square foot. Can we do that? And I'm not asking you for the specifics, but is that something that we could ask you to look into? Is that a way to connect incentives to applications? We certainly could. And if I could draw your attention to the employment land strategy, it actually has a list of sectors that we would like to see more presence of in mission. And you could certainly try, I don't know if you'd make the incentives specific to those business types, the typology, but you'd certainly point people to that list. And you'd probably update it at the same time. Sorry, Mr. Crawford. The employment land strategy called for an employment index for every application. And I love that because that's a way for us to say, all right, we're going to give a score for the number of jobs, for the seasonality of jobs, for the job providing benefit to the community, to the job's impact on equity in our community, for the salary of that job, and then have one score. And be able to say to people, if you score 8.5 out of 10, you get this much of an incentive. If you score 6.5 out of 10, you're at this level. I think something like that is a simple way of being able to say to a council, this job, this application moves the needle for employment and economic benefit to this degree on a scale of 10, whatever that might be. I'm a big fan of indexes, indices for that very reason. I'll pause there. I think we've got a list of questions, but I'll see if there's any others. And if not, then I'll let Ms. Acharya to wrap up. And then I think I'm going to move deferral and try to capture these questions. Ms. Acharya? Thank you. So the vision and goals were identified in the April 7th. So they're sort of included again. Next steps. If council were to endorse option two today, we would actually proceed with the engineering work, which needs a minimum of three months from the time they begin. It's going to be consulting work. It will identify transportation needs as well as the preferred road network. That's one of the things that's missing when development applications come in now, which could be the reason why the projects are delayed in that sense. So the future development applications will have a better idea of what is the preferred road network. And sometimes some of these details of the road network could be adjusted based on the application itself, but it 'll give a good strong guideline. We would also look into going -- doing a deeper dive in policy and incentive or disincentive framework, which has been alluded to earlier. Any other tools that are needed to support the land use concept plan. Stakeholder engagement and community engagement were planned in September to sort of bring back a more comprehensive plan, versus just taking the land use component or, you know, other components, but with the engineering background framework that's needed. And then we were planning to bring a final concept plan for future consideration. Concluding summary, I think we alluded to it earlier. Not much changes in the eastern segment. A lot of the western segment is slated for employment generating type of land uses because of its strategic location. Staff recommend that council endorse option two. I know there are many questions. A lot of times these questions could be addressed with a deep dive into a preferred option. I think the basic question is, again, coming back to does council want to prioritize and maximize employment generating uses in the corridor? And if the answer is yes, then option two clearly sort of identifies. There are a lot of unknowns, but if we have a preference from council, we can actually do a deep dive. So, rather than saying option one or two or three. These are the recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to turn to my colleagues and just look for a quick sort of informal poll on whether you'd like to defer today with some questions, or ask staff to proceed with one of the options and then report back and answer some of these questions. If you'd prefer to defer today, show me with a show of hands. I personally am in that camp, and I think I'm seeing more of that. I'm going to move deferral then with these questions to be answered by staff. I'm going to go slowly so that they can be extracted from the recording later on because there are a lot of them. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. I'm going to go ahead and ask for questions. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried unanimously. Thank you. A motion to adjourn would be in order. Councillor Gill, seconded by Councillor Hamilton. All those in favour? Opposed? We're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.

Mayor Tory: Good evening everybody and welcome to this regular council meeting for June 15, 2026 for the City of Mission. Before we begin, I'd like as always to acknowledge that we're gathered this evening on the unceded ancestral and shared territory of the Stolo people and particularly the City of Mission is located on Kwantlen, K atese, Le Camel, Math, Guissimath and Scowletts traditional territories. Before I call the meeting to order tonight, I know our community is concerned about Councillor Harar. It would have read in the record that his health was threatened this weekend and so I know Mr. Pitkethly has an update, just recent update to share with the community before we call the meeting to order. Mayor Paterson: I had the pleasure of speaking with Councillor Harar just before this meeting and while he sends his regrets, he says he's working hard with the doctors and he's on his way to recovery and he's going to be back in the saddle as soon as he can and he was arguing with his wife about leaving the laptop so he could watch tonight's council meeting. So a little bit of levity from our council. Mayor Paterson: There you go. Mayor Paterson: Well, the good news is I'm sure that part of his rehabilitation will involve a stationary bike and we all know he's very familiar with that so that'll serve him well. We wish him well on behalf of the entire community. I'll ask for -- I'll call us to order now and ask for a motion to adopt the agenda, moved by Councillor Elias and seconded by Councillor Mayor Paterson. Mayor Paterson: Sir Hamilton, any changes needed? I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed ? We are officially in order or working now. We begin tonight with a presentation from Homes for Health -- or sorry, from Bridgehead for Homes for Health and we welcome interim CEO and development manager Bindi Watts and our board chair James Atebi is here as well. So welcome and we look forward to this. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Council, staff and community members. Thank you for the opportunity to present this evening on behalf of Mission Bridgehead Investment Corporation for the Homes for Health Development project. Mayor Hohan's already done a great job introducing myself and James here on behalf of Mission Bridgehead. Tonight's presentation is being provided for information purposes only and no recommendation is being sought from Council. I will offer a high-level overview of the project and the complete presentation will be available on our website tomorrow for those who would like to explore the details further. Mission Bridgehead Investment Corporation is the City of Mission's Municipal Development Corporation, wholly owned by the City. You'll hear me come back to the Municipal Forest a few times throughout this presentation as this is a unique and valuable resource that Mission offers and the forest has now proven to be an effective economic tool for the city. MBIC operates under a similar structure to the Municipal Forest in that the primary economic measure is also to become self-sust aining first, then once profitable, provide proceeds back to the city for community benefit. What is Homes for Health? It's a strategic housing initiative that supports health care workers and helps meet the community's growing needs similar to successful models implemented in both Chilliwack and Vernon. What problem is driving the need for this project? Mission continues to face a growing challenge in local health care access. Persistent staffing shortages have led to service disruptions and temporary hospital closures numerous times. Our answer is a housing solution designed to support health care worker attraction and retention. Council has heard presentations from both Fraser Health Authority and Mission Division of Family Practice regarding physician attraction and recruitment efforts. We believe by providing housing in close proximity to the hospital, groups like Fraser Health Authority, Mission Division of Family Practice, and other health foundations can work with the city to use this as a tool to recruit international health care workers as it strengthens Mission's competitive offering as an employer destination. Additionally, access to housing eases relocation pressures and makes the move more realistic. It appeals to physicians and families to know they have safe, convenient housing. Lastly, providing housing demonstrates that the community and health system understand recruitment challenges and are willing to invest in long-term physician retention. Next, I'll provide an overview of the housing model. Homes for health is a purpose-built market rental housing development. This is not affordable housing. It is not social housing. It is not subsidized housing. Units will be furnished for temporary short-term and long- term rental. These will be available for locum, which refers to vacation or leave coverage. Itinerant coverage, which refers to visiting physicians, health care workers who travel to provide coverage, similar to a traveling nurse, as well as for international and national recruits, specialists, residency, or established physicians. MBIC is filling a gap by addressing a housing type that is currently under-delivered in the market and not being advanced by other developers. MBIC is delivering this housing because it is our strategic objective to advance the city's priorities, which are to deliver local jobs, which can be found in the employment land strategy, deliver housing, which was identified in the housing needs assessment, and to attract and retain health care staff, which was identified in the community wellness strategy. Let's look at the project value. I want to break this down into various components that align with MBIC's mandate, along with the city's strategic objectives, with the goal of delivering meaningful results. Again, similar to the municipal forest, which creates a balance of various economic, social, and environmental values, MBIC is guided by the same principles and focuses on delivering value across those areas. We often hear return on investment, or ROI, and this is the overall value generated from a project, not only financial gains, but also social, operational, and long-term intangible benefits relative to the cost and effort invested. Social and health benefits are the measurable positive impact a housing project has on residents, the community, and public systems beyond direct financial returns. Economic benefits are the positive impact on the local or regional economy, including jobs, spending, and productivity. Financial benefits are the direct monetary return in revenue. And the environmental benefit refers to the positive impact on the natural environment, as well as the health and well-being of the tenants living in the building. Look at the social and health benefits. By providing stable local housing, it can reduce long commutes for workers, which supports workforce well-being and can improve day-to- day reliability and continuity within the health care system . In a community experiencing staffing pressures, those factors matter. In addition to supporting health care workers, this project may have an opportunity to provide housing units to the broader community, depending on project structure and long-term implementation . That gives the project wider community relevance. And as mentioned previously, this initiative can strengthen the ability of both Mission Division of Family Practice and Fraser Health to attract and relocate physicians to mission . Look at the economic benefits. In the near term, the project creates local jobs during construction, which helps support workers, families, and local businesses. Over time, it also helps broaden the municipal tax base, which is important for the city's long-term financial stability. There's also a wider ripple effect in the local economy because new development brings more activity and more spending at surrounding businesses. And just as importantly, bringing more health care workers into the community helps support future growth. Look at the financial benefits. Based on the current performa, the development is expected to generate approximately $64,000 in annual net revenue. The completed asset may also strengthen MBIC's balance sheet, as it could potentially be used as security to help fund future projects. In that sense, this project can support broader development opportunities over time. This approach, again, is similar in principle to the municipal forest model, where an asset is managed not only for its direct purpose, but also for its longer-term value to the community. Ultimately, the goal for this project is to create value that can be returned to the city, including the potential for future dividends. And by dividend, I mean a portion of the company's profits that's paid out to its shareholders, the city. When a company earns profit and accumulates retained earnings, it can either reinvest it into the business and/ or distribute a portion to shareholders as dividends. The project will also incorporate sustainability considerations throughout its design and construction, resulting in a range of environmental benefits. Okay, let's jump into project description. The project is currently in the detailed design stage. As we work through rezoning considerations, setbacks, parking, and overall site configuration, the design continues to evolve. This fluctuation is a normal and important part of the process, as it helps us test options and arrive at the best overall solution. Our goal is not simply to make the project fit on the site, but to ensure it fits well within the surrounding neighborhood center or context. As this is one of the first developments in the new health and wellness district, it carries added importance in shaping expectations for future development. All that to say is that this is the vision, and we will keep council informed regularly of the progress and any changes. So currently the design supports 14 residential units with parking, a mix of one, two, and three bedroom suites, again at market rental. The project will lend itself to improved streetscape and we 'll be able to provide some amenity space, either within or an exterior amenity space. And it'll be ready for occupancy fall of 2028. We're also looking to improve the yield up from 14 units, if possible, through density bonusing. A range of development options have been considered in ref ining the design approach. As we continue working with the planning department and our architect, the built form is being further refined to support the best overall outcome for the site. We looked at various partnerships, but private developers are stalled and not committing to projects of this size during these economic times. We spoke to modular construction companies and consultants. And while modular designs are quicker to execute, the cost is similar and sometimes the modulars do tend to leak. We also looked at various density limits. But again, partners are not committing to higher density. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. We have a lot of work that's been done. It will go through rezoning a DP application. Well, the application will be made this summer of 2026. First, second and third readings targeting fall of 2026. Final adoption of rezoning late 2026. Building permit application in late 2026. Construction to start in early 2027. And again, occupancy in the fall of 2028. Going through the fast track program may expedite these timelines as well. Looking at how MBIC will execute and deliver. We have a clear and executable path forward. As noted earlier, the benefits for this project are strong. Developing homes for health gives us the opportunity to prove delivery, create a tangible asset, and build real momentum. Once that project is complete, we're in a fundamentally different position. We can leverage that completed asset to secure financing or sell it and redeploy that capital in advance of future project. This approach does more than deliver projects. It builds credibility. It strengthens our track record. It deepens our relationships with development partners. And it sharpens our value proposition in the market. Most importantly, it positions MBIC to transition toward a self-sustaining model. One where we are not only funding our own growth, but ultimately generating returns and paying the evidence back to the city. Moving forward, MBIC has chosen this project because it fits within our scope and advances our core mandates. Physician housing near the hospital is intended to support recruitment and retention of doctors in the community. The goal is to help strengthen access to local health care services while planning housing in a way that fits the neighborhood and follows the municipal approval process. So what happens next? We'll continue review of the proposed design and we're doing further technical and planning work. And then as mentioned, there's the future municipal approval process as required. Thank you. Questions? Councilor Plakas. Just one second. Let me get other people. Councilor Hamilton. Councilor Elias. Okay. We'll start with those three folks. Councilor Plakas. Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate it. You didn't indicate the size of the lot where it's located. So people have an understanding. It's proximity to the hospital. So the lot is approximately 500 meter walking distance to the hospital. How large is it? And the site is just under 12,000 square feet. I believe it's 11,700 square feet. I do appreciate the presentation. Well organized, well thought out. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Hamilton. Thank you, Mayor Horne-Demiswat. I'm assuming that the corporation becomes the property manager for the rental units? That's a model we're still determining, though there is the option for MBIC to manage the property. We're also exploring, discussing with Fraser Health about signing a master loan. Master lease agreement. So they would sign the master lease agreement with MBIC and then manage the property themselves. But that is yet to be determined. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Elias. I just want more of a comment saying thank you so much for the presentation. This is very exciting and positive for Mission. My other job is in Langley and Langley's foundation and hospital has a similar housing unit across the street from the hospital and it's been very, very successful. And so I'm really looking forward to that, that success coming out here and helping stabilize the healthcare system in Mission. So kudos to you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Davies. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Watts for coming tonight and for presenting to us. Councilor Davies. You know, when we see, you know, constantly that the hospital is closed, you know, it's really, you know, exciting to see that, you know, the city of Mission is reacting and implementing a plan to try and help mitigate that. I have two questions. The first one is in this model, who would really be managing the rental inventory? Is it intending that it would be Bridgehead or would you likely find a partner that would take care of that? I think that's the question that Councillor Hamilton asked. They're exploring with Fraser Health right now. That's exactly right. Yeah. So there's the two options in terms of managing the property. And then if the asset is sold, how would you protect that asset to ensure the model doesn't go away? Right. So who would buy a home that is rental for just for healthcare workers? Yeah, that's a good question. We will explore that. And if it does end up being a sale, we will ensure that it maintains its intended use, which is for healthcare workers. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Gill. Thank you, Mayor Horne. And thank you so much, Ms. Watts, for the presentation. I guess I do got a number of questions. I guess first I'm just going to talk about Bridgehead and ask those questions. I guess there was some vacancies for board members. Do we have a timeline on when those vacancies are going to fill? I can speak to that quickly and then you can add or Chair Tevi can. We have received, closed our dates for the applications and I've just spent the afternoon looking at them. There are many candidates, way more than we have space for, and there will be some tough choices because they're all exceptional candidates that I've seen so far. So right now we're having to vet the list and this Friday will lead us to the next process. But, Mr. Tevi, I think we had, if I'm not mistaken, wanted to get the process completed by the end of the next month, but I'm not certain. Do you remember what the timeline was? It's very soon, anyways. Thank you, Your Worship and the Council. We are on the 17th. This week we will be, the committee, the recruitment committee will be meeting to shortlist and interview. We hope that by the end of the month, hopefully we will have the interview. Ideally, we would like by the beginning of July to know that we are... The onboarding. We are onboarding them. Appreciate that. I guess my next question is, I know there was mention in the presentation, and even when Bridgehead started, that they're going to move to be self-sustaining and eventually profits will be paid out to the shareholders, which is the city. Is there any conversations or timelines of when that is anticipated? Or is it too early? So, Mission Bridgehead has been around. It was incorporated in 2024. 2025 was our first full year of operation. We are well positioned to move to that model. I think it could be a couple more years before we start seeing those dividends return, because as I mentioned, we need to become self-sustaining first. So, we need to be able to sustain operations and then start paying that dividend back. I think I'll add something to that that the board has discussed, and that is that there will be an option to the shareholder, to the city, the council, to look at whether or not they wish at future date to receive a dividend early or to reinvest the dividend, thereby speeding up the growth of MVIC and seeing a bigger dividend more rapidly. So, that becomes the question of the council at the time, do they want a dividend, and if so, to what degree? Mr. Tevey, did you have something to add? I just wanted to add one. We will be, as a board, we will be formulating some policy that will come and we'll share with you as shareholders in terms of how we manage and deal with any kind of proceeds that come from the development like the one we are doing right now. Thank you. If I ask that question, it's one of the questions that I get asked from the community quite frequently. I think with the decision of council making to transfer some leases over to Bridgehead and leases being negotiated, it would be nice to have that, some sort of timeline or even involve the community in that discussion to say, if, you know, I guess the stakeholder, the city wants to see dividends early, it would be nice to put that to the community to see what they want to see. I guess now talk about homes for healthcare. The question was, is there any financial partners right now , part of it, like Fraser Health or provincial government? I know you did mention something about a master agreement. Is there any timelines on any sort of that? No, we're currently exploring those different options. We've also spoken to lenders who have been voicing strong support for the project. So we're exploring that. In one of my previous slides, I did show that we also looked at options under Build Canada Homes and CMHC. Those, unfortunately, didn't pan out for us. And there was some early seed funding as well that we did not receive. So we continue to explore these different options and avenues to secure some additional financing sources. But we are speaking to lenders as well. I guess it probably becomes too late, that conversation of onboarding a financial partner once you guys break ground. Is that correct to assume? Yes, we will have to be doing that before we break ground, yes. I guess I want to talk a little bit about the ROI. I know you mentioned 64% annually, but do you have a percentage of returns that are going to come out of that project of how much you guys have invested versus what's that actual percent of rate of return? So it was 64,000. It wasn't 64%. That was the net revenue that I had mentioned earlier. I can provide full financials for the project. I don't have them in front of me at this time. My next question is vacancy rates. I know one of the things that I'm hearing quite a bit about from the development community is that there is a lot more rentals that are available right now in the market. And I know this project is not affordable. Is there any concerns that as we see healthcare professionals coming into our community, that there's so many options out there that this might be a lot of options out there. It might be a challenge because it's so purpose built to lease out or rent out. I can answer that or perhaps Mr. Atebi. One of the values of the project, and it goes to a question Councillor Davies asked, is that the need right now is for healthcare workers. But that's a pivotal thing in consultation with the share holder, which is council, if the market changes. There's domain by MBIC to meet the need. But I think it's quite realistic that the need will evolve. We've seen that happen just in the last term and a half that I've been here, where the number of spaces we need for doctors is now very optimal or very much needed. But there could come that we need it more for seniors or we need it for teachers. And so that remains a possibility between MBIC and the council. Would you have anything to add to that, Mr. Atebi? I just wanted to add that, yes, we did mention that earlier in the presentation as well, that if there were any units that weren't being used for healthcare workers, they could be used for other working professionals. Or they could possibly be rented out to the community as well. If you guys were an actual private developer, profit driven , it would be really to the highest bidder because there's the economic or that community benefit. That's why it's purpose built, correct? Correct. I think it's a balance of all four of those ROIs. Yeah. And so I think what the board has said is, first and foremost, we're using this to catalyze the recruitment of healthcare workers. If it turned out that we didn't fill all 14 units with healthcare workers, then we'd look at a secondary group of need and so forth. But the market, there's no desire to go into a place where the market's already going in. And there's no desire to subsidize affordable housing because there's no return there. So that's really how I would capture the discussions we've had. Other councillors have been there. But Mr. Atebi, do you have anything to add to that? I think you've covered that very well. Mayor Horn. I just want to comment that there was a time when we didn't have the health center here in Mission. And at that time I was the mayor. We wanted to build a health center so that we can invite, it could assist us. We were struggling with really keeping the ambulance, the emergency department within Mission. And we knew that if we build an health center, there will be more practitioners who would come and practice. Even we were having struggle to get practitioners from even in Applesford, such as a short distance. We hope this kind of vehicle we're also developing here will assist us with really meeting what the city is struggling with, health care professionals to come and find that we have this. And eventually, that's the primary purpose of this facility . But if -- as property managers also, we will be very flexible. And we don't want also to compete with the private sector what they are offering. That's why we are targeting in every unique facility. And I do appreciate that. But, you know, we as a stakeholder are footing the bill. So I think we owe the public responsibility to ask the questions. I guess my next question is, builders, who's going to build this project out? We will go to tender for that. So we will follow an RFP process. Is it too early to ask if there's any variances being requested on the application? We are -- again, we are going through the detailed design phase. So the built form is evolving. There may be some variances required in terms of setbacks. Maybe for parking, but we don't know yet. We'll know that a little further along. I know setback variances, Council's very generous and has granted. One of the things I do hear about is the challenge about parking in that whole area. So it would be interesting to see if it is being requested, what that rationale letter does look like. Yeah, so just a little further on that. If there are any parking variances being requested, it is because the fact that we're so close to the hospital. The intended use is for physicians to be able to walk to work. Thereby reducing that need to have a vehicle. And if these physicians are coming internationally, they may not be purchasing a vehicle right away either. So they want to be within close walking distance to where they work. So they're going to be able to walk to the hospital. So they're going to be able to walk to the hospital. So they're going to be able to walk to the hospital. So they're going to be able to walk to the hospital. So they're going to be able to walk to the hospital. So they're going to be able to walk to the hospital. So they're going to be able to walk to the hospital. So they're going to be able to walk to the hospital. So that's that's the one thing I am concerned about this project. I think you did mention that there's concessions that the city is giving. And I guess once the community gets to see that breakdown, I'm hoping you guys do include that because 64,000 sounds super nice to see that return. But it's actually because the city or the stakeholders are waiving many of the fees. So I think once you do include that or give that to the community, please do highlight that. But thank you for the presentation. Thank you. Thank you. I'll wrap this up by just saying good job. Excited as others have said. This project is something that as Councillor Elias said, and as you include in your presentation, we're seeing municipalities all across the province try to find ways to demonstrate actively that they are a place that intends to attract and retain good healthcare professionals. The last meeting we had two presentations, and I think we 're trying to throw everything we can at this. It's very clear to me, all the way through municipalities trying to recruit doctors, which has not been a successful experiment, I would say, to work for the city, that is. You see municipalities trying to do everything to try and enhance their profile and attractiveness, we heard last time from the division that recruitment to the Fraser Valley brings challenges that Metro doesn't experience. So this gives us one more advantage. And the fact that it produces revenue for the city is a win -win. So -- and the fact that it starts us off in the health and wellness district as well. So I'm excited to see it move forward. And I will have to cut time out of my schedule to come and be there in the fall of 2028 when it's occupied. So thank you so much for that. We appreciate your presentation. Mr. Tebby, thanks for coming out here this evening again. We appreciate your commitment as well. Thank you both. Okay. With that, I'll ask for a resolution to resolve into committee of the whole. Moved by Councillor Elias and seconded by Councillor Plekis . All those in favor? Opposed? It's carried unanimously. We begin this evening with a verbal presentation by Mr. Gr unewald, our director of foreign street. What's your title now? Director. Is it still director? Director. I'm getting used to the changes so I apologize. I don't want Councillor Davies to make me pay a dollar if I make a mistake. So, all right. So, Mr. Grunewald, the floor is yours. Okay, well, good evening. With our profitable first quarter, we have now achieved seven straight quarters of profits in our operations. We have been able to navigate through some tough timber markets over the last two years. Looking ahead to the remainder of 2026, we have already received $2.1 million in revenue for the year. And we'll be receiving another $2.4 million in revenue from our current timber sale. We will also be releasing one final sale for the year, an 11,000-meter sale that is expected to generate $900,000 in revenue. So, the end result is I'm extremely optimistic that we will have another profitable year in 2026. A quick update on the Doyle Street parking lot. Operations started last week and the graveling of the parking lot started today. I expect the parking lot to be completed by the end of June . And we will invite Council to come see the completed work in early July. Our operations crew is doing great work at the site. You know, we have mentioned previously, we have gone above and beyond what is required in terms of planning and construction of this amenity. And I definitely want to give kudos to our staff for their good work on this project. Finally, after 47 years, the Mission Logger Sports Competition makes its return on Saturday, August 22 at the Fraser River Heritage Park. This is a family-free event and we look forward to seeing everyone there. And I can say I've received so many positive messages, people excited, remembering when they went as kids and stuff. So, we're super excited to bring this back to the community . Thank you so much. I'll turn to my colleagues for questions. But I will point out there is a small difference in this year's municipal election process. There's a log roll. So, you have to participate in the log roll and survive in order to be… Sounds good. Some of us got out just in time. Any questions for Mr. Greenwald? Go ahead, Councillor Hamilton. Mayor, through to Mr. Greenwald. So, has the whole thing around the tariffs kind of calmed down a little bit? No, it hasn't. But we've just been able to, as we have previously, we've been able to take advantage of the lack of supply in the market. Plus, stumpage costs, the royalty we pay to the province has gone down. I think our average this year is less than $10 that we're paying to the province. So, we still have favourable financial conditions. But it's still a challenge and I expect we'll still have another probably two years before things start to get better. Okay. Thank you. I've got Councillor Gill followed by Councillor Plekis. Thank you, Mayor Horne. And thank you so much for the incredible work you do. I think our Forestry Department is very well served under your leadership. So, thank you. I guess my question is, with all the tariffs going on, first question is, I know there were some folks getting money back because due to the tariff being charged over, did we get any money back or is there any option to get any money back? Yeah, I know that would be the lumber companies because they pay the tariff on the lumber they ship down. So, that doesn't really impact us. But there will be, I think, if they do come up with a software lumber agreement, those entities would be getting money back. Yeah. I guess my second question is, thanks for that, Chris. The second question is, with the tariffs, is there any push to bring down the stumpage fees? They have gone down just naturally because the markets are dropping. So, like I say, we're below $10 average. And our most recent permit that we're putting in that should get approved in the next month, I think we're under $1 average. And that's a big, big permit with about 100, over 100,000 cubic metres in that permit. So, definitely has gone down significantly. Under $100 average, you said? Yeah, for this new permit. That's ironic because that's how much Councillor Gildas had to pay because he called you by your first name. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. I think that's a big deal. So like getting ahead of the thing. Yeah, no, thank you for that. Yeah, so we just received the cut control statement for our last two years of 2024 and 2025. So we're we're right in that ballpark. We want to keep it fairly close because we don't want to get into our last year of our fifth year and then have like , you know, the market's down. We have to harvest all this timber, right? So we keep it fairly close. I think in the first year we were down a little bit, but this year we'll be right at our allotment. So thanks. Thank you. Two questions for me. How are we looking in terms of the forecast this year for the fire scene? I'll pause and let you answer that one before I ask myself. That is extremely concerning. I mean, obviously, as we know, June is typical. We get it's wet, but it looks like July and August could be quite hot. So working closely with the fire department on mitigation. Yeah, I'm glad that you raised that because I know that across the entire Fraser Valley region, there's been a point of advocacy from all of the communities in this area, probably elsewhere in the province as well, to give municipal governments authority if there is a risk of fire in local forests. And so we try to keep them open as much as possible, but people should be aware, A, that that could happen, and B, the need for them to be really diligent and helpful if they see people doing things like camping outside of the campground, or doing risky behaviours in those areas, like dropping cigarettes and so forth, they need to let us know and take action. The second thing I wanted to ask you about is, I know that the 60th anniversary, it seems like it just went by, and there was great strides and the tree farm book was written and so forth. We're getting close to the 70th anniversary in 2028, and I wondered, are you, you don't have to get into specifics, but have you started to have conversations about creating some sort of an impact at that time? Great question. We just had this conversation last week with staff, and we will start the planning up for that. We want it to be a great event. Okay, fantastic. I know I've got community members and you 've met with some of them who are advocating for some sort of legacy, showing this progress to date, and I hope we will make it happen somewhere along the line. But there are lots of things that are exciting right now. And just one more thing, we really want to honour the past, all the people that have contributed to the success of the tree farm. So, yeah. Mr. Davies? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Greenwood, for your report today. I just had one question. The portable mill for MSS, is that still being used? Are there any updates on that? Mr. It is, yeah. Thank you. It's at Riverside, and it's being used by the trade sampler students, actually. So, the students down at MSS can come up and use it, and they do use it, and we're still providing the lumber or the logs for the mill, so it's working well. And I actually think, working with Taryn, we've cut some boards for some new signage for City Hall. Fantastic. Thank you. And just last comment is, for the log ger event, no matter how much Councillor Plekis asked, do not give him a chainsaw. All right. Make a note here. Councillor Gill, to wrap this up. Thank you, Mayor Horn. Mr. Greenwood, can you talk a little bit about clear-cut ting along just the roads? Because it's some of the -- sometimes I do hear concerns from residents, and they say, "What is the common practice, or why does that sometimes happen?" Okay, and that's great. I'm glad you asked that. Mayor Redekop: What you mean, Councillor Gill, are you saying the clearing along municipal roads, or are you talking about clearing within the municipal forest? Because one may be Ms. Tuft's responsibility, and one may be Mr. Grunewald's responsibility. I hear about the roadside clearing. I guess it was towards, I believe, in the back of the roads , but it was along the roadway. But I don't think it was Ms. Tuft, I think it was Mr. Grun ewald's responsibility. That's right. I can speak to that. That was our Harvest Block WS8. Ah, I see. Mayor Redekop: Yeah, we do often -- we did get a lot of feedback about that, and one of the big questions is why we didn't -- did we not leave a visual buffer along that? And there was a number of things. We did consider leaving a buffer, but obviously we have some challenges with that. Windfall issues and damages to infrastructure. There's the telecommunication lines. I'm not sure if you're aware of that. Just to the east on Doody Trunk, where a property owner had cut and left a buffer, and we had issues with windfall falling on the lines and knocking the lines out for a steelhead resident. So that was one thing. And also there was a new subdivision development adjacent there, so with houses that would be within the striking distance of trees. And as we said, in winter times, we definitely are getting more intense rains and winds, so we're seeing more windfall issues. So that was one thing. The second thing specific to this issue -- or this block -- was that there was a significant area of root rot, about two to three hectares within the stand, and this was, you know, when it was standing, you could see these openings from the root rot, so it was a real risk, and we couldn't in good conscience leave that there and have trees fall onto Doody Trunk and potentially striking someone. So I do understand the need to manage visuals. But in this case, yeah, it was -- we couldn't do it as probably as well as some residents would have liked. It was a special circumstance, but you guys are very mindful of making sure visually from the road, the trees are there, there's that buffer there when it can be. For sure, as long as there's no safety issues or damage to infrastructure, potentially, right, those are serious considerations. You know, thinking about this block specifically, I know, you know, we have to start thinking about updating our -- improving our processes to manage for other values, like visuals, like recreation, and, you know, our management plan update is due in 2028, and we'll start -- we're going to start working on that this year with -- with some of those -- some of those improvements in mind, and I'll be approaching Council with some of those concepts . So, yeah, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Grunewald. Have a wonderful evening. Thank you. Thank you. We'll move on next to the item -- item 6A. And Mr. Haney is here. And Mr. Haney, I understand you have a PowerPoint to start us off? Yes, I do. So we'll do PowerPoint questions and then motions. And in this case, the motions could range quite a bit. So we'll let -- we'll work through that process. Mr. Haney, go ahead. Thank you. Back in March, as part of the Municipal Grants Report, Council approved setting aside $10,000 for a strategic grant program. Last year, we piloted a strategic grant program, and that led to three organizations partnering on two events in Cent ennial Park that were very popular with the community. So a strategic grant program really allows us for one-time targeted action on a very specific -- last year, it was winter months in Centennial Park. These are really meant to be a catalyst for community organizations to imagine, dream, collaborate, have a new idea with some support from the city. The pro -- sorry -- the proposals I'm putting forward tonight respond to different needs. In between Council approving this program and tonight, I met one-on-one with every single organization that received grant funding, except one who never applied, to check in with them on the grant program, on their feedback for the grant program, but also just a temperature check on where they were at to get an overview. So some of these recommendations came specifically from that. And these are really meant to provide an open door and see who comes in. Let's put it out there. Let's offer an opportunity. Let's see who wants to meet us there. So, the first one -- we're going to have a big lacrosse box opening. And sports, and especially youth sports, are really under represented in our municipal grant program. So the thinking is this offers a very targeted opportunity to welcome in some sports groups. It's going to be a pretty open application and more of a proposal than a straightforward -- like, let's see what people want to do. And maybe we end up putting a few people together. But we have a day that we're going to have activity in Centennial Park. We're going to have a community celebration. So maybe we try and broaden that specifically through the sports groups . Number two -- over the last few years, several community hall associations and other nonprofits that have facilities have asked if there's any possible funding source for any kinds of improvements or repairs. We do not currently have that. So that is one possibility for this year's strategic grant program. The idea is to set it up as a matching grant and not set up as a normal grant where they would submit a proposal. This would be more when work is done. Sort of like our municipal small grants program. When the work is done, they can apply for up to 50%, up to $3,000. So the idea would be to provide a few opportunities to inject some funding directly into these community facilities, which are vitally important. But we don't want to get into a possibility of a grant program for future projects because anything involving construction repairs or anything can go off the rails quickly. So that's where the thinking is, let's make this for work done and help them out that way. Number three -- a few months ago, Ms. Watts from Bridgehead got in touch with me to see if there was any way we could animate or activate that Charlie Brown little piece of property across from their offices down at the waterfront. One of the proposals they had was a night market. And while we are not there yet with this location, way too many problems and logistics. However, I see opportunities everywhere. And here I see a location we cannot possibly make worse no matter what we do to it. Do you really think, Mr. T. Okay, I'll stop sugarcoating it . I'm sorry. This could be a lot of fun for a community color bomb and cleanup. Let's stick to the front part of the property. We don't want to disturb whatever's going on in the back part of the property. But all those cement barricades on the road, the other cement building, the concrete, I'd like to think if we did a bit of a cleanup and had a whole bunch of colorful paint and fun ways to explode that paint all over the place, we could have a fun, colorful location, which no matter how it turns out, will be an improvement. And number four, going back to Centennial Park, we don't want to just have the same option every year. So that's why we're not proposing the same grant as last year. We also don't want to put the burden on the groups who came forward last year to have the expectation to replicate. So this year, the thinking is a community togetherness event on the winter solstice, December 21st. 60-minute event with the intention of we're all just going to gather together and sing together. The way this year has been going, by December, we're really going to need to come together and connect and be a community. And this could be a beautiful and meaningful way to do that . So that's what I got. Thank you. Thank you. Before I turn to my colleagues, I just want to make sure that I'm clear on what it is you need from us this evening. So you presented us with four proposals. And I'm having a little bit of difficulty understanding exactly how much money is available currently from what we 've approved. And are we being asked to pick one amongst four? Sorry, yes. We have $10,000. And I'm asking you to pick one of those four. Okay. Or to propose more money, I'm assuming. Sorry? Or to come up with more money with Mr. Stewart. Just start peeling the pockets now. You are always welcome to give me more money. Exactly. Like blanket statements. I will open up the floor to questions first. And then after that, we'll see if somebody wishes to move one of them. Go ahead, Councillor Plekis. Well, thank you, Mr. Haney. And I had the similar question as Mayor Horne. You didn't put a value to any one of these. You just said pick one of the four. But I got impressed by it so much, I thought that all four were going to be done within that value of money. Sorry. I was wondering if you were going to be done with $10,000 because you put $3,000 on one. So we have no idea if one said do this, do that. But you suggested only one of the four? Yeah, sorry. Totally could have been more clear. We have $10,000 for a strategic grant program. I'm suggesting those four options. The $3,000 in the capital one was just a suggestion for a maximum that that matching grant could be applied to one organization. So there would be $10,000 in that pot. But as a suggestion, we would put a max on each application of $3,000. So to be clear, let's just use the first one here. You say sports groups. So lacrosse asked for $1,500 to have something, another $1, 500 maybe from soccer to come and be a part of this event. It's not all going to one organization necessarily, or that remains to be seen? That remains to be seen. Your option A is the one I would hope to see, where maybe lacrosse wants to hire a specific person to lead a clinic that day, and they need funding for that. Great. Maybe another sport wants to have a tryout day. Great. Maybe another community group just wants to provide some refreshments and entertainment. Doors open. Okay. And I have one more question. Oh, I see my colleagues first. I'll go to them. Councillor Hamilton, Councillor Elias, then I'll see if there's -- the question may have been answered. Councillor Gill, you have a question? Please. Thank you, Mayor Horne to Mr. Haney. Well, they're all good options for sure. But my choice would be the lacrosse box, because we've just spent the money on getting the cover there. It's going to be named after someone in mission who is very well deserving, and I think it's a time to celebrate a whole lot of things on that one time. So I would go for the lacrosse box. Okay. So we'll get to debate in a second, but that's great. I appreciate that. Councillor Elias, Councillor Gill, just any questions at this point? Yeah, thank you very much. I just wanted to know, do we not already have a budget? This is probably more for staff. Yeah, Mr. Stewart. $10,000 we've allocated. For the opening already? No, for this grant, as much as I said. No, yeah, so I'm just -- I'm asking -- so this is separate from the opening day stuff already, right? Yes. Okay. Mr. Crow, have we got a budget for opening? I don't think we have. No, there's no set-aside programming money for the opening. So the money we funded was for the development of the property, but not for opening. Okay, thank you. Councillor Gill? Thank you, Mayor Horne, and Mr. Haney, I do like the options. Just give you all the money and do all the events, but I'll stick to a question. I guess my first question is just regarding the community facility capital improvements. If we were to move forward with that one, there would be a date on when the work had started, correct? The community group can apply for work that they did before the grant even opened up? That would be a discussion to be had. In my mind, it would be for work done in 2027, specifically with that program. Okay. My next question is regarding the carol singing. I know we do have some sort of money for -- to do holiday magic or light up the tree. Is that correct? We definitely have money for holiday magic. I think there might be money for the lighting event or I may have just been paying for that from arts and culture. We were funded through a sponsor last year. I'll have to look into that. I don't have the actual answer right now. At least some money came from a sponsor. Okay, so if we don't fund the carol singing, then there's going to be no tree lighting? No. Tree lighting event, totally separate. Okay. Tree lighting event's going to happen. People love it. We're going to make it happen. Okay, okay. Excellent. Okay, that's all for questions. Thank you. Just a quick question from me and then I'll turn to somebody to make a motion. Is there any way -- I don't realistically see a way for four things to happen here -- but I can imagine a circumstance where you could do number one and number four, especially because number one, you would know how much money you had left over for number four. But I would imagine that if you took $8,000 for a lacrosse box opening event, or $75,000, and then took $2,000 to $25,000 for the last one, is there any reason why that isn't doable from your -- I know that's a quick question without a lot of time to think -- but is there a way to put something into both or would that starve them both for resources? I think that might starve them both for resources. Okay. We want to really enable whoever's interested to do things, and we don't want to really -- it's already going to be constricted enough. We don't have to make it more constricted. Okay. Here's what I would say then to council is I'd love to entertain a motion. I would point out that some of these things will become more clear in the fall for a council to think about whether or not -- and I would say that, for example, number two, if a community group comes to us and says they want to put $3,000 into, let's say, refurbishing a tennis court, would we match them? I suspect the council, no matter what day the conversation is happening, would be open to something like that. Councillor Hamilton, did you want to make a motion then? Sure. I'll make a motion that we support proposal number one, the lacrosse box opening, for the one-time funding of $10,000 from the -- what is it? Something grant -- one-time funding. Yeah. Okay. Anybody else wish to comment? Councillor Hill? Thank you, Mayor Horne. Yeah. For me, Christmas is definitely important and I do want to see the tree lighting and more events during Christmas. But I think the comment that Mayor Horne made was valid. It was that in the fall, I'll be going to Mr. Stewart and asking for -- seeing if there's any money that he found. But I support this one because it's coming up. There's quite possibly -- this allows council to hear from Mr. Haney afterwards if money is left over, then there's another opportunity there as well. But this is a sage way to do it with one thing on the plate and then see if there's room afterwards. Looks to me like we've exhausted all of our questions and we're ready. All those in favour? Opposed? Thank you very much, Mr. Haney. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We move on now. Mr. Haney is not here but I've asked Mr. Pitt-Kethley to introduce these Healthy Community Council recommendations. Myself and Councillor Plec sit on the committee so we can speak to them further if there are questions. Go ahead, Mr. Pitt-Kethley. Mr. Pitt-Kethley. So the minutes of the Healthy -- Mission Healthy Community Committee is -- are on the agenda so we wanted to bring forward a report highlighting the recommendations that came out of the latest committee. There's four recommendations that came out of the committee meeting and all we're saying from a staff perspective is that although they're really good recommendations, there's no action to be needed by Council on these as they're kind of being monitored and assessed on a day-to-day basis through our regular work program anyway of the three. So the fourth one is on a separate report you're going to see next. Yeah, the fourth one is not really on the table right now because it's the subject of the next report but I would look for a motion on the first three which were duly recommended by the community -- by the Healthy Community Council. I'll move that. Councillor Plec, Councillor Elias, did you have a comment? I just have a question. A question? Go ahead. In regards to the Build Canada Homes, what do you mean by that? Build Canada Homes -- I'm not familiar with it. Mr. Pickathley, do you want to answer that? I can do my best to -- It's a federal program that -- it's for funding for all sorts of different housing projects. Builders typically take advantage of it and make applications to the Build Canada Homes Fund. It's not really available to municipalities since we're not really in the home building business. So although we monitor it, we're more of a facilitator of that program. We don't -- we don't -- we don't have access to the grants nor do we distribute any of the money. The question was posed to Healthy Community Council and you 'll see it's dealt with further under number two -- sorry, under number one where -- no, it is number two where we talked about the repacing. Given that operational funding is no longer available in some cases, basically what the committee was asked by Mr. Payne is do you want us to look for capital opportunities? We had heard from the community land trust that they were looking more at these and I think other partners. So that's what this is saying is let's explore that opportunity where we can with partners. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Davies. Thank you to Mr. Brick-Ethley. If the municipality is not eligible for Build Canada Homes, would Ridgehead be eligible, especially for healthcare focused homes? That would be one of the sources if they could manage to get one. Yeah, I think it's a partnership play and with other organizations as well. Okay. So those three have been moved and I'll call the question. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried unanimously. Okay. Okay. We'll move on to the next item, the point in time count. We don't have Mr. Payne here this evening so Mr. Pitt-Keith ley can either introduce this. I'll quickly throw in that the community, that the Healthy Community Committee has been talking about this for some time and it's clear that we would be due normally for our full, not just the enumerated approach, but the full description of what's going on. Mr. Payne here, we have a lot of questions on with folks and in particular the committee has expressed concern that we've seen dramatic change in the number of people coming into our community and the stories and complexities behind them. And so that's why the committee has said it's important for mission from an advocacy perspective to do Folsom data collection. Chilliwack and Abbotsford will do that regularly but we will be further left behind if we don't do good data collection. Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? Mr. Pitt-Kathley, anything more to add to that? out of the wings there because we didn't have an application in at the time. And I don't know if we would have been successful anyway because of our population, but it kind of left us out of the future funding for these pit counts. So we're kind of left on our own devices to do that, and we would be able to coordinate it alongside Abbotsford and Chilliwack so that the methodology remains the same. And we can coordinate the timing and the count so it's a very accurate count. Is there Elias? Yeah, I just have a question. What will change with this data? Yeah, by gathering the data, what's going to change? I think it just gives you more more resources to make informed decisions on the future. I don't know if it changes anything per se, but it does allow us to target the needs of the community. It's particularly important when you're applying for or lobbying for some of the issues such as in the letter this evening. Until we have that data, we can't tell the story that will get us funding for supports in the community, both supportive housing as well as things like outreach service, additional policing on the streets. So the data tells us what we need. For example, do we need more mental health capacity at our hospital? Do we need more recovery capacity in our region? So that's what it does. Yeah, and this is where I struggle because we've done this before and we've gotten that data and we still haven't gotten any more resources or any more supports for our community. So I feel I've struggled with spending another $17,000 when I don't find, I don't see a return on investment. I understand the importance of this. I understand what we need to do for advocacy and this and that, but nothing has changed and it's just getting worse. So I don't have the answer or the crystal ball here, but it's just a lot of frustration. And I just, yeah, so I just, what's going to be the return on investment? What's the tangible outcome here that's going to be able for us to figure out those resources? Because we've already seen the province isn't coming to the table to help our community. Well, I think to be fair, I think that in the February 17th budget, we saw something that was a big problem. But we need to accelerate the development applications that we have. The fact that we've seen funding pulled away from a project, but that project was up until February 17th going to move forward. We've applied for C-STEP funding, been successful and asked again. Those require the data picture. We've also seen funding, go to other partners, such as directly to Mission Community Services, First Nations and others. So it doesn't necessarily, it hasn't showed up as robustly as I would like to in terms of housing, I would agree with you. But there are lots of instances where it has actually led to us receiving services and everybody is lacking them. Everybody has too little, but I think we'll fall further behind if we don't have good data would be what I would counter with there. Councillor Hamilton and Councillor Gill. Thank you, Mayor Horne. Well, that was kind of my thought as well as Councillor Elias is the government seems to be pulling back on our funding. As you said, Mayor Horne, we've had two applications for a foundry and we didn't get one. So we've gone through our own, you know, missions version of it with our forge, which I'm happy that we're doing that because it's well needed. But I'm a little bit, I mean, we've had this conversation so many times. We keep doing the same thing and it's not working and the situation does seem to be compounding. So where is the value for the dollar? And I mean, it's a concern for all communities. I get that, but I just don't know if we're making the inroads that we'd like to make. Mayor Horne: We don't have Mr. Payne here this evening and perhaps this is a question that we should be sending back to him because he is on the ground every day and he can describe the answers to the questions from our first two councillors more aptly and describe how it shows up, if it all it shows up in the community. But he's not here this evening to talk about what the rationale was and I'm finding it difficult because I'm both an elected person here and representing that committee. So it could be that we'd be better off to defer this until we have him here to answer these questions. Councillor Gill? Councillor Gill: Thank you, Mayor Horne. I guess my first question is to Mr. Paquette-Lee is what's the most recent data from what year do we have? Mayor Horne: The last point in time, the time count was 2023. Mayor Horne: And then when does the -- I guess my next question is when does the applications open back up for Mission to apply? Mayor Horne: For what -- sorry. Mayor Horne: The funding that Abbott's Prudential back applied for. Mayor Horne: Oh, that was -- that was kind of a -- I don't know if that will ever come back. I think those designated communities, they come with funding but they also come with a lot of restrictions as well. So there -- it's a bit of a catch 22 on that one. Mayor Horne: But I don't know if that's going to open it up to certainly not our size of community. Mayor Horne: We need Mr. Payne to come and answer these questions. Both Abbotsford and Chilliwack have really, I think, not been terribly thrilled that they're reaching home status and that's why they have stopped collecting -- stopped building and that's why we're seeing people in our community. And so it wasn't funding for a point in time count. It was funding to be a reaching home community which is a sustained source of funding. But it has created as many problems for them as it has created opportunities. And so that's literally why they have stated to the provincial government that they're not expanding right now and while they're encouraging them to do that more with us. But I think you mentioned it earlier. Population-wise, they focus largely on the bigger communities. But I would suggest that we maybe go through these questions and ask Mr. Payne to provide us a report at a future meeting that can answer them because some of these are really questions that his expertise is needed on. Speaker 2: I guess -- I guess I'll frame into question in case a motion to defer it comes on. Speaker 2: But I guess the challenge for me is I know I've been in the seat where you do get those counts and it's just like we know there's an issue. Let's just put the money towards fixing the issue. You can go down to Logan Avenue downtown and there's definitely an issue. And when I look at you know we need the data to apply for the grants. I'm not sure if that's fully accurate because you know we can ask the question is to say well the CSTED funding did we have to put those numbers in from that data or is that 2023 data still relevant enough to get that funding. But I don't know. I'm super challenged with this but yeah. Speaker 2: Again I can speak to what the committee found which is that it isn't adequate. And I think that the data that we need is not just evident on Logan Avenue. For example what type of services do we need in the community? Right. You cannot tell until you start to investigate. The point in time count gets into questions like for example whether a person has a head injury or whether or not they have an undiagnosed mental health issue. And so it allows us to go for example to Fraser Health. Right now we're going through a capital working group process to the hospital district and be able to say mission needs to be made a site with an observation unit or a mental health ward at the hospital for example or on that campus. We don't have the data to prove that's the right thing or not the right thing. Detoxification beds are another example. So I think all of these questions are ones that the healthy community committee has heard. But we probably need Mr. Payne here to answer the questions more directly. Yeah and I appreciate that comment. I hear what you're saying. I think the frustrating thing is even if we get that data we've seen so much downloading from the provincial government that and you know looking at their budget I don't even think there's any money possible for them to give. So that's why I'm just challenged by it. But that's a comment. Sir Davies. Thank you and I would concur that it would be very helpful not just to have Mr. Payne here but I think there just needs to be more detail in this report as a whole outlining really what the value of this is. I understand that having this could unlock doors but where the both provincial and federal government's done those doors are all padlocked and triple locked and in the case of this province almost broke. Thank you Councillor Fleckes. Yeah I think my question was more about what benefit what financial gain what is the both Abbotsford and Chilwell getting in the way of to recover their costs and we're not getting it but I do agree with the mayor I think there's a great deal of benefit in doing this and it's been three years since it's been done and it's a more detailed research study on those in our community are homeless and need help and I think it does give that information out to community agencies and how they can better better go for different kinds of funding and resources because they deal with different agencies a lot of different agencies than we do different funding sources so I think it is very beneficial to do but I can understand the questions offered by other councillors I think we do need to make sure we clearly understand what this is going to do for us this point in time counts. Yeah I'm going to move after I make a quick comment to defer it until we can have Mr. Payne present to council I have to tell you and Councillor Fleck has just hit on one of the two things I want to say this data gets utilized by the organizations in our community as well they learn for example where they need to allocate resources or put in for grants often together but the second thing I'll point out is without good data we can't be good advocates and I need to be able to tell the story that all of us can viscerally experience right we can Councillor Gill's absolutely right the whole community can see it but how do you go to UBCM or travel to Victoria and say to the premier or to the minister of health or the minister of housing we've seen this dramatic of a growth in 2023 we had 75 people we're at 175 people now this is how many overdoses we're seeing this is how many people are retreat reporting untreated mental health issues compared to then and that's what the data picture does show I think we're going to I'll ask that not only we have a deferral so that Mr. Payne can answer those questions but I'll ask that as part of that he bring a sample of the document that's used I think once that once council sees the survey and the report out from last time it'll give a much more fulsome picture so I'll move deferral until Mr. Payne can present with the answers to those questions anything further I'll call the question all those in favor opposed the matter is carried thank you move on now to item 7a and Ms. Croy are you presenting I believe you're presenting on this one so today I'm presenting on the stave lake street interim active transportation measures so some background on July 7th 2025 council directed staff to report back on recommended interim active transportation measures for stave lake street between best avenue and 11th avenue over the past couple of years councils also approved budget for an interim active transportation budget through annual financial plans and right now the total approved budget is 250 000. additional background about stave lake street is there is a development cost charge project planned in the five to ten year time frame which would include a future permanent multi-use pathway on the west side of stave lake street from we're looking at highway 7 to best avenue that project has an estimated cost of 25 million dollars and that's more than just the multi-use path but road upgrades and widening as well so we reviewed uh so we reviewed uh the existing uh width of stave lake street uh to come up with interim active transportation measures we reviewed um access for maintenance vehicles and fire access for fire hydrants along the corridor we completed turning assessments given that stave lake street is an arterial road and a designated truck route to confirm the available width for improvements to the existing walking strip on the west side of stave lake street we determined that there was sufficient width available um on the south segment from the existing w beam guard rail down to where the sidewalk starts just north of 11th avenue which could accommodate pre-cast curbs as shown in the image in front of you and delineators the next segment of the corridor which is from the w beam guard rail up to best avenue does not have the same width available so that could accommodate just flexible delineators without the curb pre-cast curbs the estimated cost for these improvements are about 150 000 which can be accommodated within this existing available budget also we found that with the curb stops and flexible deline ators there would not be enough room for bicycles to fit in the walking strip so it would be a pedestrian only facility right now stave lake street is a designated bike route as shown through painted sharr ows as shown in the image and bike route signage but given the traffic volumes the grades of stave lake street we recommend that the bike route be reallocated as part of this project from stave lake street and onto an alternative route along best avenue topper drive and 12th avenue instead of stave lake street and this was reviewed with the mission community cycling coalition and they were generally supportive of this re-r outing as well so overall our recommendation is that council support um or direct staff to implement the interim active transportation measures on stave lake street um from best avenue to 11th avenue as outlined in the report thank you very much and are there questions for ms croix councillor pleggis and councillor gill thank you mr mayor m s croix um you've indicated on the report page 23 that there is a section that is not is insufficient pavement width available from this section to change you talked about that as well so in order to do this are we going to have to increase the pavement width on the street and how does it compare with pavement width on duty trunk row that has a painted line because that's a truck route as well and i think duty trunks a lot wider there's a little more space for pedestrians and the bicycles on the north side of duty trunk so how does this compare width wise for a pedestrian or bicycle lane on stave lake in this section between 11th and best so the um walking strip on the west side is about two meters wide right now and the travel lanes are about 3.4 to 3.5 meters wide for a shared use facility for pedestrians and cyclists generally you want at least three meters or more um so there just wasn't enough width on the walking strip to add cyclists there's one section that has less pavement width available that's just kind of between knight avenue and best avenue where we're not recommending the precast concrete curbs just the flexible delineator posts to separate pedestrians from the vehicle lanes and there's just not enough width there to add the precast concrete curbs because that's about a 0.3 meter wide addition and so there's just room for the delineator posts in that section but we are adding the or recommending adding the precast curbs on the south portion that's between 11th and 9th approximately i think the question was just actually how wide does it compare to the walking paths on duty trunk road i'm not sure what width uh duny trunk road has right now but the walking strips are intended for pedestrians plus cyclists in that direction and the opposing direction cyclists are meant to share the road with vehicles thank you you wouldn't just second question so you wouldn't move stave lake road over enough to make the walk strip wider on going down on the west side the the request is simply to put things on delineating the existing line is that right ms that's right on the point part from where the metal what's i guess now i learned two terms one of them's cheryl the other is w beam um from where that bent guard rail goes north the north end of it up to knight street is where that would just be the flexible ballers is that correct that's right from the guard rail up to but they're going on the existing line there's not any there's no other improvements beyond that at this point uh through future development or other projects in the area where there's opportunities to obtain additional width we would review what we could do in those cases to provide precast concrete curbs or looking at um what what else we can do in the meantime until the full dcc project is built yeah i know it's your turn thing thank you counselor gill thank you through the chair um thank you miss croix um for this i guess my first question is so this is a dcc project correct this portion the interim active transportation measures are not a dcc project but the future larger scale improvements to stave lake street is part of the dcc program we not make this a dcc project mr stewart you know the answer to the question is not growth related so the answer is no but go ahead and say that well the mayor just said and also because it's not in the plan right even if it was you couldn't do it if it's not in the current but yeah the reason it's not funded is it hasn't grown out yet when it's grown out it'll be funded and so that's this is an interim measure based on existing traffic okay my second question is if when you look at seventh avenue right now where where they put the the greenway um i do hear complaints from a lot of folks that are driving vehicles that it's very tight it feels very very tight um because many people in mission have bigger pickups or suvs is is this going to make it feel that tight the goal is to um one of the goals is to visually narrow the road to make it that helps reduce speeds by seeing the um concrete curbs and the delineators that helps to make it feel narrower and encourage slower speeds however the vehicle lanes only the southbound vehicle lane going downhill is changing from 3.5 meters wide to 3.4 meters wide so it might feel narrower and it is a little bit narrower but the greenway lane widths are about 3.3 meters wide so it will be wider and we completed the turning assessments um to make sure that there's sufficient width available so that's a four inch difference 10 centimeters 10 centimeters i support the project because i i do see many folks using it to to walk and um especially the cars that are coming down or um or even going up or or speeding through that especially that bend and it is quite dangerous my only concern is just it being narrowed even i know it's it's not a lot but i think when when i saw this report i actually went and did a walk on it many of the cars were actually over the line and that's why i support this project because at least there'll be that buffer there but i think it's it's it's it's not going to be that that four or that 10 inches it's actually going to feel like a lot is there any room to push it over a little bit more pushing it over would narrow the walking strip portion and we do recommend maintaining it where we can um throughout the throughout the corridor there is the pinch point at the guard rails where it narrows down to one meter which is not desirable but the remainder we were hoping to keep it at least as it is existing i support the the project um fully on in respects to the the safety of it just the part i don't is is the way the project sits is of how narrow it's going to feel so i'm not sure if if you know this is my personal belief and i'll hear what other counselors say um but i would like actually to see the the walking strip or the walking path a bit that portion a bit more narrow and i think there's going to be still ample room for someone to walk there um or and and uh a bicycle but that's that's my comments yeah i have a question before i go to councillor davies with his just because i have to determine how to handle this procedurally the report includes these two recommendations that are on page two of the report they're what you've described in terms of the delineation but there isn't a third recommendation per se in here regarding the best the bike route um and so i'm not quite sure if you if you could just clarify for me about the bike route um a is the aim to remove signage on stave lake street and maps within the community that indicates people they can take their bicycles on this path and direct them over to topper or to simply create a route on topper as well you would remove the sharrows and the signage on stave lake street and install some on topper and 12th avenue the second part of that is that looks like that costs um 150 000 for both things what's the cost without this the signage on topper which you can guess right now as i'm not going to support so um what's the cost just for the stave lake improvements i don 't have that portion in front of me but i would yeah i don't have that portion in front of it's it's going to reduce the overall project cost of council i will be severing this into the road improvements on stave lake street and the topper avenue side i'll speak more about that why later on but it's important for us to know that there's the whole project the whole project is 150 000 so if we don't support the whole project it's going to be less than 150 000 thank you councillor davies uh thank you and uh uh when you make the recommendation that uh you would prefer to um compress the driving lane versus the walking lane especially on stave lake you know why why is the reasoning for that why would you and the reason i ask is because it stave lake already feels tight especially when you come down around the corner for people and and people are going downhill and fast and i and i i i struggle to understand why we would make it a little bit tighter for them and if someone hits that concrete curb they're going to have a very little room uh for play and i'm just trying to understand how you know how that works why we wouldn't you know opt more to giving room to the vehicle versus the pedestrian so one of the um 3.4 meters is generally with is within acceptable lane widths for an arterial road so 3.4 is considered acceptable uh for stave lake street and uh one of the goals is to slow vehicles um in mission we want to deter speeding and one way to do that is to narrow vehicle lanes and that is um a found effect found to be effective through the traffic calming design guide for canadian roads and its general practice in transportation engineering so that is one goal to slow vehicles as well as still provide the width for pedestrians in this area so people can walk side by side pass each other um the concrete precast concrete curbs would reduce the walking strip a little bit from where it the width from where it is now at two meters is probably a little bit narrower than it currently is with the curbs installed so that is the trade-off we do want to slow vehicle vehicles down particularly in the downhill where people gain speed and where they're directly adjacent to the pedestrians while still providing width for pedestrians thank you what i'm going to say to council procedurally is that you have in my opinion three options option one is to move the recommendations and i'll worry about severing the two parts option two is to move the recommendation but stipulate that you want staff to retain as much as possible of the existing road width south south of the wb and the option three is to not support any of it or some other variation on it but i would entertain a motion right now um does anybody wish to councilor davies i'll move it to but with retaining the road with so the motion is to move the proposal but as much as possible to retain the road width uh south of the w beam is that correct correct and i will be severing the debate will be on everything but i'll be severing out the portion on topper bike route rerouting um and we'll vote on each separately uh council davies as the mover did you wish to speak to it um sure i mean just like a lot of us i've walked this route a lot my kids have my dogs have it uh it's very very busy it uh it's only a matter of time before a tragedy happens uh icbc uh data indicates that that hasn't happened yet so i think this is a good time to put in a very basic simple clean delineator this is not something like on the seventh it's it's simple it's clean and it should suffice for the need i've got i think counselor gill and counselor plekis uh thank you uh through the chair yeah i i support this i i think um especially with walkability it's it makes sense um for for safety and we there's um you know there's many schools in that area and many kids are walking that stretch and so i support that and i think one of the needle pushes for me i guess two of the needle pushes was this is very basic level it's not going to be in your face like how um seventh avenue uh greenway is but i really want to emphasize um you know making sure that the walking strip is is narrowed not the road and that's going to be critical for me um so you know i i do hear where you're saying it's a it's acceptable but it's not acceptable for me and i think we've forced a lot of people to already slow down with the the pavement markings and so please um that's why i'm supporting councillor davies motion because it's going to narrow um the walking strip um portion but that's very important thank you and councillor plekis yeah i concur with the last two speakers i think it's really important considering that we have a lot of larger vehicles going up and down state lake road and certainly road width is critically important but there was vehicles with larger vehicle with large wheels and that so i think you indicated it's the truck route and i i don't know if it's other duty trunk was but in reality is it is important that we have wider lanes for vehicles like that thank you i'll support the motion for the reasons that were said on the first part i do have one more question that will determine my vote on the second i'll tell you first my rationale for being concerned about this i'm a behaviorist by trade and i can tell you that nobody's going to take a route that is about visually three times longer instead of going this way especially if they live on night they're not going to go up to go down i have no problem with improving the bike route on topper but my bigger question is why would we remove signage or or or road markings that tell pedestrians this is a shared space if anything i think that realistically because there 's an elementary school down the road here and so forth we're going to see people um we're going to see people want to to have this be a space that they feel safe no matter what i recognize that we have not got perfect circumstances and we don't have the three or four meters that we would want on a multi-use path but i'd rather tell people ahead of time there could be somebody cycling on this same road and you need to both share the road i would i would like signage that said that to people honestly right now i think this is a great thing but i honestly don't think we'll solve the problem if we don't address cycling on here as well so i'll i'll ask you is there a way for us to do the improvements on topper but not remove signage on this side in fact potentially even has some signage that people need to share the road carefully so there's potential to do both leave the signage and shar rows on stave lake street but also add them on topper and 12th avenue but the sharrows do show cyclists that they should be sharing or this is where they should share the lane with vehicles and the sharrows would then be on the downhill travel lane they wouldn't have the opportunity to weave into the pedestrian separated pedestrian area they would be in the lane with the vehicles um which we don't my point is that the markings should indicate that people in the protected area may be both on a bicycle or on foot and i know that's not the standard practice but what we're the whole compelling thing for this and myself and councillor plex and councillor hamilton were at the council cafe where it was first raised is this is an area that feeds three elementary school or sorry three schools two elementary and a middle school and a daycare and there's lots of young families here so there will be people on bicycles and i just don't feel good about making them be on the road either side realistically people that is not a wide enough road for people to be on a bicycle even if they're experienced to clarify so sharing the walking strip between cyclists and pedestrians but we're also narrowing the potentially narrowing that walking strip further for sharing use in that area i'm suggesting signage to the effective at the beginning of that narrowed strip something like you know cyclists please dismount if you're approaching a pedestrian or something like that i think we need to just i'm concerned about bicycles and pedestrians but not nearly as much as i'm concerned about vehicles and pedestrians so that's that's my thinking so what i think i heard you say is that we can improve topper for some folks but we don't need to necessarily dismantle this side of things is that correct i was responding about the sharrows on the paved surface but not necessarily about uh vehicle or sorry cyclists and pedestrians sharing the walking strip on the west side of stave lake street is generally not recommended particularly because of the pinch point at the w beam where there's only one meter available and we couldn't move it out further because of the turning assessments for the heavy vehicles so that section is one meter for potentially cyclists and pedestrians so that's why it was also recommended to be a pedestrian only facility okay i'm going to um as i said i'm i'm going to separate the two motions i think it would be far more wise for us to give people signage that gave them options you can take a cycling route down on topper or you can dismount when you reach the narrow parts of this walking path but i think we need to be realistic about that so i'll support the first part unf ettered but the second part i have some concerns about uh councillor elias yeah thank you um i was gonna say mayor horn i actually agree with you absolutely 100 people are going to ride their bikes on on that anyway so you can put no riding your bike sign all you want and people are still going to ride their bike down stay where you um in between uh for the walking so let's just make it everybody coexist i'll take that as an amendment yeah if i can so i'll take councillor davies motion and ask that we amend that it state um that we appropriately sign the improvements so that pedestrians and cyclists can coexist councillor davies yeah saying that i'll accept that friendly amendment but it's not it has to be dealt this is substantially different i'll treat it two separately okay are you speaking to the amendment um no i support the amendment i think we also need to ensure that pedestrians are aware that e-bikes are a thing too if they go up and down stave like all the time it says bicycles and they're all in that pedestrian lane okay so i'll just call the question on the amendment and then we'll call question on the entire motion okay and i won't sever it because that's solved the problem that i had are we ready on the amendment all those all those oh sorry so just the just a point of clarification because i think there's some transportation safety standards that we may be uh need to address and i'd prefer if these changes be made that we come back with a different design um that meets the transportation um standards that because it would be almost it would almost put us in a liability if we did if we put something in that was not in in the transportation standards i think we've just created a motion in a format that lets staff address it with the intention of council my intention is for us to deal with this this evening unless others wish to defer it i think it's time for us to get this done okay um staff can go ahead and make some changes i think there's enough room within the amended motion to let them worry about the signage and so forth but um realistically i think we've known for some time that not all of our normal options would be available here are we ready for the question this is in the amendment only all those in favor opposed okay thank you on the now revised or amended motion any further debate all those in favor opposed and i did not sever the motion just for the record because that amendment was made so thank you that is carried unanimously and we'll move on thank you okay uh the next item is the annual report this is item 8a and the report i think is self-explanatory but mr stewart is here to answer questions if you would like if there are no questions a motion would be in order councilor elias is that a question or a motion it's to a motion thank you i think i heard councilor fleckis similarly we'll call the question all those in favor opposed that's carried unanimously thank you next is the statement of financial information same as the last one the report is self-explanatory questions if you have any otherwise a motion question from councillor alai our councilor hamilton i'm sorry thank you mayor horn through to staff and it was just a question on page 30 of our agenda when it talks about the number of qp staff so it's increased about 43 qp staff year over year and is that partly because we had some people brought into qp um that weren't before i could i think um was it some of the uh staff at the leisure center or weren't there some staff added to qp um if i may this this doesn't give the total qp staff compliment this is just the number of qp staff who now passed that threshold exactly 75 000 so it's not new people it's just because okay okay okay the standard is so old that now a significant number of people have crossed that threshold okay so there's no new staff there thank you all right thank you are we ready for the question i haven't got a motion yet councilor elias i think uh councilor elias be i think councillor all those in favor opposed thank you okay we move on to uh freedom of information program or press program update um and we have uh ms hubbard is available for questions on this one i know i have some but i will see if others have them first does anybody have any questions councillor pleckis yeah i was looking at page 51 of the report and the top uh point was earned media activities including city draft news releases statements and announcements include council members quotation thank you for the dollar councilor pleckis that's that you're ahead one i'm sorry we're on it we're on the uh one on the freedom of information requests page 48 oh i do have a question about that hey go ahead and i'm looking forward to the next dollar as it might be on any of no thank you mr mayor apologize for that i did have a question both of them how much i just wanted to know indicated you had a full-time staff person dedicated to do this yes and how much other and i was wondering how much other staff time was dedicated to this because it seems to be getting quite extensive and taking time away from other duties have we are we able to measure that and what is the cost recovery that we're getting from these foi requests miss hubbard okay there's a i'll unpack that one um so yes we do have a full-time staff person in the legislative services area and this person is responsible for being our foi coordinator and through that depending on what the applicant asks it may require other staff throughout the city to take some time to provide us with their records so depending on the scope of the request it could take um different amount of time per per request within our duties as a local government agency we're actually we're required to keep this program fully staffed and operating through the office of information and privacy commissioner i you and i spoke about this earlier and i said we would likely get a question like this so in terms of the cost we have a dedicated person who approximately eighty thousand dollars per annum we also have other costs associated with legal fees with the other staff who have to gather information there's information technology there's printing costs do we have an order of magnitude to answer counselor plekis 's question of what it's currently cost us and what it's projecting to potentially cost us with this current rate of foi requests well right now we function well with our one dedicated staff person um and just to as i mentioned in this in the report and speaking to your question counselor plekis in terms of cost recovery um according to the act we are allowed to ask for some fees over three hours but it's very strict on what we can ask fees for so we can we can't charge fees for reviewing records or redacting information from records and the first three hours are free free so that is what our cost recovery is there's not a lot of opportunity for that so we it costs us money it is okay thank you counselor gill counts for lies uh uh thank you through the chair yet we we definitely don 't want to make fois unaffordable and so it is nice to see that there is some kind of threshold but i guess my my question is kind of like counselor plekis is are we allowed to see whether it's on the city website um of what it's actually costing the city on fyi request because i've always wondered that i know this is how much we charge our this is how much we we get but you just mentioned the first three hours but it'd be interesting to see on how much it's costing the city because we see it through development applications what those cost the city but it is is it possible i think you could easily make a motion to that effect to have staff come back with that information another evening something that we can look into different ways to quantify i'll make that motion well we'll come back to that motion because we have a few questions counselor uh don't let me forget councilor elias thank you mayor we never know who is requesting the the freedom of information do we our team we get the how it works is if you go to mission.ca there is a form that you can fill out and generally people will leave their name and their first name last name and everything like that so our team knows um but sometimes they don't and do you find that it's a lot of the same people or individuals or groups we have a few um throughout the years a few people that will submit them more than once and just out of curiosity out of the um requests that come in has there been a lot of information to hand over or is it just very basic one of the the metrics that we're going to start keeping track of is the page count because i think that will be a metric that will tell council a lot of the the scope and from what i'm seeing is a lot more page count than we than we used to have thank you my questions have partly been answered but and i think it's going to be something that if counselor gill makes this motion can be answered um it'll come back to a future council i'm sure but right now um we as council or our council can receive without aggregating to a particular individual or group but we could have a scope that comes back that says like you said page numbers the cost relative year over year the number of requests but also the number of requests relative to the number of requesters at the fraser valley regional district counselor gill and i have been there receiving reports where they said the number of requests had gone down but the number of pages per request had gone up which was actually much more expensive and the density shall i call it of who is replying it was my concern there became it's my concern here too is whether people are using it as a specious process and and essentially penalizing the taxpayer because there are indicators out there that there are particular applicants who do this all of the time and so i think if we do have a report back it needs to be not just clear what's it costing us but sort of the number of applicants we're seeing because if we're getting six applicants and we're getting way more cost and way more pages that to me speaks more of the idea that the process is being abused than by individual citizens or media members appealing for these documents as part of the transparency that is meant by the privacy by the freedom information act um so my question is is there any reason why we couldn't in the future have an indication of the general number of applications we're getting the number of applicants we're getting you mentioned pages and cost already yes exactly i think that the indicators that you mention are indicators that we can use and just to speak to what um you were saying mayor horn in the act under section 43 if there is if we do get vexatious or frivolous applications we can apply to the commissioner to get those disregarded but there's a process with that as well yeah i think again similar to when we talked about earlier we need good data um what i'm really concerned about is we are getting to the to the the edge of what i think our current capacity is we all know how difficult it is to keep services in line with growth i don't think the average person in our community wants us to go hiring more freedom of information processing staff um so um i think they'd rather we're putting money into things like lifeguards and bylaw officers and stuff like that so um so um so counselor gill i'll go back to oh counselor davies i 'm sorry when a person submits a freedom of information request what format do they receive this request in is it always physical electronic can they choose um generally it's electronic we use our office 365 and we send them a link and then they can download it um when when it when there's a charge of 25 cents per page for regular photocopies that's only if they pick up paper copies yes it's rare most people prefer the digital download um second time is uh timelines what how often are we delivering in the timeline that is required you know are we ever at risk of not um delivering in that timeline what would be the consequences of that the timelines are very important in this process and it's stipulated throughout the act that it's critical that we follow our timelines and we do so we take it very seriously on the team we have trackers we have regular meetups we put calendar invites and we meet our deadlines and what are those deadlines when someone if someone was to submit a request today general it's 30 days 30 days so if i have captured the questions correctly from counselors and i'll turn to counselor gill uh you were going to move already that we have a report out on this this sort of the cost scope here but i think i heard questions that would ask that that report include the number of applications year over year the page count the number of customers and how often we're meeting timelines is that capture your motion counts or go you repeat that again please yes the the cost uh the scope of uh requests in other words are we seeing more and more of them in terms of how much time they take the page count the number of applicants and how well we meet our timelines and the number of applications because that will give you a breakdown of that's part of what's the average scope yeah so scope would include the size and the number of applications so i think that's a great distinction counselor gill is that okay with you yeah i'll move anything further from anybody else then um i think that there's not a lot that we can do if there is somebody using this information process speciously i think transparency is incredibly important and you're right it is a public service but i don't want to see it used in a way that burdens people either and i can see right now that um this is uh something that there is the potential to happen so i think this will help council in the future to make good decisions about this i 'll call the question then all those in favor opposed it's carried unanimously thank you now uh at 8d uh miss hubbard uh i think you're going to do an introduction now yes i will i'll do an introduction so what i have here is our corporate communications policy with the addition of a new section and so this section relates to communications leading up to a civic election and during this time this period leading up to an election it's a best practice for local governments to ensure neutral approach across channels and the approach that i've outlined in here is something that we've done here at the city admission for many elections um and it has served us well and so what i'll do is i'll speak to each bullet and i'll speak to the policy and then i'll answer questions and so what what this is is it's taking um a more cautious approach neutral approach i have it here uh starting at the pre-campaign period which and at the end of the election day these are identified on the election bc website so if we were to go with this this would start around july 20th today um this year and so there are four elements to it one is related to earned media activities including our city drafted news releases statements announcements that include council member quotations photos photos or videos so this is the media relations that centers council in it we do we do other media relations we'll have updates and everything like that that will is still going to be happening in person or online engagement opportunities for new projects launched within the defined so basically over summer if something new comes up this would stop but engagement processes or projects that have been ongoing some of these projects we've been working on for years those can continue it's not coming out of the blue and the city spokesperson which in this report just to highlight our city spokesperson is the cao our council spokesperson is the mayor and our cao as the spokesperson often delegates um his role as spokesperson he may delegate it to a gm or often to to myself and this is related to if we get a media inquiry related to something that's happening in the campaigns and we're asked to weigh in on it we don't want to be pulled into the conversation so this is that is the question is basically what this is all about as well as keeping in mind what's fair to other candidates so if councillors members of council have access to city facilities and spaces that are not equally accessible to the public or other candidates for the creation of their own content that would stop as well Thank you um this is an opportunity to ask questions of ms hubbard Councillor pleckis yeah i i certainly don't have any problem with the approach i just want some clarity around item one um what your i did first bullet point you indicated that earned media activities there are times when council is involved in ongoing activities within the community let's say we have the logger sports or something so what you're indicating is that they don't they're not part of that in a sense whether it be a photo or any kind of information sharing is strictly coming through the city city website as an event because how do you avoid doing that people still have a job to do and what you're saying as of july the 20th existing councillors have no engagement what's going on in the city i'm trying to get that clear in my mind because i'm thinking of going to ubcm as well and other events how do you deal with those this is this is more about our our city of mission channels which we have a big platform and it's very valuable and you know when we put things on our website or we have news releases that are council videos and things like we get a ton of reach and that's what that's about going to community events like such as the logger sports which is going to be a such a highlight this summer is not within the scope of this say with ubcm as well and same within ubcm this is this is more of the media relations okay fair i understand that i appreciate it all makes a lot of sense to me thank you thank you i've got counselor gill and did i see counselor davies or not oh yeah no counselor go ahead uh thank you through the chair i i support um i support this um for sure i think it levels the playing field but i do need some clarification i think on the last point so i guess we're we're still obligated to to the to the residents of mission to communicate what's going on and you know for me i do those um council meeting video highlights and so am i still allowed to continue to do those sorry you're still allowed to which i didn't hear the last continue to do those yeah i don't think anybody's stopping you from communicating the way you guys have been communicating with your constituents or the public you just wouldn't be able to use the council chambers or any other space within the city facilities that aren't isn't accessible to the public on a regular basis so for example you could use the front steps or the lobbies or anything like that okay councillors finished with their questions uh there is a recommendation from staff if somebody can you please do that uh councilor pleckis moves it uh any comments um i think there's a strong appetite from the community to see us uh be careful in these respects and i appreciate it i do have some of the same questions as councillor pleckis um but if i've heard you correctly for example at ubcm typically last year we got very good feedback reporting out each of our days um and sharing those duties as people already know i'm not a candidate in the coming election um and so i'm a bit concerned about our ability to message on a couple of occasions and that's one of them the taxpayers paying us to go there they're eager to find out what's happening in our dialogue with the premier or ministers and secondly things like truth and reconciliation day or bc day will be part of this and traditionally the mayor's office does put out a message on some of those days if there was the passing of somebody in our community that was a freeman of the city for example that would be another extent and so i am a little concerned about the hands being tied on that can you answer how does this affect the ability of the mayor uh to do that work um for the last few months of the term yeah that's a great question mayor horn and as you'll know in this section seven it like i say in here corporate communications is not stopping it's business as usual we've done updates from ubcm before so that's that's that's all precedented we've done that um we do emergency updates legislative related updates and and things like that um also this area this section is a lot of it will be up to the discretion of the cio as well so there is some you know some opportunities to have those discussions for something like ubcm or if um or if uh somebody passes in the community the challenge that i have with that is it puts the cao in a very uncomfortable position or people just do it and then afterwards staff have to sort of deal with it but if i heard the first part of your answer it's focused predominantly on earned media so if there is an opportunity with your help to report out at the end of an ubcm day myself and counselor pleckis will be attending and i think would like to share that work um you know it just helps to have somebody else taking notes and so forth along the way um it sounded to me like you said that was going to be possible under this policy yes and also with this policy um this is our this is our council policy so there's an opportunity right here in this room to to add something if you want a bullet or some discretion if there's a discussion amongst council um so this was my interpretation of what we've done as best practices i would say the only thing i can think of that needs to be amended and if it's only if i'm not understanding because this talks about earned media but i think council can make an exception should be able to make an exception i asked mr director gr unewald earlier about a forest fire and if that ever happened there would be a lot of communication from council and that would fall under emergency it's it would be business as usual i i just i would ask who moved it counselor pleckis did you move it i would i would ask that we consider amending that staff include a clause that allows council to make exemptions based on staff recommendations i think that um we need to be able to allow that flexibility it cannot be the campaigner's idea but that's my my one concern my speakers are currently counselor davies counselor elias and counts oh no you don't okay just trying to get your attention right okay counselor davies and counselor gill thank you uh i notice in here that you say the following activities may cease not will cease is that a deliberate wording choice to allow the flexibility the mayor is looking for yeah as i mentioned when i introduced this this is a the best practice i have staff in the city they come to me i'm working on this project can can i do this in august and and we need a framework we need something that is is going to work for us because there's concerns just about getting too involved with the conversations that are that happen leading up to a civic election yeah i i don't like the word me that's the problem imagine that we the report we heard about emory park manifests august 20th with a few days left we get the water turned on there mr crow comes in excitedly saying we're ready to turn it on um or the tea house or whatever we have some kind of event uh counselors are going to want to be there and i don't think there should be a problem with that so i don't like the word may as a person who was just mayor mayor horn just to clarify that this is about our corporate communications with earned media the counselors would definitely be invited to those openings yeah i think that what i'm saying is not being invited what i'm saying is they would want to be on a photograph and i think the community is is understands that whether it's may 1 of 2026 or august 30th of 2026 they still should be finishing the work that we're doing so i i hear what councillor davie's question was but the word may doesn't solve the problem it creates the problem for me and i think it needs to be clear that this is our standard and unless council says great we have good news we're opening something or we have bad news um we need to have an opportunity for council to support that councillor gill uh thank you uh through the chair i guess just hearing the discussion what's driving this change this change is as i mentioned just to have a framework for staff this is a best practice that we've that we've done and this is about putting it into policy so that it's clear for everybody i guess the frustrating thing is you know even the council videos i do i do them on my own time um and it's just like i still have a job to do um and i'm only doing it because i hear from you know the community that hey we want to know what's what's going on in each council meeting and i'm gonna be completely honest and i'm not here to offend anyone but it feels like from the communication department i'm being handcuffed or we're being handcuffed and it's just like i wish there was more of an appetite to say you know how can we make it easier and you know for sure you know we'll see what happens post october but it's it's super challenging and i'm i am very disappointed on that part um but i'll leave it at that where we are right now counselor uh plekis i had moved uh or proposed a friendly amendment that we allow staff to or i guess it's not a friendly amendment it's probably a full amendment to your motion that staff include a clause allowing council to make exceptions yes i agree with him i'll call the question just on the amendment that everybody clear on the amendment all those in favor opposed okay and now on the motion with that amendment attached are we ready for the question or any further debate all those in favor opposed councillors davies and uh gill are opposed councillor elias you voted in favor correct okay so the motion is defeated because it has a tie vote so the matter is defeated um is is there anything further on this item okay we'll move on to item 9a this is an introductory report uh from regarding uh 349 51 ferndale avenue so it's not debatable this evening but if council members have questions they'd like to make sure staff include when they do present this this would be the time to indicate them yeah i see no hands going up so we'll move on to the development variance permit for 34255 kirkpatrick avenue this is item 9b and mr pablo has a presentation this is a presentation for development variance permit to seek permission to increase the uh floor space ratio uh sorry the floor area of a accessory dwelling unit from 110 meters squared to 146 meters squared uh to increase of approximately 380 square feet um the applicant has indicated their the rationale is that they need this additional space to accommodate a family member who relies on a wheelchair for mobility um this is an unusual variance we don't often receive variance requests for additional square footage for detached secondary dwelling units this is the subject property uh it's already been developed with a single family home and three smaller outbuildings this is a schematic of the proposed dwelling uh indicating the the layout of the building uh and it incorporates the in the gray hatched area that indicates the wheelchair mobility paths within the proposed structure side elevation to the proposal just showing the proposed build out and that is all i have for you thank you any questions for staff councillor pleckis yeah um i first of all i read the report through and it indicated that this was something unusual in the staff size uh my question was when i looked at the actual appendix attachment a it appears to me that the uh coach house is actually larger than the original home it's double car garage and when i looked at the numbers here and i look look at the very small print in the site plan it was 28 62 square feet and the existing home was 2400 square feet so when you've indicated i mean i guess that's bottom top floor and the garage included but why would a coach have have to have to have two a double car garage number one so part of the rationale letter indicates that the parking is for again it's related to the wheelchair mobility it's to allow for covered parking stalls to load and unload within the garage and can you explain to me how come and the diagram says i mean when i looked at the attachment the drawings here the renderings are the house is larger than what it says in the actual um recommendation the recommendations i think an additional 350 square feet more 1500 to from 11 86 i don't know how come that the site plan drawings are larger square footage large my reading it right or i'd have to look at the numbers and confirm but uh the the number of the number for the coach house itself is is what's being indicated i do think that there's one site plan in that attachment that shows the relative size of the existing home my understanding was roughly 3000 square feet right okay okay uh councilor elias were you moving that councilor elias moves any further comments i'll call the question all those in favor opposed thank you councilor fleckis was opposed the matter carries thank you moving on to um the item 9c this is uh regarding the housing agreements 326 21 and 32651 fraser crescent and staff can answer questions about the housing agreement if you would like um and it is for first second and third reading if you don't need to councilor elias i just have a clarification question um because it says the term of these agreements is for 80 years so that's the term of the agreement for the affordable rental units so that they will for sure be rented because there's some of i'm hearing that time and time again we've approved these projects that have affordable housing of like you know one and two or three units but they're sitting empty because they're only on a certain term and then they just keep them empty and then wait till it goes to market terms so the term of this is for 80 years correct and so it won't change and not without a change to the housing agreement correct a mover moved by councillor davies seeing no questions or comments all those in favor opposed the matter is carried thank you moving on to item 9d updated development permit area guidelines and we have miss acharya here to present for us so we will follow a process as always of presentation questions and then motions evening thank you for this opportunity uh this has been a very exciting project uh uh development appointment area guidelines as i understand uh have not really been revised for almost a decade and uh it came as an actionable item out of the ocp when it was adopted last year so you know the whole intention of the project was to simplify it make it clear make it friendly for the applicants and uh reduce uh any repetition and add graphics to uh sort of make it easier for concepts to be understood this is the recommendation it's in the report uh in ocp amending by law accompanies it there are some minor changes in the schedules which are the the main schedule is the actual document but then there are also some changes in the maps themselves which are just uh minor amendments the background basically we had a six month time frame to use uh some of the grant monies to use the to do the project we had a consultant barefoot planning and design who council has met once virtually when they presented the draft phase one to achieve budget efficiency was completed in- house basically uh staff did a foundational document that identified all the gaps and what needs to be fixed because they're using this uh the dp guidelines for a long time phase two and three the consultant led it and we had good community engagement stakeholder engagement workshop open house and also the surveys and also referrals to the committees council appointed committees and uh several revisions were included through through all the feedback that was received and refined and now it's come to council consideration so we all know that part 14 of the local government act actually um allows um the the regulation of uh of the dpa guidelines uh city of mission has uh the purpose and the guidelines and everything identified in the ocp uh it's important to understand when when is the dp required before subdivision of land construction of or addition to or alteration of a building or structure alteration of land uh example grading clearing excavation uh if specified in the ocp uh so uh we have uh the the dpa guidelines uh have uh basically the staff staff work closely with the consultant one of the key challenges staff currently face when reviewing dp guidelines uh is the presence of vague or loosely worded guidelines uh this can lead to varying interpretation uncertainty for applicants and inconsistencies in how applications are evaluated and all that has been um sort of uh eliminated uh a central objective of this project was to address these issues uh the key shift is um in the update update guidelines is to move uh to a more performance-based approach and what that means is there's more uh greater flexibility for applicants to propose creative solutions context sensitive solutions because every site is very unique and while meeting the city's overall objectives of quality design environmental stewardship and safety the project strength ens policy direction clearer expectations improved environmental protection measures more robust consideration of hazard mitigation it also aligns across the ocp zoning and the building code a couple of things that have been included is the central neighborhood plant hillside dpa guidelines which are not formally adopted and so those are applicable across across the city they basically provide uh risk mitigation on hillside development and uh overall there's also the merging of the dpa geotechnical and fraser river dpa guidelines to simplify so that applicants don't have to go through applying two separate dpa and i think from experience i found out from staff that there are very few applications within the fraser river dpa guidelines and the geotechnical covers the risks that are associated uh with the floodplain as well so both these are merged to simplify the process for the applicants uh overall it's renders direction for the form and character sustainability uh and hazard mitigation so if you look at the um um the the if you look at the um topics actually i i can't even read it sorry about it's not very clear um but basically if you it's uh it's attached to the um um yeah okay so uh there's regulation applicability there's also exemptions so it's very clear for people to know when when it's uh when they have when their exemptions are applied uh there's um intent objectives sustainability uh there are two uh sub sub topics here design foundations so design foundations basically talk about the um the relationship between uh built and unbuilt spaces which is land and landscape context and continuity within neighborhoods um attainable and cost efficient and realistic designs and climate resilience so these are very high level uh design foundations that are applicable to all dpas the general design guidelines uh dive into a little bit they're also high level but they go into very sub topics that are actually applicable like site planning uh street interface you know how can you make it pedestrian friendly uh design and materials so if it's a heritage site uh heritage area then how do you actually protect with uh building materials signage uh place making elements access and parking and things like that so general design guidelines apply to all and they um they actually cover all these uh context fit uh and uh other accessibility type of uh requirements um it 's organized by form and character dpa typologies so the simplification process involved uh looking at uh what are the ground oriented forms of development so single family duplex triplex fourplex infill townhouses row houses um coach houses garden cottages and and the regular townhouses and then uh apartments high-rise and mixed use which is basically ground floor commercial and residential above and then the retail commercial and industrial so what does what this does is um if you look at the form uh it's easier to understand uh the the design guidelines uh as performed because for example for a mixed uh mixed use um project you you will need uh proper facades at the ground floor level and also to be pedestrian friendly because it has commercial or retail or some other kinds of uses and then residential above so you may also need uh separate accesses for both the types of uses so it actually makes it simpler for an applicant to understand what are the design guidelines that are needed by the form itself so that's how they are organized the schmoo product is included in the ground oriented uh residential because it does include duplex triplex fourplex type of form this is again uh a format example in the document that that shows that there's a feature image that actually explains the various features and the key guidelines that are basically explained the key guidelines dive into six different sub topics which are easy easy to understand and and follow the design foundation uh basically look at these five elements focusing on the relationship between public and private spaces how new new developments actually fit within existing neighborhoods considerations for planned growth areas and establishing overall framework for evaluating design so that it's a streamlined process for the applicants for the community and also for the staff these are some graphic examples of how some of the concepts which which are descriptive and text heavy may be difficult to understand but as they say a picture is worth worth a thousand words so basically uh some of these graphics talk about septic and how um you know the the buildings can be oriented to get maximum social area or eyes on the street uh it also indicates top of the bank one of the graphics shows that one of the graphics also shows um how you can balance the cut and fill on the slopeings sloping sites um and how active frontages uh help uh increase the sense of belonging so these are just a few few of the graphic examples the actual document has photographs as well as these graphic examples all throughout throughout the guidelines the administrative process uh quickly uh dp basically um identified within dp applications uh where dp is required uh there are checklists that are also developed uh so developers can actually follow through the various forms uh depending on which project they are proposing uh this there are some dps that are staff delegated and others come to council the landscape deposit is also taken where landscaping is needed the dp when it's registered on title is valued for 24 months after the dp is approved when the applicant actually goes through the building permit application they the staff planning staff who's the file file manager make sure that the dp drawings actually match the building permit drawings because sometimes the project may take longer after the dp's approved to reach the building permit stage and uh sometimes the budget change or the property changes hands so it's a risk that the the quality of the development may be compromised um development so um it's important to to ensure that the dp drawings actually match the building permit drawings and then the final inspections are carried out to address the form and character including proposed landscaping on site lastly this is just the next steps if council um decides to give the first reading to the ocp amending bylaw then it'll come back for second reading on june 6th july 6 th sorry that's a typo uh and then uh it'll go to public hearing by august 17th uh after the procedures uh procedural uh referral process that's needed thank you if there's any questions i can do i'll turn my colleagues for questions uh i will say i went through all of the exhaustive comments that i left you with when you were before us at the draft stage and i couldn't see anything that hadn't been incorporated in some way um so i appreciate that so uh you may have succeeded um in the first time ever in providing a revised document where i will have no questions so that that just it took five and a half years but that's okay we got to that point so great job uh anybody else with questions councilor clackis so there's a different standard here i i yeah i do have a couple questions i know this is only first reading and probably have to go through it more thoroughly but in reading through the report i had a couple questions and under section one three exempt ions you've indicated that single family home developments over 5000 meters and duplex don't require development permit so they don't require to go through this exercise is that correct or 500 square meters that's 500 square meters that's correct is it and and that is correct and that's consistent with our current approach so currently we do not do single-family development permits on larger lots the old standard used to be based on the ocp designation and as some of that framework has changed this uh this exemption standard sort of replicates that existing condition for where and when we apply dps for single-family homes right my second question was in regards to 3-1 site planning in preparation of the site uh talking about respecting the character of the landscape so the question is is it going to change a situation where someone might come in and clear the land or say i i'm trying to get the most developed portion of land therefore i have to the land is cleared does one have to look at the land for before he brings forward an application because he has to respect what's already there am i correct in saying that probably a question for mr pablo or for engineering because lot grading policy already exists so i'm assuming that staff do in fact under the dpa the new environmental rules um go and actually look at the the land and i think there's some great convox grading questions as well who would like to answer that i would say this it's it's a layered approach so this is one layer in addition to the development permit guidelines for the environment and geohazardous areas as well as conditions that are currently within the development of subject control bylaw about working with the land and contextually whether a site is suitable for a proposed use so this is just one of many different sort of layers trying to build that point about suitability but if i understand counselor black is his question the question is are people going to be required to have their site looked at by our staff or their professionals before they go and start clearing which i think we've put a lot of work into i think that's our extent that's our standing policy it is yes right so counselor blackett yeah no i um i you have a comment here about flexibility over a rigid process in other words i'm gathering that currently you feel that it were too rigid in expectation and giving the developer and community an opportunity to demonstrate what they can provide in meeting the guidelines is care what we're asking for is that correct is that a fair comment that's a yes i think it's fair i just wanted to add that the dpa guidelines are guidelines and they're not a bylaw right that's one thing to keep in mind because bylaws can be rigid and dpa guidelines are advisory and uh you know they're also an educational component to it because there is newer modernized or sustainability related requirements that you need and they are basically encouraging the developer to think beyond something very basic i think one of the biggest changes in counselor elias started the conversation about this some time ago where we'd see this checklist that had 13 items and we would look at it and say well 11 or check two aren't so we shouldn't approve it and what staff have said is we'll use this checklist but rather that being performative it needs to be performing as and and it's not about demonstrating you got the boxes checked but that you're actually meeting the needs of the community and the character of the community uh no thank you i i have other comments but i'll leave them when we get further along here but i was concerned about some broad comments in here because i 'm looking for you know i'm i'm seeing in it you've got to summarize and the summary and conclusion and that makes a lot of sense and i think that's what we're trying to achieve summary and conclusion statement in the report it makes a lot of sense so i appreciate that my speakers after counselor pleckis or counselor davies and then counselor gill thank you very much for your report it it's a very well done document and i really appreciate it i am curious about two things and you know obviously there 's a lot more i'll have to read and consume in this document but the one is the dark sky compliant lighting that was originally requested in the rural strategy did this did that find its way into this document is is that how this ended up in here or it was just just by chance i don't think that's even new in this document we already had some uh lighting provision lighting provisions did we not mr p ablo mr summer there are there are definitely dark skies provisions in the current standards for the in the rms as well as in the development of subject control bylaw related to street lighting so is there okay so and then the irrigation plan it says it may require one where appropriate what would what would be appropriate in that context we're talking multi-family or mixed-use buildings or downtown commercial buildings where uh it gives us the ability to specifically ask the the designer and the landscape architect are you you know are planting to forecast this is all naturally watered or are you designing something that is going to need watering and if the answer is we need watering then we're going to add a stipulation that they provide that on-site irrigation and we we just don't have that tool right now excellent thank you thank you counselor gill uh thank you uh through the chair thank you so much i guess my first question is has there been any discussions about removing dps um for the schmoo product uh for duplexes who would like to answer that it's uh we have heard from one or two developers who suggested that but it's certainly not something we heard broadly through the consultation process or in past discussions with council i think one of the emphasize that last part i think that council has indicated that um and i say this i think staff are fully aware of it but i think staff need the support of council in hearing that our concerns about the built form of schmoo have not gone away and uh folks who are asking staff to make changes without council approval need to hear a staff can't and b if they want to come to council and ask those i will publicly state that council has directed staff to be careful with that built form counselor gill thank you i i guess why i asked that question is because i know there's some municipalities that have moved away on the schmoo product for d uh for dp dps but from my understanding if the schmoo product didn't have a d p that staff wouldn't be able to capture it through the the building permit process accurate it's correct i think because building permit will just tackle the code requirements and no not aesthetics not the design or the materials or the form i did hear from one of the developers who came to the workshop he said the abbotsford city of abbotsford doesn't need a dp for up to four units or five units but uh unless we get that direction from council i should point out counselor gill that some of the communities that are not requiring dps are requiring that there be predetermined plans there's a series of plans that they're accepting it's not a free for all some may have free for alls but others like victoria are giving people essentially a catalog that they can use and that's why they are skipping the dp process perfect um i get i guess just following why why i'm asking i'm just i'm just trying to wrap my head around it is a large document i want to make sure um i get everything answered i guess how do we capture former character through single family without the dp process so uh it's that exemption that's in the grand oriented section where we so historically we have uh asked for and required uh former character dps dps on small lots only uh typically in that 500 meters squared so 5 000 square foot or less lot type and that's what this document is mirroring so larger lots you know your your 930s your your rural lots your suburban lots there's no requirement never has been for a development permit for a forming character perspective and that's like that we're we're trying to carry over those restrictions so that this document doesn't impose a new level of restriction or but it also doesn't take it away so but that you know that decision is at the discretion of council i think that's the point i want to get to before i go back to counselor gill just procedurally this evening council is going to be asked to give first reading and have it sent out for referrals but is it procedurally inappropriate for council to say that at second reading they'd like to see an option that removes that 500 square meter threshold as i think the question has behind it and councillors pleckis and gill can speak for themselves but i certainly have heard people saying they don't like the fact that a person can move on to an 8 000 square foot lot and build a box a cube when everything else in the neighborhood has a particular character uh mr pablo and then mr peckethley unless you want to do it you're well um what i'm going to caution you is that there are our abilities to have form and character development permit guidelines are restricted by legislation and the language they use is intensive infill development okay and we have always interpreted that as being historically with our urban compact lots or infill development which we used to use for infill du plexes in the for instance the md 465 zone so there there is definitely going to be an issue if we were to say we want forming character in state falls on large lots i would i would think that we would face an argument that we are not entitled to do that but it doesn't have to be a 5 000 square foot lot either right where we draw that line we could redefine well so i think that's just i just wanted to give information to the counselors who are speaking in case later somebody wants to move that this come back with those options at second reading just i'm just trying to interpret the questions and give options but thank you for that information mr pit gethley did you have more to add or is that oh that was exactly what i was going to say they they the the province introduced the legislation probably around the mid-2000s um that allowed municipalities to do uh development permits on single- family homes but only if they were intensive residential previous to that there was no ability to put a dp on a single-family house that's her go back to you thank you and i think it kind of gave me like the back in memory of the house massing conversation and i definitely don't want to visit anything like that um i guess is with the dpas with the mapping was there anything i guess was it the 500 meters or was there anything added on the mapping side of things so the maps uh one change that happened in the map was combining two maps which showed the geotechnical and the fraser river so both those areas are combined in one map and then there was some very minor renumbering of other maps as well as a change of the environmental which was which was called e1 e2 now it's called e and f so there was ren umbering and then with with the sequence that's required um the schedule 14 is eliminated so it ends at schedule 13 so those are the changes minor changes there wasn't any properties added correct no okay good and my last question is is regarding the checklist conversation. So when we do see DPA guidelines on a council agenda usually it's a check or x thing you know met, met, met. Are we moving away from that? There are some very high level checklists that are included in the document and I'm just going to open one here. My comment Mr Councillor Gill was not that we're moving away from it as much as we're moving away from the prescription of it. So in terms of the checklist will demonstrate that for example it has distinctive architectural features as opposed to it has concrete siding . So you'll recall Mr. Pueblo a few months ago coming to us about a development not far from Albert McMahon and he was talking about articulated side street views and as that I understand is the is the sort of thing we're talking about. There may be more than way one way that an architect can do that and it's about it being accomplished versus it being what our picture shows. Does that capture it? Yes absolutely yes that's right thank you. I guess if we're moving away from how we we do it um my my concern is with that is is um I do like seeing the checklist and I know at one time this was way back we talked about maybe we have a metric of you know of a scale of where where they line up on on what they've met but if we are you know whatever that looks like I'd love to see some options because for me sometimes design guidelines might look different um to someone else but I want to see some options because if I've been so used to the way we've been doing it and if we're moving away from it maybe it might be better because it puts more of the onus on on staff or or the developer to come up with something even better from another community they've used but I want to see options for sure. What I'll do councillors I heard from you a couple things um what I'm going to suggest is after Councillor Hamilton's had her question answered we'll put this motion on the floor and then subsequently ask staff to report with these other questions that you've asked at second reading um for council to think about Councillor Hamilton. Thank you Mayor. Mayor of microphone Councillor Hamilton. I'll take the dollar for the turkey fund. Okay no problem I like turkey. Um we talk about uh private and common outdoor spaces in and we talk about rooftop spaces. Our my question is do we have any rooftop spaces currently in mission or in the pipeline to build such a uh a building with that rooftop space? I believe there's a brand new one here. Is that the one by Albert McMahon school? Okay. There's a couple I think then. Yeah the the townhouses near Albert McMahon are a good example of uh the the required common outdoor common amenities space being completed as part of rooftop decks uh what people would probably know of as the skyview townhouses on freezer crescent those also integrate rooftop decks it has become in in recent years quite a popular choice uh especially in townhouses we have seen a couple projects that have proposed uh rooftop amenities on top of apartment buildings I'm not sure we've seen one of those built yet but that's definitely always part of the conversation. Thank you. Okay seeing that we've exhausted the questions I as I said I'll ask two things we'll go through this process just to the staff recommendation and then I'll come to Councillor Gill and I I have a thought about Councillor Gill's motion if I can help him with that but we'll deal with that separately if that's acceptable to everybody so can we have a mover for the recommendation here for the reading first reading and referral. Councillor D.C. De Kleeckes moves further comments all those in favour opposed it's carried unanimously if I heard Councillor Gill the two things that we were interested in are whether or not the 5,000 square foot or 500 square meter definition can be potentially expanded within urban infill is that correctly characterize that Councillor Gill? I guess for me I'm more concerned about the mapping um someone else can move that one I'm not too worried about that one. I'm not going to I'm personally moving it I just wanted to capture what you said but it's not related to a map now. Sorry the check sorry I'm more concerned about the checklist uh I'll get to that one separately but so I think that that that one what I was going to suggest is that has been raised before is that staff it's not so much a checklist as much as it's a narrative that describes how it's accomplished the outcomes and gives a ranking from staff's perspective. That to me is better than a checklist because the checklist will make it look like you checked 11 of 13 boxes it doesn't speak to the idea that 11 of them were home runs and the other two were not as important. So I would suggest that we just ask staff for options for how they can report on on the caliber of compliance with these. Yeah and and that's fine with me I guess the only thing I'm worried about is because I'm such you know been accused of being a stickler for form and character that I just don't want it to be um a loophole or where it makes it a little bit easier to you know um get away from some of the um you know I guess guidelines or the form and character that the community cares so deeply about. So I uh the motion is that staff when they bring this back for second reading will include in their report a system for evaluating compliance with development permit form and character guidelines. Okay um I on the question I think I'm going to deal with this one separately because the mapping issue staff have been clear there isn't mapping anymore the zoning is the zoning the square footage is what determines this so it seems like it 's not as pertinent to what you asked there. So just on the question of the reporting system any further comments all those in favor opposed carried unanimously any other motions coming out of this all right thank you a resolution to rise and report uh would be in order oops moved by Councillor at uh Hamilton second by Councillor Gill all those in favor opposed it's carried. I believe we were unanimous except on the one that was defeated which is not part of the committee's report and I may have missed one. Except for 9b I have opposition of Councillor Plekis. Uh 9b is Patrick Avenue. Patrick Avenue. Okay um so uh I'll call for those separately um on all of the matters other than 9b where we're unanimous a mover and a seconder please . Councillor Plekis and seconded by Councillor Davies. All those in favor opposed it's carried unanimously. Uh now on 9b uh moved by Councillor Elias seconded by myself um and I will call the question on that all those in favor opposed Councillor Plekis opposed the matter is carried. All right um and now we can move on to uh council committee 's reports. This is just minutes and there unless there are questions arising from these minutes we'll move on. Seeing none 13a two sets of council meeting minutes for approval. A mover and seconder would be appreciated. Councillor Hamilton seconded by Councillor Elias. Any errors or omission or omissions I should say. Seeing none all those in favor opposed. That's carried unanimously. Bylaws for consideration. The official community plan amending bylaw for the DPA guidelines that we just did for first reading. Moved by Councillor Plekis and seconded by Councillor Elias. Any comments? All those in favor? Opposed. That's carried. Housing agreements is 14b for the properties at Fraser Crescent. I see it only has one of the two properties but I see that so we're dealing with those as two separate ones. Is there a reason why? I think that's just a carryover from the original property had a singular address and now it has two but there are two independent housing agreements. Well done just for the sake of carefulness. Okay item B a mover for 32621. Thank you Councillor Davies. Seconded by Councillor Hamilton. All those in favor ? Opposed. It's carried unanimously now. 14c is the other property at 32651 Fraser Crescent for housing agreement for first second and third. Moved by Councillor Hamilton and seconded by Councillor Davies. All those in favor? Opposed. The council has approved that. Item 14d adoption of the 9006 Cedar Street from Serbs Urban 20 zone to multi-unit townhouse and Institutional Parks Rec and Civic. Do I have a mover? Councillor Plekis seconded by Councillor Davies. All those in favor? Opposed. Carried. Moving on to street naming at Pearson Way. Same property as memory serves. To rename this for adoption. Do I have a mover? Councillor Davies seconded by Councillor Gill. All those in favor? Opposed. It's carried. Moving on to item F. Adoption of the property at 12311 Bell Street from RU16 to RU16S zone. Moved by Councillor Elias and seconded by Councillor Gill. All those in favor? Opposed. All those in favor? Opposed. Matters carried. And then moving on to item G. Zoning amending bylaw for Emory Street from Rural Resident ial to Civic to Parks -- Institutional Parks Recreation and Civic Zone. Moved by Councillor Elias. Seconded by Councillor Gill. Don't even need to look. All those in favor? Opposed. Carried unanimously. Moving on to 15A. Development Variance Permit 34255 Kirkpatrick Avenue. Don't normally speak to these but I'll move to it because I want to quickly speak to it on this one even though we dealt with in committee. Is there a seconder? Seconded by Councillor Gill . I just wanted to point out this is to accommodate somebody with disabilities and for the community may wonder why. So Councillor Gill -- Councillor Plekis I want to just mention that's why I have supported it here and I know that you voted against it but it allows somebody to age in place or to stay with family so this is very important. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed. Councillor Plekis is opposed. The matter carries. 15B 9104 Emory Street. Development's Permit. I think I had Councillor Elias move last time and Councillor Gill second so we'll do it the opposite way this time. Councillor Gill will move. Councilor Elias will second. Are we ready? All those in favor? Opposed. It's carried. 9-0-0-6. This is for a development permit for Cedar Street. This is item 15C. Moved by Councillor Davies and seconded by Councillor Elias. All those in favor ? Opposed. It's carried. Resolutions released from closed. 16A. The reappointment of former Mayor Tebby to the board. The comments on that. Moving on to correspondence. The correspondence to -- the correspondence I say item 17C I will speak to. It should say repaste. There was a bit of a glitch but I think that word doesn't exist so the spell check tried to catch it and I got it in one but unfortunately I missed it on the second one. I apologize. But are there others people would like to speak to? Councillor Plekis which one would you like to speak to? Councillor Plekis: I just A I wanted to. All right I'll let you go first because that's on the agenda. Okay thank you. I just want to thank Mr. Deliwal for his efforts in getting the response from the Minister Farnsworth in regards to them and the Merge Street overpass at least they indicate they're going to get some work done there so appreciate them today. Well I think it's important and Councillor Davies deserves some credit for raising the question offline. The Southwest Mission -- South Mission Transportation Plan is out. We have some questions about it so we'll have more on this. I think it -- the two things go together and I did say to Mr. Deliwal that advocating for us to replace that or fix that constantly is probably a not a long-term solution. It actually draws resources away from the long- term solution. But for us to get further progress we need to see where that South Mission Transportation Study is going. The repacing of the funding I was recalled by the newspaper . I wish I had actually realized that probably should have liked to have the call first and then put this on the agenda because I don't like to put it out before. I've had an honest conversation with the Minister and the Premier but I have put it out. At this point I've spoken with BC Housing. I'm not certain that what BC Housing has shared with me is 100% of what we need to know. So at this point while I am and I think Council is very concerned about this, I would ask us all to let us see how the advocacy goes and decide whether or not we should express more anger and frustration later date. Right now I am going to assume goodwill and ask that the people we advocate with come into the room understanding the unique circumstances of our municipality. So our staff are trying to set that up right now and we will let you know as we hear back on that. Anything further on that one or any other ones? Moving on to 18A and 18A is the Fraser Valley Humane Society service delivery report. Any comments on that? Thank you. Councillor Davies. I just want to say I appreciate the report and I especially like that they provided cats on our agenda tonight. So much. Yes, they were not front and centre which is why I didn't have an allergic reaction. Alright and then moving on to council member updates and I don't know where we started last time so I'll start, I think I will start with Councillor Elias this time. Thank you Mayor Horne. I don't have any committee updates but I just want to kind of do an acknowledgement. The last couple of days the sun's been shining and people have been out playing in our backyard and we've had a couple of tragedies outside of our limits and even today our first responders are sure busy and there was a really bad fire today that happened in Mission. And so I just, you know what, just be careful. Just be careful when you're driving and take extra preca ution because it just seems there's been a lot of accidents in our backyard and some a couple of fatalities and it's really stretching our first responders that's for sure. But also my heart goes out to the families that are all involved. But yeah, just be careful. Thank you very much. Councillor Hamilton. I certainly did on that. I had a couple of committee meetings, the Division of Family Practice the other day. They're very appreciative of the partnership that we have formed with them and the $15,000 that we're contributing to their going over to the Ireland and the UK to recruit doctors. So they thank us for that. And the seniors meeting, they had a wellness fair on seniors week. They had over 90 attendees and 21 vendors. So they rate that as a huge success. And you know, one of the biggest problems the seniors have right now is that they're almost oversubscribed. We have a thousand plus members, albeit they're not all active members. But even from the wellness fair, they had people asking about becoming a member there. So it's definitely a huge success. Fantastic. Thank you. Councillor Gill. Thank you to the chair. I had a chance to attend the baseball jamboree. It was done by Mission Sports Council, Dan, and Mission Minor Baseball. It was a fantastic event. I think there was a couple of hundred kids there and their families from all over the place, as far as Prince George. And it was baseball for folks with disability. And it was through the Blue Jays Foundation. So, you know, thank you to those organizations for making it a mission as the home community to host that tournament. I also had a chance to attend the 20th anniversary at the C edars. And Councillor Pluckus was there. I'm not sure if he was attending or if he stays there. That's a two-up. I'm just kidding. I might deduce too much. That was pretty good, Shay. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. But it's an amazing place. And the staff are amazing. And, you know, just a huge shout out to MASH as well. They do some amazing work in our community. And one thing that, you know, touring that facility and just speaking with seniors is that it's time to start planning for almost another senior center because there's waiting lists at every facility for seniors right now. And last but not least, I had a chance to attend the children's festival that the Mission Arts Council puts on. And it was fantastic. I also got to see my first live wrestling match that was one of the vendors there, which was amazing. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Pluckus. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I had an opportunity to attend the Mission Environmental Students Society AGM. They're doing very good work in our community. They're one of the organizations we sponsor through grant funding. I also had a chance to attend the Cook Awards and the Scholarship Awards. This year, the Mission Foundation gave up $320,000 worth of scholarships to worthy students. I also attended the seniors wellness event at the Boswick Center and the Children's Festival as well, Council of Kill. Very well attended events. And very exciting. I was hoping to see our community being active like that. I had an opportunity to see the shower that we're looking to considering to bring out for the homeless on Tuesday. A group brought it out at the church there for us to view it. I had an opportunity to attend the social at the Cedars and Cedars is run by MASH. They do a lot of good work. It's the 20th anniversary and had a chance to get a root beer float. Anyhow, I also attended the cadet event with Councilor Gill on Saturday. Very well attended. Very good event there last Saturday out in the heat. So thank you. Councilor Pluckus doesn't typically consume a lot of anything that has the word beer in it. So I think even a root beer might be pretty strong for Councilor Pluckus. You had to get a driver. Exactly. That's right. Especially because it was a float. All the way to the Cedars. That's right. Go ahead, Councilor. All right. So I attended MASH AGM along with Councilor Gill and Councilor Pluckus. And I just wanted to mention that BRIM, Building Resilience and Mission did presentation at that event and it was excellent. Farmers Market at 10 on Saturdays. Just want to remind the community that that's that it's there in Centennial Park. And they find excellent ways to separate you from your wallet. And also for Hayward, with the warm weather here, the parking lot was already closed at 8:30 in the morning. So you have to arrive really, really early. Obviously, I think we'll have to look at having bylaws and RCMP there soon as these warm weathers hit. Because there is a lot of people that are pretty angry about not being able to get into that park. Thank you. I was away for part of last week and I'll get to that as second part. We did hear a number of recommendations from the Mission Healthy Community Council today. As Council may be aware, that committee has looked at ref ining and getting into a higher, sorry, a more clear sense of what our first priorities will be. Because there's too many things that are thought of as first priority. We've begun that process. I think the initial report we got back didn't streamline quite as far as we need to. So myself, Mr. Pitt-Kathleen and Mr. Payne are going to be meeting. The committee has asked for a further refinement of that. You'll hear more about that later on. I attended the BC Transit Workshop in Penticton and it was, as always, exceptional. There were a number of communities there. Mostly staff have gone from the other communities, but myself and a couple of other mayors were there. There are shared concerns about the slowing or reduction, in this case the complete lack of expansion funding. And that applies to both HandyDART as well as to conventional transit. A brand new HandyDART booking system was revealed and it's very, very encouraging. And will allow people to have a lot more flexibility and see what's going on there. Custom transit has been tried in communities like Kelowna. Custom transit is a little bit different. It's on-demand transit, I should say, that I'm talking about. It essentially works almost like Uber, but for a group. And it was since piloted in a couple of other communities, Squamish being one of them. It was announced at the workshop that communities that want an interest in this can now start thinking about it. It is a perfectly suited type of mechanism for a community like ours that has a urban core where there's regular routes. And has areas like Steelhead and Stave Falls where this could particularly plug in, particularly Steelhead. And so I would encourage through our staff to investigate those options. I did tell them I would be raising this question. I'm sure there will be a long line-up. But one of the things that they said is it's very likely to be a cost-effective way to expand, especially in rural areas, and especially with the slowdown of funding. I also asked about where we were with the addition of mission stops on the 701. People who have used that will tell you you can't stop anywhere other than Mission City Station until you're in Maple Ridge. I would expect Ms. Croy and Mr. Pitkuthi and I will speak this week about that. But there were BC Transit and Transit reps there, and it sounds like there isn't any real barrier at this point. It's the messaging I'm getting. So I would certainly hope that we would be able to open that up between now and the end of the term. And in particular, I think we have talked about some of the potential locations, and I think there's a real eagerness to see a bus stop in Silverdale. A bus stop potentially where we see the Pan Pacific area there right on the highway. And maybe another one near Elevate is or something, but we 'll talk further with staff. In the letter that's going out on the funding to the Premier and to the Minister of Housing, I referenced two projects. One of them we have much more information about. The other one, though, I can just simply say is a little bit different in the sense that it serves seniors and it involves redevelopment, not just new development. And so we're tracking that. And that's the bad news is that that project has apparently been slowed. But we are working with the partner agency and the partner funder. We also have had some really great interest, including a call today with Fraser Health, who are looking at some pilot projects for new seniors housing in communities across the Fraser Valley. There's no guarantee they'll end up in Mission. But as they heard some of the things that we've been willing to do, such as fast track these type of developments or allow for higher density if there's a community benefit, that was a help. We've asked them to work with our manager of community wellness and our economic development manager to identify potential sites in and near because it doesn't need to be right in the health and wellness district. And we've had our first indication of a serious application trying to take advantage of the health and wellness district. So we'll keep you abreast of that as well. One thing that I noted out of the last council meeting minutes, myself, Mr. Pitkathley and Ms. Brough have been processing the notes that are going to go to the province for our advocacy points. And so I'll be speaking with Mr. Stewart, Mr. Pitkathley about this. But I'll ask council's flexibility on the BC Hydro purpose of the meeting. We already have a pretty robust communication with BC Hydro on communication around their amenities and that's improved dramatically. It's been indicated to me, for example, that they're going to repurpose the gravel parking area at the south end of the reservoir trail to be a public parking area. So they're already doing that work and they've got a three- year plan. But we do have some questions and I'll follow up with Mr. Stewart about the reassessment of the dams and the cost that may have for us in terms of taxation. So if council has an objection to that, they can speak to me offline. But if we get in the room, we're only allowed to talk with them about one item and that's the more pressing item in this in this mayor's opinion at this point. So myself and Mr. Pitkathley will be speaking with you about that, Mr. Stewart. All right, those are my reports and we'll move on from that to question period. There are no notices of motion this evening and there's nobody here to ask questions. And I don't believe we have any questions submitted in writing this time. So a motion to adjourn would be in order. Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Elias. All those in favour, we are adjourned. Thanks for-

Mayor Tory: Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to this special council meeting for the City of Mission for June 15th. I'd like to call us to order and ask for a motion to adopt the agenda with one small change in between number five and number four. We'll ask for a recess just to let staff prepare the room for our usual Monday meeting. So that was moved by Councillor Plekis. Mayor Tory: Yes. Mayor Tory: Seconded by Councillor Elias. All those in favour? Opposed? All right. We have one item of new business and staff are here from MBIC if we have questions. Essentially the purpose of this meeting is to handle the business that would normally handle at an AGM, but this allows everybody on the council to be there and for it to be recorded. Mayor Tory: So are there any questions from councils or does somebody wish to put the motion on the floor? Moved by Councillor Elias and seconded by Councillor Plekis. Comments or questions? Seeing, oh Councillor Plekis. Just curious in regards to reading through the report, are we at that point or do we? I just wanted to ask a question. It indicated that there would be a meeting held an information session held, annual information meeting be held sometime post-election. Is there any, will there be any information shared to the public prior to that in regards to the ongoing works of the development corporation? This will be online. Mayor Tory: Yeah. Okay. Right. The annual report will be online for the corporation. Mayor Tory: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Hamilton. Thank you. Mayor Horne. Going to Bridgehead staff. So is the project activity, so the Homes for Health, I'm assuming that's probably the number one priority right now with the Bridgehead to get that started moving forward? Mayor Tory: Yeah. Homes for Health is our first development project, so that is definitely a priority and we'll be presenting on that later tonight as well. Mayor Tory: Great. Yeah. I guess I can ask more questions tonight. Yeah. That will be really good. Councillor Gill? Councillor Gill: Thank you, Mayor Horne. I guess I was going to ask questions regarding the Homes for Health Care project, but I'll save them for tonight. I think probably that will be the best. I expect we'll have more public interest at that time and it would be good to do that then. Councillor Davies. Councillor Davies: Thank you. I have two questions. One is combining the auditor appointment with the city. Do we anticipate any problem with that? What happens if they don't both can join at the same time? Does there need to be a backup plan? Mayor Tory: Mr. Stewart? I think that's what we did last year, right? Yeah. We did. Generally, we're going to RFP for audit services. Typically, I think the auditor that did that, they would want to -- they would have to audit the system anyway, so it's actually easier if it's the same auditor. Otherwise, they have to get comfort letters between each other. So I'm sure whoever wins the audit bid with us will be quite happy to take on Bridgehead as well. Mayor Tory: Great. Thank you. My last question is for the adoption of the minutes from 2024. Those are draft minutes. Should we be adopting draft minutes or are there board certified minutes? Mayor Tory: I think they become non-draft when we adopt them. Mayor Tory: Just for clarity, they were draft at the last shareholder meeting and they have to wait for the next AGM to adopt them. Thank you. Are we ready then? All those in favour? Opposed? The matter is carried. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mayor Tory: We'll see you tonight. A motion to recess, please. Moved by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Plekis. Give us a few moments to let Ms. Brough get the room ready. Thank you. Mayor Tory: Thank you.