[00:00:01] >> I WILL CALL OUR GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 TO ORDER. THE OPENING STATEMENT, THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE [1. Opening Statement] ACKNOWLEDGES THAT WE ARE LOCATED IN CHIEF DRAGS TERRITORY. FROM TIME MEMORIAL, IT HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIFE DENE FIRST NATION. WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES, AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE ALL SLAVE MITE AND ALL FIRST NATIONS MITE AND INUIT, WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY. NEXT, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, MR. VAN DINE. [2. Approval of the agenda.] >> NOTHING TO ADD, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU. I WOULD RECOMMEND FOR MY COLLEAGUES, IF YOU'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF IT, THAT WE SWITCH ITEMS 8 AND 9, JUST BECAUSE ITEM 8 MAY HAVE SOME CAMBER CONVERSATION DEPENDING ON QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. THAT WAY WE LEAVE THAT UNTIL THE END. NO OBJECTIONS. NINE. OKAY. WE WILL DO THAT. NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMO REGARDING WHETHER TO APPROVE [4. A memorandum regarding whether to approve a capital budget reallocation to fund fire hydrant infrastructure at the request of a developer.] A CAPITAL BUDGET REALLOCATION TO FUND A FIRE HYDRANT INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE REQUEST OF A DEVELOPER. MR. VAN DINE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AS COUNSEL KNOW, BASED ON THE MEMORANDUM THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED IN THE PACKAGE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH NEST IN FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF THEIR REQUEST TO COUNSEL TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PROJECT TO SEE IT OVER THE FINISH LINE. THE MEMO LAYS OUT THE AUTHORITY THAT COUNSEL DOES INDEED HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SUCH THINGS, AND IT LAYS OUT A BIT OF RATIONALE WITH RESPECT TO WHAT PRIORITIES THAT THIS INITIATIVE WOULD SUPPORT IN TERMS OF COUNSEL'S DIRECTION. THE MEMO ALSO LAYS OUT SOME OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON OTHER DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS DECISION AND THE POTENTIAL PRECEDENT SETTING THAT IT MIGHT TAKE GIVEN THE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE MEMO DOES ITS BEST TO DESCRIBE THE CHRONOLOGY AND TIMELINE WITH RESPECT TO THE EVOLUTION AND HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. WITH THAT, I WILL JUST INVITE COUNSEL TO POSE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY MAY HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THIS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM NEST AND BOREALIS IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY. IF THEY'RE WILLING, THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO TALK TO US TODAY ABOUT THEIR PROPOSAL AND ELABORATE FURTHER THAN WHAT I'VE JUST PROVIDED. >> THANK YOU, MR. VAN DINE. I KNOW WE HAVE A PRESENTATION, SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP AND START THAT. THANKS. >> I'M A LAWYER AT LAWSON LANDEL, HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF BOREALIS DEVELOPMENT AND THEY'RE THE FOLKS WHO HAVE REVITALIZED THE OLD BALANCA BUILDING INTO THE NEST. WE REALLY APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. THE BLANCA BUILDING WAS AN EMPTY, DANGEROUS EYE SORE. THE SIDING FELL OFF IN 2018. IN 2019, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT TEARING IT DOWN AT A COST OF $4 MILLION BECAUSE THE BUILDING WAS, AS CABIN RADIO REPORTED, BLEEDING THE OWNERS OF MONEY. WHAT COULD THE VERY BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME BE FOR THIS DILAPIDATED BUILDING? WOULD BE 72 BRAND NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN DOWNTOWN YELLOWKNIFE. EVERYBODY WANTS THE NEST TO OPEN TO TENANTS. HOUSING IS A PRIORITY FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION, AND WE'VE HEARD THAT A LOT AS WE'VE WORKED TOGETHER TO TRY AND COME WITH THE SOLUTION TO THIS FIRE HYDRANT ISSUE. IT'S A PRIORITY FOR BOREALIS TOO. WITHOUT TENANTS, THE FINISHED NEST BUILDING IS COSTING BOREALIS OVER $150,000 A MONTH IN TAXES, UTILITIES, AND INTEREST, AND THOSE BILLS ARE PILING UP AND IT'S PUTTING BOREALIS IN A TOUGH SPOT. GETTING THIS PROJECT FINANCED WAS AN UPHILL BATTLE. IT TOOK OVER A YEAR. MULTIPLE LENDERS JUST WEREN'T INTERESTED IN FINANCING A REVITALIZATION PROJECT OF THIS SIZE IN YELLOWKNIFE. BOREALIS ISN'T A BIG DEVELOPER. THEY'RE A SMALL TEAM BASED IN YELLOWKNIFE. THEY DON'T HAVE DEEP POCKETS, AND IF WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT SOME KIND OF A SOLUTION, THEN THE NEST IS GOING TO SIT THERE AND IT'S GOING TO BE EMPTY AND UNUSED. RIGHT NOW IT FEELS LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A LOSE LOSE SITUATION, BUT TO GET TO A SOLUTION, WE'RE PROPOSING THAT THE CITY WOULD CONSIDER TWO STEPS. FIRST IS THIS COST SHARING ARRANGEMENT. YOU'VE SEEN THE MEMO. THE MEMO PREPARED BY ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS A 75% FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO FUND THIS FIRE HYDRANT INFRASTRUCTURE. [00:05:01] THAT WOULD BE A REAL WIN FOR OPENING THE NEST. THERE ARE, AS THE MEMO EXPLAINS SOME VERY GOOD REASONS FOR THE CITY TO SUPPORT THIS INFRASTRUCTURE. THE BUDGET ALLOCATION WILL HELP BOREALIS IN THEIR MISSION TO ADD MORE HOUSING IN DOWNTOWN YELLOWKNIFE. THIS IS A PRIORITY FOR THE CITY AS WELL. MORE PEOPLE LIVING DOWNTOWN WILL DO MORE BUSINESS DOWNTOWN, ENHANCING THE LIVABILITY OF THE AREA, AND GETTING THE NEST 72 UNITS OPEN IS GOING TO PUT A SIGNIFICANT DENT IN YELLOWKNIFES CHRONIC HOUSING SHORTAGE. THE FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS WERE PART OF THE REVIEW FOR THE NEST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION. THIS WAS ALWAYS A CHANGE OF USE APPLICATION AND NOT A NEW DEVELOPMENT. ON MAY 11, 2022, THE DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF OF LIFE SAFETY AND PREVENTION SINCE RETIRED, PROVIDED COMMENTS ON THE NEST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND NO NEW FIRE HYDRANT WAS INDICATED. IT WAS ONLY THE SPRINKLERS AND SMOKE DETECTORS THAT WERE LEFT FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. THE HYDRANT VAULT CONDITION ONLY CAME TO LIGHT AFTER BOREALIS HAD FINALLY SECURED FINANCING FOR THE NEST. BOREALIS STRICT LOAN TERMS DO NOT PERMIT ADDITIONAL COSTS TO BE ADDED TO THEIR LOAN. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. BOREALIS CANNOT ACCESS ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THIS UNEXPECTED HYDRANT VAULT. NOW, I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE NEST IF THE CITY SAYS NO TO THIS COST SHARING, BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THE CITY SAYS YES. WE'RE WELL ON OUR WAY TO ACHIEVING A MORE VIBRANT AND LIVABLE DOWNTOWN, BRINGING MORE UNITS INTO YELLOWKNIFES RENTAL MARKET, AND DOING SO SAFELY. WE THINK THAT'S A REAL WIN FOR THE CITY AND WE HOPE YOU DO TOO. THE SECOND STEP OF THIS IS TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY, THE ISSUE OF A TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE. NOW, WE RECOGNIZE THIS IS A REGULATORY DECISION, BUT WE WANT TO ASSURE COUNSEL THAT THERE'S A PLAN TO SAFELY OPEN THE NEST FOR TENANTS PENDING THE HYDRANT VAULT COMPLETION. THE NEST CAN RELY ON FIRE HYDRANTS AT EACH END OF THE BLOCK PLUS THEIR NEW WALL HYDRANT, AND THIS WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT WATER PRESSURE FOR FIRE SAFETY, PENDING THE INSTALLATION OF THE NEW HYDRANT VAULT. I'M GOING TO LEAVE THE REGULATORY DISCUSSION THERE BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO DISCUSSING THIS FURTHER WITH THE RELEVANT CITY REGULATORY AUTHORITIES. IN CONCLUSION, IF STEP 1 AND STEP 2 ARE COMPLETED, WE THINK THAT THAT'S A WIN WIN WIN, BECAUSE IT'S A WIN FOR BOREALIS GETTING THE NEST OPERATED. IT'S A WIN FOR THE CITY IN THEIR COMMITMENT TO HOUSING AS A PRIORITY AND A THRIVING DOWNTOWN. IT'S A WIN FOR 72 INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES WHO NEED A HOME IN YELLOWKNIFE. ON A FINAL NOTE, THIS IS URGENT. BOREALIS CAN'T KEEP GOING MUCH LONGER WITHOUT GETTING THE BUILDING OCCUPIED. WE'RE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE CITY TO PROVIDE US AN ANSWER AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME AND LET US KNOW WHEN THAT DECISION MIGHT BE MADE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I'LL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PARKER, AND MY COLLEAGUES, START WITH COUNCILLOR FEQUET. >> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. THANKS, SCOTT FOR THE PRESENTATION. A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU. MAYBE JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. CAN YOU JUST GIVE US THE COLES NOTES ON WHAT THE PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH THE FIRE HYDRANT AND VAULT OR FIRE SYSTEM IS? >> THE COLE'S NOTES PART IS A LITTLE BIT TOUGH. I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE. FIRST OF ALL, THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE HAS A REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENTS TO HAVE A WATER SOURCE WITHIN 45 METERS OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. NOW, WE DON'T SEE THAT THAT APPLIES TO AN EXISTING BUILDING. THERE'S THE POTENTIAL FOR A VARIANCE OF THAT IN THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE. ALSO, JUST AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAS APPLIED AND AND THE FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF HAD REVIEWED THE PERMIT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON MAY 11, 2022. THE CITY RELEASE THEIR NEW BUILDING BY LAW, AND SECTION 63 OF THAT BY LAW PROHIBITS WALL HYDRANTS FROM BEING USED AS WATER SOURCES FOR FIGHTING FIRES. IT CARVED OFF THE POTENTIAL TO SIMPLY INSTALL A WALL HYDRANT, WHICH BOREALIS HAS DONE. THERE'S A FULLY FUNCTIONING WALL HYDRANT THERE. THE ISSUE IS REALLY, THIS IS A CHANGE OF USE. [00:10:03] IT'S NOT A NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE HYDRANT VAULT REQUIREMENT CAME ON AFTER THEIR FUNDING. THEIR FUNDING IS VERY RESTRICTIVE, AND THEY CAN'T GET FUNDING TO PUT IN THIS VAULT THAT HAS BEEN REQUIRED ON THEIR BUILDING PERMIT. THE FIRST THAT THEY KNEW OF IT, I BELIEVE, WAS IN FEBRUARY OF 2024. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> YEAH. COULD YOU REITERATE THE DATE WHEN THE NEW BUILDING BYLAW CAME OUT THAT REMOVED WALL HYDRANTS? >> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MAY 30, 2022, IT CAME INTO FORCE. >> IS IT SAFE TO ASSUME THAT BOREALIS REVIEWED THE CITY'S BYLAWS AND DESIGN STANDARDS AND ALL OF THE VARIOUS THINGS WHILE THEY WERE PREPARING FOR THIS PROJECT AND SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS TO THE CITY? >> YEAH. THEY HAD THEIR ENGINEERS, THEY HAD CODE PEOPLE. EVERYBODY WAS LOOKING AT THIS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT LENS, AND I THINK IT WENT THROUGH TWO DIFFERENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS BEFORE FINALLY GOING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. IN NONE OF THAT TIME IN APPLYING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, GETTING THEIR FINANCING, REPPING THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BECAUSE OF THE DELAY IN THE FINANCING. NONE OF THAT TIME WAS THERE THIS REQUIREMENT FOR THIS FIRE HYDRANT VAULT. THEN IN MAY 30, 2022, WALL HYDRANTS ARE PROHIBITED AS A WATER SOURCE. THERE'S ALSO SOME DISCUSSION, AND WE'VE CARRIED THIS ON WITH THE CITY ABOUT THIS EXISTING BUILDING, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO A VARIANCE FOR THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE, WHICH IS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF BOTH THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION, WHICH IS THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL, AND COUNCIL ITSELF, SHOULD WE END UP APPEALING SOME DECISION. COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE VARIANCES TO THOSE PERMITS, AND UNDER THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE HOW THAT CODE SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS. THIS IS A BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT IN THE 70S. IT'S BEEN THERE EVER SINCE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE SAYING IS SHOULD THE BUILDING CODE BE APPLIED SOMEWHAT RETROACTIVELY TO THIS BUILDING BECAUSE THIS IS A CHANGE OF USE, NOT A NEW DEVELOPMENT. BUT THE PERMITTING PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT AND WE'VE BEEN HAVING SOME GOOD DISCUSSIONS AND GETTING GOOD INFORMATION FROM CITY ADMINISTRATION. >> THANKS FOR THAT, SCOTT. IF THE REQUIREMENT FOR A WALL HYDRANT HADN'T BEEN CHANGED, THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM FOR THE NEST DEVELOPMENT. IT'S THE REQUIREMENT TO MAKE SURE THE HYDRANT IS WITHIN A VAULT, JUST TO BE CLEAR. >> YEAH, IF WALL HYDRANTS WERE STILL DEEMED A WATER SOURCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIGHTING FIRES IN YELLOWKNIFE. THIS ISN'T A NATIONAL BUILDING CODE THING. THIS IS A YELLOWKNIFE BY LAW, THAT WALL HYDRANTS ARE NO LONGER CONSIDERED WATER SOURCES. THE NEST EASILY AND THEY'VE DONE THIS ALREADY, PUT IN A WALL HYDRANT SO THAT IT CAN BE ACCESSED FOR FIRE FIGHTING, THEN WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE. WE'D BE WELL ON OUR WAY TO OCCUPYING THAT BUILDING. THE HYDRANT VAULT ITSELF, BOREALIS HAS A QUOTE FOR IT FOR $750,000, WHICH THEY GOT SHORTLY AFTER THE BUILDING PERMIT IDENTIFIED A CONNSION FOR THE HYDRANT VAULT. THE CITY HAS SAID THAT THAT SOUNDS HIGH TO THEM, AND THAT'S FINE. THE CITY HAS LOTS OF EXPERIENCE BUILDING THESE THINGS, BUT THAT IS THE QUOTE THAT BOREALIS GOT. THEY'VE TRIED TO GET OTHER QUOTES FROM PEOPLE. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND BUILDERS WITH THE EXPERTISE. I DO BELIEVE THE CITY HAS ALL THE EXPERTISE IN THE WORLD FOR BUILDING THOSE THINGS BECAUSE THEY DO THAT A LOT. BUT THE $750,000 HIT, THERE'S NO WAY IT COULD BE ADDED ON TO ANY OF THEIR FINANCING CONDITIONS. THEIR FINANCING TERMS PROHIBIT IT. >> APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. THE WALL HYDRANT THAT IT WAS BUILT. THE ONE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY EXISTING, ARE THEY IN THE ALLEYWAYS OR ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY? >> THE NEW WALL HYDRANT IS RIGHT ON THE ROADWAY, UNOBSTRUCTED. BOREALIS TELLS ME THEY'VE HAD IT DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT IT WILL BE FULLY ACCESSIBLE, FULLY FUNCTIONAL, COLD WEATHER. THEY'RE EXPECTING IT COULD BE RELIED ON, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'D BE HOPING FOR IN STEP 2 IS THAT WE COULD RELY ON THAT WALL HYDRANT PLUS THE TWO [00:15:04] EXISTING HYDRANTS AT EITHER END OF THE BLOCK TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ALL THE PRESSURE REQUIRED FOR FIGHTING A FIRE. >> COUNSEL FEQUET. JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO GO HERE. I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU, AND I'M TRYING TO DO THIS IN THE MOST LOGICAL SEQUENTIAL WAY. MAYBE A QUESTION FOR EDMUND. CAN EDMUND CONFIRM IF IT WAS THE WALL HYDRANT OR THE LOCATION IN THE ALLEY OF THE PREVIOUS WATER SOURCE THAT WAS AT ISSUE AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW WATER SOURCES AND FIRE SYSTEMS WERE MADE. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> I THINK THE PRESENTATION INCLUDED THE FACT THAT WE HAD ADJUSTED OUR BY LAW GENERALLY WITH RESPECT TO WALL HYDRANTS AND THEIR USE. COUNSEL MAY HAVE HEARD REPRESENTATION FROM ADMINISTRATION IN THE PAST THAT WALL HYDRANTS WHILE TECHNOLOGY THAT HAD BEEN USED IN OTHER PLACES BEING APPLIED IN A NORTHERN CONTEXT AND IN THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE DOES PRESENT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF RISKS, AND AS A RESULT TO MITIGATE THOSE RISKS, FIRE HYDRANTS ARE THE PREFERRED WAY TO GO FOR WATER PRESSURE AND ALL OTHER KINDS OF REASONS. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INTO THE ERA OF SUPPORTING WALL HYDRANTS GOING FORWARD AND THAT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR A BIT OF TIME. >> THANK YOU, BACK TO YOU, SCOTT. I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A GAME SHOW NOW. CAN YOU CONFIRM WHEN THE FIRST OF ANY LEVEL OF DEGREE OF DETAIL OF PLANS WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY? >> AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AS PER THE MEMO THAT WAS PROVIDED HAD UNSTAMPED DRAWINGS, WHICH I ASSUME ARE UNOFFICIAL DRAWINGS. THEN THE SECOND ROUND OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DRAWINGS WERE THEIR FINAL DRAWINGS, WHICH THEN THEY TOOK TO GET FINANCING ON. THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT. THEN FINANCING WAS PREPARED, AND THEN OF COURSE IT WENT FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. NOW, DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE, ONE THING TO POINT OUT IS ONE OF THEIR ENGINEERS HAD DETERMINED THAT THEIR INTERNAL FIRE PUMP SYSTEM, WHICH IS AN INTERNAL WATER PUMPING MECHANISM THAT WILL PUMP WATER UP IN BUILDINGS HAD A LITTLE BIT OF DECREASED PRESSURE ON THE TENTH FLOOR. IT WAS STILL WELL WITHIN SCOPE FOR THE BUILDING AND THE CODE REQUIREMENTS, BUT BOREALIS AND THEIR TEAM OPTED TO REPLACE THAT PUMPING SYSTEM AT A COST OF $18 THOUSANDS TO ENSURE THAT ALL FLOORS WOULD HAVE MORE THAN ADEQUATE PRESSURE FROM THAT FIRE PUMP. NOW, THIS WAS BEFORE THEY KNEW ABOUT THE HYDRANT VAULT. THEY WERE WILLING AND ABLE TO EXCEED SOME OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE. BUT THEN WHEN THE HYDRANT VAULT ISSUE CAME UP AT THREE QUARTERS OF $1 MILLION, THAT'S WHERE THEY RAN INTO PROBLEMS. >> THANKS FOR THAT, I'M JUST TRYING TO RECONCILE IN MY HEAD THE TIMELINES BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BUILDING BYLAWS WERE UPDATED IN MAY 2022. THERE'S ALSO THE CITY BY LAWS, VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT BYLAWS REFERENCE, THEN THE CITY'S DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS THAT I UNDERSTAND WERE UPDATED IN APRIL 2022, AND HAVE SOME GUIDANCE ON HYDRANTS, THEIR LOCATIONS AND INSTALLATIONS LATER DOWN IN THE DOCUMENT. WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS AT THAT POINT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE UNSTAMPED DRAWINGS, WHICH IS IN OUR MEMO, WE DO HAVE THAT DATE. IT'S JULY 2022. SOUNDS LIKE THAT WAS AFTER THE BYLAWS WERE UPDATED. THAT IS THE GAP IN TIME THAT FOR ME, I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN PRIOR TO THE PLAN COMING IN TO THE CITY. >> SORRY, MR. PARKER THERE. >> THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S THE SAME PLAN THAT WAS COMMENTED ON BY THE DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL, THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT SAID THAT THE ONLY THINGS THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED UNDER [00:20:05] THE BUILDING PERMIT WERE THE SMOKE DETECTOR AND THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. I DO HAVE THAT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION STATUS HERE WITH THE COMMENTS. THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THERE WAS THIS FIRE HYDRANT VAULT REQUIRED. NOW, THEY KNEW THEY DIDN'T INSTALL A WALL HYDRANT AT THAT POINT IN TIME BECAUSE THAT ALSO WASN'T REQUIRED UNDER THE COMMENTARY. I GUESS AS FAR AS TIMELINE, THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY KNEW THAT THEY NEEDED TO INSTALL THE FIRE HYDRANT VAULT WAS WHEN THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS FINALIZED AND THAT WOULD BE IN FEBRUARY OF 2024. >> COUNSEL FEQUET. JUST CONFIRMING, THE DEVELOPERS WERE NOT AWARE THAT THE CITY UPDATED ITS BUILDING BYLAW IN MAY 2022 TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR WALL HYDRANTS, OR THEY WERE AWARE AND JUST BELIEVED IT DIDN'T APPLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE AT THAT TIME, THEY WEREN'T ATTENDING TO INSTALL A WALL HYDRANT. >> I THINK THE LATTER IS THE CASE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO INDICATION THEY NEEDED A WALL HYDRANT. THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PLAN TO INSTALL THE WALL HYDRANT. THEY INSTALLED THE WALL HYDRANT MORE RECENTLY AS AN EXTRA EFFORT TO BE ABLE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. AT THAT POINT IN THEIR DRAWINGS, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO WALL HYDRANT. SECTION 63 OF THE BUILDING CODE DOESN'T REQUIRE A WALL HYDRANT. THERE WAS NO HYDRANT MENTIONED IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS, SO A HYDRANT WAS REALLY NOT CONTEMPLATED, WHETHER IT WOULD BE A WALL HYDRANT OR OTHERWISE. >> SORRY, JUST TO LOOK BACK TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION. WHEN I MENTIONED JULY 2022, YOU'RE CORRECT. THAT WAS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAS FIRST APPROVED BASED ON UNSTAMPED DRAWINGS. WHAT I WAS SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR IS WHAT DATE AROUND DID THAT INITIAL UNSTAMPED DRAWINGS AND PROPOSAL COME INTO THE CITY BEFORE JULY 2022. >> MR. PARKER, JUST THE MIKE AGAIN. >> SORRY, I'M QUITE LOUD GENERALLY. I BELIEVE IT CAME IN ON APRIL 1. I'M JUST LOOKING FOR THE APRIL 1, 2022. >> I LET SOME OTHERS TAKE THE MIC FOR A BIT. >> THANK YOU. COUNSEL FEQUET, COLLEAGUES. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCIL MCGURK. >> HI, THANKS FOR COMING IN TOO. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX QUESTION OR ISSUE AS A BUILDER. I'VE DEFINITELY BEEN FACED WITH LAST MINUTE SORT OF CODE VARIANCE REQUESTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I UNDERSTAND STRUGGLE, IT IS STILL DIFFICULT BECAUSE I GUESS MY UNDERSTANDING IS MAYBE A QUESTION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OR THAT WAS OVERLOOKED BY YOUR ENGINEERS OR YOUR CONSULTANTS IS IN THE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, WHICH WOULD ALTER THE USE OF A BUILDING. AM I WRONG IN SAYING THAT THAT THEN PULLS THE CODE REQUIREMENTS AND YOU CAN'T JUST RELY ON EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SAME WAY. >> I THINK IT'S AN AREA FOR INTERPRETATION UNDER THE CODE, AS YOU WILL BE AWARE, THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE IS A MYSTERY TO BE ABLE TO UNTANGLE SOMETIMES, AND I'M CERTAINLY NO EXPERT. BUT THERE IS A NOTE IN THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE THAT SAYS THAT WHEN THE CODE IS BEING APPLIED TO EXISTING BUILDINGS, IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT BUILDING AND WHAT THAT BUILDINGS REQUIREMENTS ARE. THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION TO MAKE VARIANCES TO THAT CODE. NOW, WHETHER THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE RELYING ON OR WHETHER THEY WERE RELYING ON THE REPRESENTATIONS FROM THE DEPUTY CHIEF WHO HAD SAID AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS THAT SAID THERE'S NO HYDRANT VAULT REQUIRED, AND THEN MOVING FORWARD FROM THAT, AT SOME POINT IT WAS DECIDED THIS HYDRANT VAULT SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE. [00:25:05] >> THANKS, I APPRECIATE THAT CONTEXT. YES, I HAVE A LIVED EXPERIENCING BEING SLAPPED WITH THE FIRE RELATED CODE ISSUE. WE NEEDED TO SEEK A VARIANCE AND RECEIVE A VARIANCE AND THAT CAME AFTER WE HAD SUBMITTED OUR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. IT'S A SMALLER SCALE PROJECT THAN THIS, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE PROBABLY WORKING MORE WITH THE CITY OR MORE DIRECTLY WITH THE CITY THAN WE WERE. BUT I GUESS, THE QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATION IS, DO WE TYPICALLY LOOK AT THOSE SYSTEMS DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS OR DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS? >> MR. VAN DINE? >> THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR WHITE TO WALK US THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION AND ALL THE PERMITTING PROCESSES AND HOW THEY INTERACT. >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, THOSE ARE ISSUED UNDER THE ZONING BY-LAW. THE ZONING BY LAW DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO MAKE CONDITIONS OR IDENTIFY ITEMS THAT ARE IN EITHER THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AT NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OR OUR BUILDING BY LAW. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE LINKED PROCESSES. ANY CONDITIONS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WOULD BE RELATED TO THE USE TO SETBACKS, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. WHEN A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS SUBMITTED FOR, USUALLY PEOPLE DO SUBMIT UNSTAMPED DRAWINGS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REVIEWING THROUGH THE PLANNING SIDE, BUILDING DRAWINGS. AT THE TIME THAT A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS ISSUED, WHICH IN THIS CASE, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAS AUGUST 5, 2022. THAT IS THE POINT WHEN AN APPLICANT CAN COME FORWARD FOR THEIR BUILDING PERMIT WITH STAMP DRAWINGS AND THAT'S WHEN THAT REVIEW WOULD BEGIN. ALSO OF NOTE, EVEN THOUGH THE BUILDING BY LAW CAME INTO EFFECT IN EARLY 2022, NOTIFICATION AND DRAFT COPIES WERE CIRCULATED AND POSTED ON THE WEBSITE FOR THE PUBLIC A YEAR PRIOR. THE CHANGES THAT WERE BEING MADE WERE WIDELY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND ANYBODY LOOKING TO DO DESIGN WITHIN THE CITY WOULD HAVE HAD ACCESS TO THAT AHEAD OF TIME. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S WHAT I ASSUMED. I SUPPOSE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS SITUATION, WHY DID YOU EXPECT THAT OR TAKE FOR ASSURANCE THAT WE HAD NOT BROUGHT UP IN THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS THAT WE NEEDED THESE THINGS? >> I THINK PART OF THAT COMES FROM THE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW THAT WAS REVIEWED AND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF, STATING THAT UNDER THEIR REVIEW, WHAT NEEDED TO BE REVIEWED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS WAS THE SPRINKLERS AND THE SMOKE DETECTORS, THAT A HYDRANT WASN'T PART OF THE PLAN. THAT WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE WHAT'S REVIEWED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH I'M SURE IT WAS, AND THEN THIS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT WAS PLACED ON IT. FURTHER TO THE BUILDING BYLAW, I THINK THE BUILDING BYLAW CHANGE IS REALLY ONLY A FACTOR WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE VALIDITY OF A WALL HYDRANT AS WATER SOURCE IS. THAT WAS NEVER RELIED ON BY THE BUILDERS THAT WE'LL PUT IN A WALL THE HYDRANT AND WE'LL BE GOOD BECAUSE HYDRANTS WERE NEVER BROUGHT UP AS ANY PART OF THIS PROCESS. UNTIL THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS PROVIDED. AGAIN, AFTER THEIR FINANCING, WHICH CREATED A PROBLEM FOR THE DEVELOPER. >> THANKS. I APPRECIATE JUST TRYING TO GET A VERY FULSOME PICTURE OF THIS. THE OFFICIAL WHO PROVIDED THE FEEDBACK ABOUT THE FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS, WAS THAT A CITY OFFICIAL OR WAS THAT A GVT OFFICIAL? >> THAT WAS THE THEN DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF OF LIFE SAFETY AND PREVENTION SINCE RETIRED? >> YES, SIR. THAT'S MY FAULT, TRYING TO KEEP TRACK OF EVERYTHING. >> I CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO YOU, COUNSEL MARK. >> IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY, HAVE YOU YOU'VE REQUESTED A VARIANCE FOR THIS SPECIFICALLY? [00:30:06] >> THERE'S BEEN A FAIR AMOUNT OF BACK AND FORTH, VERY PRODUCTIVE AND APPRECIATED WHERE BOREALIS HAS COME UP WITH A PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION, WHICH AT ONE POINT, THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL, WHO IS UNDER THE FIRE PREVENTION ACT, IS THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION FOR THOSE AREAS, HAD INDICATED THIS PLAN LOOKS LIKE IT WILL WORK. NOW, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THERE WAS ANY FORMAL COMMUNICATION BACK AND FORTH, BUT MY CLIENT WAS MOVING FORWARD ON THIS, BUT THE CITY NEEDS TO BE ON BOARD WITH THIS. THEN BEGAN A BACK AND FORTH WITH THE CITY TO SAY, LOOK, WE HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FOR THIS FOR THIS HYDRANT VAULT. IT WAS ULTIMATELY CONSIDERED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATION HELPED US TO GET THIS IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT PEOPLE, CONSIDERED BY THE CITY AND ULTIMATELY REJECTED BY I THINK THE INSPECTOR, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REGULATORY BOX PER SE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL, BEING THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION REVIEWED IT AND THEN PROVIDED INFORMATION THAT SAYS, WE REJECT THIS PLAN, BUT THAT PLAN WAS REJECTED BY THE CITY, THAT THE DISTANCE, THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO CONNECT WOULD BE TOO LONG TO FIGHT A FIRE IN THAT BUILDING. OF COURSE, OUR CLIENT, THEIR CODE EXPERTS, THEIR FIRE ENGINEERS DISAGREE WITH THAT. BUT HERE WE ARE. THERE'S NO FURTHER ARGUMENT WITH THAT. ONE THING THAT I DID NOTE, I DON'T KNOW HOW ANY DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS WILL BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD IF IN BOREALIS CASE, THERE'S A PARKING LOT BESIDE THE BUILDING. THAT'S THE PARKING LOT THE SIDING FELL INTO OFF OF THE BLANCA BUILDING. THERE'S THE PARKING LOT THERE, SO THAT CAN BE EXCAVATED FOR A HYDRANT VAULT. IF THERE WAS A BUILDING THERE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PLAN WOULD BE TUNNEL UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING OR CLOSE THE ROAD. CITY ENGINEERS PROBABLY HAVE AN IDEA FOR THAT, BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE OPTION FOR A REVITALIZATION OF A DOWNTOWN BUILDING? IF SUDDENLY A HYDRANT VAULT AND A HYDRANT HAVE TO APPEAR ON THE STREET WHEN THERE'S NOWHERE TO DIG IT AND REMOVING WALL HYDRANTS COMPLETELY NEGATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVITALIZE SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN. FORTUNATELY, IN OUR CASE, WE DO HAVE A PARKING LOT THAT COULD BE DUG UP FOR THIS HYDRANT VAULT. >> THANKS. >> DEFINITELY, THAT'S WHY VARIANCES EXIST. TO ADMINISTRATION, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO SPEAK TO HOW THAT DECISION WAS MADE OR THE REJECTION OF THE VARIANCE? WAS IT OUR STAFF OR WAS IT THE OFM? IF IT WASN'T THE OFM, THEN, JUST ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION. >> MR. VAN DINE, RESPECTING THE REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS AND ALL OF THAT, BUT JUST TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON IT. >> YES. WE HAVE OFFICIALS FOR OFFICIAL REASONS. THOSE OFFICIALS ARE PROVIDED CERTAIN AMOUNT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDENTIALS AND LET'S ALL REMIND OURSELVES THAT THE REASON WHY WE HAVE THOSE IS FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY. HEALTH AND SAFETY IS THE NUMBER 1 CONCERN, AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYTHING THAT WE DO THAT WE APPROVE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE CAN STAND BEHIND FROM A HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSPECTIVE AGAINST THE STANDARDS THAT ARE EXPECTED. THE ANALYSIS AND I CAN'T GO INTO THE BLACK BOX BECAUSE I AM NOT PERMITTED IN THE BLACK BOX EITHER. THAT'S FOR VERY GOOD REASON THAT WE ALLOW THE QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS TO TO LOOK AT THE ASPECTS. I CAN SAY THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL, THERE HAD BEEN CERTAINLY A HIGH LEVEL OF VIGILANCE AND TRANSPARENCY WITH THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT THIS MATTER WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE DID AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE DO HAVE A PROJECT THAT HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT REGULATORY AUTHORITIES THAT WE HAVE OPEN CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION. BUT IN THAT, WE ALSO HAVE A VERY HEALTHY RESPECT FOR THEIR PART OF THE BLACK BOX AND THEIR OWN BLACK BOX AND WHAT THEY NEED TO DO. WHILE THIS SITUATION IS UNFORTUNATE IN TERMS OF TIMING [00:35:05] AND IN TERMS OF THE AMBITION AND IN TERMS OF THE LEVEL OF EFFORT DEPLOYED SO FAR, THE QUESTION TODAY, I THINK, BEFORE COUNSEL, I BELIEVE, IS WHETHER THERE'S A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION THAT COUNSEL WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO SEE THIS OVER GET TO THE NEXT STAGE AS HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY THE PROPONENT VERSUS WHETHER OR NOT THE TECHNICAL REVIEWS HAVE BEEN DONE ADEQUATELY AND CONFIDENTLY. I WOULD SAY THAT WE KEEP COUNSEL'S FOCUS ON THE IMMEDIATE QUESTION AT HAND. >> THAT'S FAIR, I APPRECIATE THAT IT COULD BE A RABBIT HOLE. I GUESS I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE DUE DILIGENCE ON EITHER SIDE, AND IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT AND COMPLEX. THIS WAS TRYING TO GO INTO DETAILS IS PROBABLY JUST MY ATTEMPT TO REALLY FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I THINK I'VE ASK ENOUGH QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> THANKS, COUNCIL MCGURK. COUNCIL MCCLEAN, I SAW YOUR HAND THERE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS FOR COMING IN THE PRESENTATION. DIFFICULT ONE. I CAN UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION AND THE CHALLENGES FROM BOTH SIDES AND DEALING WITH REGULATION, FEELING THAT YOU NEED A MASTER'S DEGREE TO MOVE ONE OF THESE PROJECTS THROUGH THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IS FRUSTRATING. I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT BACK IN JULY, I WAS BLUNT TO STAFF ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND THE LACK OF MENTION WITH THE HYDRA REQUIREMENT. I JUST WANTED TO THANK THEM FOR PRESENTING THE CONTEXT FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE. THAT THIS IS FRUSTRATING AND CHALLENGING, AND IT SEEMS MY INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE PROPONENT SEEMS TO HAVE RELIED ON A THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS WITH REGARD TO FIRE SUPPRESSION AND NOT UNDERSTOOD THE IMPLICATIONS FULLY OF THE BUILDING CODE CHANGE AND JUST MISSED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT. IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THE CITY COULD PROVIDE EVERY DETAIL ON EVERY PERMIT, BUT THAT'S JUST NOT A LEVEL OF SERVICE WE CAN GUARANTEE. I THINK IN THE END, IT'S ON THE DEVELOPER TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE COVERING ALL THEIR BASES. I JUST WANTED TO ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS OF THE DEVELOPER. HOW MANY OF THE 72 UNITS WILL BE RENTED OUT AT A PRICE THAT MEETS THE CITY'S AFFORDABILITY CRITERIA? >> MR. PARKER. >> I THINK I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. I'M NOT SURE ON THAT ONE. I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU. I'M SORRY. I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION FOR AFFORDABILITY. >> COUNSEL, MCCLEAN. >> THANKS. ARE THERE AFFORDABILITY CRITERIA AS A REQUIREMENT THROUGH YOUR CMHC FUNDING OR LOAN? >> MR. PARKER? >> I WONDER IF I COULD HAVE ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS SPEAK TO BOTH THOSE THINGS BECAUSE HE'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. >> HI. ONE OF THE OWNERS AT BORIS. AS FOR AFFORDABILITY, WE'VE GOT EIGHT UNITS THAT WILL BE AFFORDABLE UNDER THE CSC GUIDELINE. NOW, IT'S NOT A CSC LOAN PER SE, BUT IT'S IT'S A LOAN BY A DIFFERENT LENDER, BUT JUST INSURED BY CMSC. IT'S NOT A CO INVESTMENT OR ANY OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS THAT CS OFFERS. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT COUNCIL MCCLELLAN. >> UNDERSTOOD AND THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THE DETAIL. JUST A QUESTION TO ADMIT, GIVEN THAT THE FINANCIAL ALLOCATION FROM THE CITY WOULD BE IN THE FORM OF A CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, WOULD IT BE PERMISSIBLE FOR THAT CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT TO STIPULATE THAT BOREALIS SAY DOUBLED THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, SAY TO 16, AND THAT THOSE BE AFFORDABLE FOR A SET PERIOD OF TIME? >> I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN GET INTO SETTING THEIR RENTAL, BUT I'LL PASS IT OVER TO MR. VAN DINE. >> THERE ARE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT TOOLS IN THE TOOL KIT. IN THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE BEFORE COUNCIL TODAY, THAT ADJUNCT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL. [00:40:01] HOWEVER, THERE ARE OTHER TOOLS IN THE TOOLKIT, AND I'LL JUST ASK DIRECTOR WHITE, MAYBE TO ELABORATE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE HAD CONVERSATIONS AT LENGTH ABOUT DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES. THERE WAS THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BY LAW AND THERE WAS THE NEW PROPOSED ONE, WHICH IS NOW IN EFFECT. ONE OF THE TERMS THAT WE HAD PUT INTO THAT BYLAW AT THE VERY END, THE NEW ONE WAS ALLOWING ANYBODY WHO HAD APPLIED UNDER THE PREVIOUS BY LAW, WHICH NEST IS ONE OF THOSE, ONE OF TWO IN THE CITY, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO USE THE PREVIOUS BYLAW BECAUSE THEY'D ALREADY APPLIED UNDER IT, OR IF THEY FELT THE NEW BYLAW WAS A BETTER GAIN FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND INCENTIVE TO BUILD, THEY COULD CHOOSE THE NEW ONE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO ONE OR THE OTHER. ONE IS STRAIGHT TAX INCENTIVE. THE OTHER ONE IS A AFFORDABILITY INCENTIVE AS WELL AS INCLUDES ACCESSIBILITY INCENTIVES, AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ITEMS. IT'S TO THEM TO DETERMINE WHICH IS MORE FINANCIALLY VIABLE. AS I SAID, THERE WAS ONLY TWO IN THE CITY AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T CUTTING ANYONE OFF WHEN WE CHANGED THOSE BYLAWS. THAT WOULD BE WITH THEM, AND THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU. >> THANKS FOR THAT. JUST FOR CLARITY, COUNCIL MCCLELLAN. THE INCENTIVES ARE THERE, BUT CAN'T TIE THIS DECISION INTO THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS. BUT BACK TO YOU. >> I JUST SAID THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION. THEN A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPERS, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO OF YOUR OWN BEST, INCLUDE 16, 12, 20 AFFORDABLE UNITS RATHER THAN EIGHT, GIVEN THE CITY'S POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROJECT? >> MR. PARKER. >> THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER. >> I CAN'T COMMENT ON THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT IT. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE DO HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE TOTAL LOAN OR WHEN WE ACTUALLY OCCUPY. THAT WOULD BE QUITE RELEVANT IN HOW MANY WE CAN ACTUALLY SUPPORT AS AFFORDABLE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL MCCLELLAN. >> UNDERSTOOD FOR SURE. FURTHER OFFERING OF MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS GIVEN TAXPAYER FUNDING WOULD DEFINITELY BE MUCH APPRECIATED, I'M SURE OF RESIDENTS. THEN JUST FOR ADMIN, LAST THING ON MY PART, JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE PRECEDENT THIS WOULD BE SETTING AND HOW IT MAY BE APPLICABLE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CHANGE IN THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND WHAT CHANGED IN OUR BY LAW WAS A DISTANCE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS. DOES THIS MEAN BASICALLY, COULD YOU GIVE A RUNDOWN OF HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS? DO THEY HAVE TO BE WITHIN CERTAIN DISTANCES FROM FIRE HYDRANTS DEPEND LIKE REGARDLESS OF SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT? DOES THAT PRECLUDE A WHOLE BUNCH OF AREAS IN THE CITY FROM DEVELOPMENT? >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MCCLELLAN, MR. VAN DINE. >> I'LL TURN IT OVER DR. WHITE IN A MOMENT, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR COUNSEL TO RECALL THAT THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPROVED IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA SINCE THIS BY LAW HAS BEEN PASSED. IN THOSE CASES, THE FIRE HYDRANT HAD BEEN A COST OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEEN FACTORED IN. THE TRANSITION CENTER IS ONE SUCH DEVELOPMENT. WE ALSO HAVE THE BUILDING WITH RESPECT TO OUR NT HOUSING ACROSS FROM ON 50 HISTORY. THERE WE GO, AS WELL AS EVEN SOME NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE HAD TO INCUR THE COST OF SUCH THINGS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. WHILE THERE'S A COMPELLING STORY WITH RESPECT TO THE FRUSTRATION OF THIS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT, THIS ISN'T NEW, I GUESS, TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND HAS BEEN FACTORED INTO A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS ALREADY. WITH RESPECT TO THE PRECEDENT SETTING OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL, THIS IS UNIQUE. THE COUNCIL, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT BEEN ASKED IN PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS TO CONSIDER AN OFFSET WITH THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION IN MIND. THE MERITS OF THIS, WE'VE TRIED TO CONTAIN TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY ALIGNMENT WITH CITY STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS ESTABLISHED BY THIS COUNCIL DESIRES FOR INCREASED HIGH DENSITY IN THE DOWNTOWN, [00:45:04] AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE OTHER OBJECTIVES THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED. NOW, WHETHER OR NOT ANOTHER DEVELOPER COULD COME IN AFTER TODAY WITH A SIMILAR PROPOSAL AND TICK ALL THOSE BOXES AND PRESENT COUNSEL WITH A SIMILAR ASK REMAINS TO BE SEEN. HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A RELATIVELY FOCUSED QUESTION FOR COUNSEL, GIVEN THE MERITS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL, AND WE DO HIGHLIGHT IN THE MEMO, THE POTENTIAL FOR POTENTIAL REACTIONS FROM THOSE THAT HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS QUESTION AND THEIR REGULATORY AUTHORIZATIONS AND HAVE INCURRED THE COST, AS WELL AS WHAT THE POTENTIAL MIGHT BE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPERS OF ANY SHAPE OR SIZE COMING IN, ASKING FOR SOMETHING SIMILAR. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR WHITE, MAYBE TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE PLACED IN THE QUESTION FROM THE COUNSELOR. >> THANK YOU. I'LL TRY TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY. THE FIRST POINT IS IT WAS A CHANGE OF USE FROM AN OFFICE OR COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO A RESIDENTIAL. THAT IS A HIGHER SENSITIVITY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CODE. YES, THERE WAS CHANGES REQUIRED, AND IT IS CONSIDERED AS IF IT'S A NEW BUILD UNDER OUR INTERPRETATION OF OUR BUILDING BY LAW AND THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE. THE 45 METERS, THAT'S EVERYWHERE IN CANADA. THAT'S NOT UNIQUE TO YELLOW KNIFE. THAT'S BEEN IN THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE SINCE I CAN EVEN REMEMBER READING IT MANY, MOONS AGO. IT'S STANDARD. THE DIFFERENCE WAS THE WALL HYDRANTS. THE WALL HYDRANTS THE WAY IN WHICH THEY INTERACT WITH OUR WATER SYSTEM, WHICH ONLY MR. GREENCORN CAN SPEAK TO IS THAT THEY'VE BEEN REMOVED FROM OUR ALLOWED ALLOWANCES AND OUR CODE. THEN LASTLY, I CAN STATE THAT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, THERE'S BEEN AT LEAST SIX DEVELOPMENTS AND AROUND THE DOWNTOWN IN ADDITION TO, BECAUSE I FORGOT ABOUT TWO OF THEM, THAT ARE MORE RECENT. THAT ALL HAVE INSTALLED IN THEMSELVES. AS PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT, IT IS ONE OF THE PRE DESIGN ITEMS THAT MOST CONTRACTORS WILL IDENTIFY AS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, IF AND WHEN THOSE CHANGES OR NEW DEVELOPMENT OCCUR. WE'VE HAD BOTH CHANGE OF USES AS WELL AS TOTALLY NEW CONSTRUCTION WHERE THESE HYDRANTS HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE. THANK YOU. >> COUNSEL MCCLELLAN. >> THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL. JUST TO COMMENT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT WOULD OPEN A PRETTY WIDE PRECEDENT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A UNIQUE CASE AND HAS A LOT TO OFFER THE CITY IN TERMS OF HOUSING. BUT IT FEELS TO ME THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN CRYSTAL CLEAR AND WHY THIS WOULD GET CITY FINANCING AND NOT ANY OTHER PROJECT, GIVEN THAT BEFORE THIS, THEY'VE ALL SHOULDERED THAT COST THEMSELVES. FOR ME, THIS SEEMS TO OPEN A VERY WIDE PRECEDENT FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS GOING FORWARD. >> THAT'S DEFINITELY A CONSIDERATION OF MINE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MCCLELLAN. COUNCIL PAYNE OR COUNCIL FOOTE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I DIVE IN? >> NO. >> COUNCIL PAYNE. >> THANK YOU. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTION. THIS IS NOT A TIME FOR COMMENTS, I'M ASSUMING. >> THIS IS QUESTION OR COMMENTS AS YOU DESIRE, COUNCILLOR PAYNE, BUT YOU CAN ALSO HOLD UNTIL SECOND ROUND IF YOU WANT. >> I CAN THROW UP THE COMMENTS NOW. WITH ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT EVERYBODY ASKED TODAY, I DON'T THINK IT'S ON CITY STAFF TO, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, HOLD A HAND OF A DEVELOPER. THIS HAS BEEN OUT THERE SINCE MAY 20TH, AND THEY WERE GIVEN THE EVERYBODY IT WAS ON THE CITY WEBSITE A YEAR IN ADVANCE ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FIRE HYDRANT. I WON'T BE SUPPORTING GIVING ANY TAXPAYER MONEY TO FUND ANYTHING FOR A PRIVATE DEVELOPER, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE DO HAVE INCENTIVES IN PLACE THAT HOPEFULLY THE DEVELOPER WILL BE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF TAX ABATEMENTS OR WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. SO RIGHT NOW, I WON'T BE IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING ANY FUNDS TOWARDS THE FIRE HYDRANT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILLOR PAYNE. FOR MYSELF, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS JUST RELATED TO JUST TO FULLY GET THE FULL PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED. SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT DIRECTOR WHITE HAS JUST ALREADY HAD DOCUMENTED, [00:50:01] BUT YOU'VE TEED UP AGAIN AROUND WALL HYDRANTS AND VAULTS AND ALL OF THOSE PIECES. I GUESS FIRST QUESTION FOR ADMIN IS, WHY ISN'T A WALL HYDRANT ACCEPTABLE FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY PERSPECTIVE VERSUS VAULTS, MR. VAN DINE? >> I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. GREENCORN IN A MOMENT AND POTENTIALLY MISS MACLEAN. MY PUBLIC SAFETY POINT OF VIEW, MAY BE TO BE ASSISTED BY MR. GREENCORN, IF NECESSARY, IF THERE'S SOME ENGINEERING QUESTIONS THAT ARE TIED TO IT. AND PERHAPS I'LL DO THAT RIGHT NOW. MR. MCLENNAN? >> THANK YOU. JUST TO CLARIFY, THE QUESTION IS, WHY DOESN'T THE CITY ALLOW WALL HYDRANTS, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. I'LL GIVE YOU A LAYMAN'S PERSPECTIVE ON THIS. NUMBER 1, WHAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED IN THE CITY OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF DECADES IS FACILITIES THAT HAVE HAD WALL HYDRANTS INSTALLED WITH THEM ARE ALSO THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON FIRE. YOU CONNECT INTO A WALL HYDRANT IN A BUILDING, THE FIRE EXPANDS, PROCEEDS THROUGH THE BUILDING, NEXT THING YOU KNOW, THERE'S COLLAPSE, THERE'S STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, AND YOU LOSE YOUR WATER SUPPLY BECAUSE YOU'RE CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING THAT'S ACTUALLY ON FIRE. THAT'S ONE REASON. THE OTHER ONE IS WHAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE YEARS IS THAT WE CAN'T DETERMINE WHAT THE ACTUAL SUPPLY DIAMETER IS OF THE LINE TO THE WALL HYDRANT. SO IF YOU HAVE AN EIGHT AND THIS IS AN ENGINEERING, SO I'M STEPPING INTO MR. GREENCORN'S WORLD HERE A LITTLE, BUT IF YOU HAVE AN EIGHT OR A 10 INCH MAIN SUPPLY IN A BUILDING AND THAT'S BEEN REDUCED DOWN INTO A FOUR INCH PIPE. AND THEN IT HAS A GREAT BIG CONNECTION ON THE OUTSIDE THAT YOU CAN CONNECT. THAT'S GREAT. THERE MAY BE PRESSURE, BUT THE OTHER PIECE THAT NO ONE TALKS ABOUT IS FLOW. THAT'S VOLUME LITERS PER MINUTE. WHAT WE HAVE IS WE HAVE RESTRICTION AND FLOW, AND THE RESTRICTION AND FLOW MEANS THAT WE CAN'T DELIVER THE FIREFIGHTING WATER RATES THAT WE NEED TO APPLY BASED ON THE BTUS OR THE ENERGY THAT THE FIRE IS PROVIDING. SO THAT'S ANOTHER ONE. ADDITIONALLY TO THAT, IN 2015, WE DEVELOPED A NEW WATER TREATMENT PLANT. THAT WATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND ONCE AGAIN, MY APOLOGIES TO MR. GREENCORN. HE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. BUT WE HAVE TWO MAJOR FIRE PUMPS AT THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT THAT HAVE LIMITS SET BASED ON FLOW. SO HISTORICALLY PRIOR TO 2015, THAT WAS A MAN STATION. IF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS ON SCENE AND WE NEEDED MORE PRESSURE OR WE NEEDED MORE FLOW AT A SCENE, WE COULD CALL DOWN. THEY COULD MANUALLY ACTIVATE THOSE PUMPS. THOSE PUMPS ARE NOW SET WITH LIMITS. IN ORDER TO FULLY TRIGGER A FIRE PUMP AT THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT, WE HAVE TO DO WHAT'S CALLED FULLY DRESSING A HYDRANT. SO IF YOU CAN PICTURE A FIRE HYDRANT IN YOUR HEAD, IT HAS ONE BIG ORIFICE ON THE FRONT AND IT HAS TWO LITTLE ORIFICES ON EITHER SIDE. IN ORDER TO GET THE FULL CAPACITY OF FLOW OUT OF THOSE HYDRANTS, WE NEED TO FULLY DRESS. THAT MEANS A BIG FOUR INCH HOSE CONNECTED TO THE FRONT AND TWO, 2.5 CONNECTED TO THE SIDE, OF ANY OF THE WALL HYDRANTS IN YELLOW KNIFE THAT I'M AWARE OF, THERE'S EITHER ONE MAIN FOUR INCH OR MAYBE ONE MAIN WITH ONE, 2.5 THAT WAS INSTALLED PRIOR TO 2015 BEFORE WE HAD THE NEW WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN PLACE. IN ESSENCE, IF WE HAVE A WALL HYDRANT ON A BUILDING, IF WE HAVE A BETTER OPTION, WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH THE BETTER OPTION BECAUSE WE CAN'T CONFIRM NUMBER 1 THAT IT'S MAINTAINED, WHO'S MAINTAINING IT? WE KNOW THAT CITY HYDRANTS ARE MAINTAINED BY PUBLIC WORKS. WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE FROST FREE HYDRANTS BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THEY'RE DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING IS IN THE WALL HYDRANT. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO DAMAGE WHEN THE STRUCTURE OF ORIGIN IS INVOLVED. WE DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET THE PROPER FLOW RATE OUT OF IT BECAUSE OF THE DIAMETER OF THE SUPPLY LINE SUPPORTING IT AND WE DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED A HIGHER VOLUME BECAUSE THE FIRE PROPAGATES AND CONSUMES MORE AND GETS LARGER. IF WE NEED HIGHER VOLUME, WE DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET THAT VOLUME BECAUSE WE CAN'T TRIGGER THE FIRE PUMP BECAUSE IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO DO THAT. HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS ON THAT. THANK YOU. >> IT DID. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANOTHER QUESTION FOR ADMIN. IN THE MEMO UNDER THE SECTION ON OCCUPANCY, WE NOTE SOME OF THE REGULATORY CHALLENGES. IF YOU COULD EXPAND A BIT ON AND I KNOW YOU CAN'T GET INTO AGAIN, THE REGULATORY BUBBLES, BUT TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, WHAT OTHER POTENTIAL REGULATORY BARRIERS THEY MAY BE. IF WE MOVED FORWARD WITH THIS REQUEST, WHAT OTHER POTENTIAL REGULATORY BARRIERS COULD STILL EXIST FROM YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR FOR THE QUESTION. JUST TO POINT BACK TO IN ANY TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS THE STEP BETWEEN OCCUPANCY. IN THAT OCCUPANCY STEP THERE'S REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET, [00:55:02] IN ONE VIEW, I CAN SEE HOW SOMEONE MIGHT SEE THEM AS BARRIERS. IN OTHER PARLANCE, YOU'D BE LOOKING AT THEM AS LOOKING AT AUTHORIZATION STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'VE GOT ALL THE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN MET. I JUST ATTENUATE IT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IN THIS PARTICULAR SENSE, GIVEN THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AN UNUSUAL REQUEST, I WOULDN'T WANT TO AMPLIFY THE SITUATION TO SAY THAT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL BARRIERS TO THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE BEING CREATED OR MANUFACTURED, OR WE FIND OURSELVES IN. THERE ARE SOME STANDARD STEPS, AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR WHITE TO DESCRIBE THE STANDARD STEPS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AFTER THIS IS CONSIDERED BY COUNSEL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANOTHER CLARITY I'D LIKE TO PLAY OUT THERE IS THERE ARE ALWAYS MORE THAN ONE BUILDING PERMIT. IN THIS CASE, YOU START WITH THE DEMOLITION. AND THEN YOU PROBABLY GO TO INTERIOR ALTERATIONS. IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE PERMITS THAT ARE OPEN AND EFFECTIVELY BEING WORKED ON BY THE DEVELOPER. THAT'S JUST WITH THE CITY. THERE ARE ALSO PERMITS THAT ARE OPEN WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES WHO HAVE JURISDICTION. THOSE ALSO WOULD NEED TO BE BROUGHT TO THAT FINAL STAGE OF THE PERMIT AND THEN WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS WORK THAT STILL HAS YET TO OBTAIN PERMITS. THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT PIECES THAT ARE ALL MOVING TOWARDS THAT FINAL CLOSURE OF MULTIPLE PERMITS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. MR. PARKER, SAME QUESTIONS TO YOURSELF FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE. WHAT ARE THOSE AS THE CITY MANAGER SAID, THE STEPS RATHER THAN BARRIERS IN ORDER TO THAT MAY STILL EXIST EVEN IF WE PROCEEDED WITH THIS. >> RIGHT. I MIGHT GET. SORRY TO TALK TO THAT. I KNOW THAT THEY'RE PLANNING A FINAL BUILDING PERMIT INSPECTION WITH THE CITY INSPECTOR, AND THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, I BELIEVE WITHIN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. THEN THERE WILL BE SUBSEQUENT INSPECTIONS FROM WHOEVER ELSE HAS OPEN PERMITS, POSSIBLY PUBLIC WORKS, POSSIBLY ENVIRONMENT. SORRY, CAN YOU SPEAK TO ANY MORE OF THOSE? >> SURE. OUR NEXT STEPS WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY CLOSING OFF ALL THE PERMITS. I BELIEVE MECHANICAL IS ALREADY DONE. THERE'S ONE OR TWO ITEMS LEFT IN THE ELECTRICAL PORTION THAT'S REMAINING. AS FOR APPLYING FOR A NEW PERMIT OR FOR WORK THAT'S DONE AND NOT PERMANENT. I'M GUESSING THAT'S THE WALL HYDRANT, WHICH WE CAN APPLY FOR AS WELL. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY WORK THAT'S LEFT INSIDE THE BUILDING. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ONE QUESTION THAT'S BEEN STUCK IN MY HEAD, AND SO I GUESS I'LL START WITH ADMIN HERE, BUT I'LL PROBABLY FLIP IT OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE AS WELL AFTERWARDS. SOMETHING THAT'S COME UP FREQUENTLY FROM THE COMMENTS FROM MR. PARKER TODAY IS A DISCUSSION THAT WAS APPARENTLY HAD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF AND THE DEVELOPERS. IS THAT DOCUMENTED ANYWHERE THAT CONVERSATION, OR WAS THAT STRICTLY A CONVERSATION? ADMINISTRATION FIRST. >> THANK YOU. THE SLEUTHING CONTINUES, AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE DIRECTOR OF SLEUTHING, DIRECTOR WHITE. >> NEW TITLE. THANKS. WHEN IT COMES TO DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TAKES THE APPLICATIONS AND WE CIRCULATED INTERNALLY AS WELL AS EXTERNALLY. I'M SURE THE PUBLIC IS AWARE, WE'LL POST A NOTICE AND SAY, HEY, WE HAVE THIS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, ANY COMMENTS. WE DO THE SAME INTERNALLY TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS. PUBLIC WORKS, USUALLY, PUBLIC SAFETY AS WELL, AND IN THIS CASE, IT WAS THE DEPUTY AT THE TIME WHO PROVIDED A RESPONSE. AGAIN, ONLY WITHIN THE AUTHORITIES THAT ARE GRANTED UNDER THE ZONING BY LAW. THAT IS NOT ONLY RECORDED BY THE CITY BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE RESPONDED. IT'S PUT INTO OUR CITY VIEW SYSTEM. THERE ARE ALWAYS COMMENTS FROM EVERY DEPARTMENT INCLUDED IN THERE. THEN WHEN WE DO OUR PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT PRIOR TO MAKING A DECISION, IT WOULD BE INCLUDED ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S A CONDITION THAT IS THEN RELIED UPON ON THAT COMMENT. SO YES, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT AREAS WHERE IT'S DOCUMENTED. THANK YOU. >> PERFECT. THANK YOU. JUST FOR CLARITY, I WASN'T TRYING TO DO A GOT YOU THING THERE. IT'S MORE OF I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T NEGATE THE FACT THAT THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ARE THERE OR ANYTHING. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS CLEAR. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD THERE, MR. PARKER OR NOT. >> NO, I DON'T THINK SO. OTHER THAN PERHAPS SOME AMBIGUITY AROUND DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE OFM AROUND THEIR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION. I'M NOT SURE IF SURREY CAN SPEAK TO THAT OR IF THE CITY HAS DOCUMENTATION OF THAT. I BELIEVE THAT WAS MORE OF PROVIDING THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION, WHICH GOES INTO A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT HOSES AND WATER PRESSURE AND ALL THINGS TO THE OFM, AND THE OFM, [01:00:01] INDICATING IF THE CITY IS OKAY WITH IT, WE'RE OKAY WITH IT, AND THEN IN TURN THE CITY WASN'T OKAY WITH IT. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE OFN WOULD BE THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION. THAT'S A LOT IN THE WEEDS ON THIS THING. BUT I DO THINK IT LENDS TO SOME OF THE CONFUSION WITH WHAT THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS WERE, ESPECIALLY DURING THE ROUND OF FINANCING, WHICH LEADS US TO THIS PROBLEM. >> TOTALLY, AND THAT'S EXACTLY IT. AS YOU SAID, IT'S A BIT IN THE WEEDS AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO ANY FURTHER INTO THE WEEDS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BRINGING IT UP FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES THAT THERE'S CLARITY ON THAT. ANOTHER POINT THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER AND TODAY WAS AROUND TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT REQUESTS AND ATTEMPTS YOU HAVE UNDERTAKEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH REGULATORS, WHOMEVER THOSE REGULATORS MAY BE AROUND TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY, WHAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE, DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, NOT MADE? I GUESS I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN, WE'RE GETTING THIS SIGNIFICANT FUNDING REQUEST. WHAT OTHER OPTIONS HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED OR NOT ATTEMPTED BEFORE WE GET HERE TODAY? >> AS WE'VE EXPLAINED, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER FUNDING ISN'T POSSIBLE. THEY'RE AT THE OUTSIDE LIMIT OF EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN DO FOR THIS PROJECT. AS FAR AS THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION, THAT'S BEEN ONGOING FOR QUITE SOME TIME. IT'S BEEN BACK AND FORTH WITH THE CITY. THE CITY ULTIMATELY REJECTED IT. THE DEVELOPERS, CODE EXPERTS, FIRE EXPERTS SAY THIS IS A THING WE CAN DO. THERE HAD BEEN SOME PREVIOUS TRACTION, ON THIS ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION, BUT ONCE IT GOT INTO THE CITY'S REGULATORY MECHANISM, IT WAS DECIDED THAT THIS ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION WOULDN'T BE VIABLE. THAT BRINGS US TO, THIS FIRE VAULT IS GOING TO BE INSTALLED. FUNDING IT AS YOU'RE AWARE, IS A PROBLEM FOR THE DEVELOPER. THEN ALSO, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TIMELINES WOULD BE ON BUILDING THIS, WHICH PRESENTS THE SECOND STAGE OF THIS ISSUE, AND WE WOULD BE DEALING WITH THE INSPECTOR AND THE CITY TO SAY, WHAT TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE WITH CONDITIONS SO THAT THIS BUILDING CAN OPEN BECAUSE WE MAY BE LOOKING AT A NEXT SPRING TYPE OF THING FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION. WE DO KNOW INSTANCES WHERE IF A PARTICULAR PART OF A SYSTEM ISN'T WORKING, PERHAPS IT'S THE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM THAT A FIRE WATCH CAN BE INSTALLED. THERE ARE WAYS THAT BUILDINGS CAN OPEN WITHOUT MEETING ALL OF THEIR CONDITIONS ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE IT COVERED SO THAT PEOPLE ARE SAFE. SO WE'LL BE HAVING THAT DISCUSSION. I BELIEVE IT STARTS WITH THE INSPECTOR WHEN WE DO THE FINAL INSPECTION, AND THEN IT GOES INTO THE CITY. I THINK MS. WHITE OBVIOUSLY WILL KNOW FAR MORE ABOUT HOW THAT WORKS THAN I DO. BUT THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP TO TRY AND GET THIS BUILDING OPEN. >> PERFECT. THANK YOU. NEXT QUESTIONS I HAVE, AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD NORMALLY GET INTO, BUT CONSIDERING IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ASK FINANCIALLY FROM THE CITY, SOME QUESTIONS AROUND THE FINANCING AND LOANS OF BOREALIS. I GUESS FIRST QUESTION IS THIS, WHAT CMHC INSURANCE ARE YOU CURRENTLY ACCESSING AND WHAT PERCENTAGE OF EQUITY IS REQUIRED TO REMAIN IN THE PROPERTY AFTER THE LOAN? >> THANK YOU. SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? >> JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE CMHC INSURANCE PROGRAM THAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY ACCESSING, WHAT LEVEL OF EQUITY YOU ARE MEANT TO KEEP IN THE PROPERTY AFTERWARDS? >> I BELIEVE IT'S 10%. >> IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF EQUITY YOU'D ASSUME THAT WILL BE EXPECTED TO BE TAKEN OR DO YOU EXPECT THAT THERE'LL BE MORE EQUITY LEFT IN AFTER THE LOAN CLOSES? >> WE'RE EXPECTING A LITTLE BIT MORE TO REMAIN IN THE BUILDING. WE DON'T HAVE ANY INTENTIONS OF REMOVING ANY EQUITY FROM THE BUILDING. JUST BECAUSE HOW THE MODEL WORKS IS WE NEED THAT IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE A SUSTAINABLE PROJECT. >> HAVE YOU LOOKED FOR ANY OTHER INVESTORS IN THE PROJECT BEFORE COMING TO THE CITY ASKING FOR THIS INVESTMENT? [01:05:03] >> OTHER INVESTORS IN THIS PROJECT. WE STARTED THIS PROCESS ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO. AT THAT TIME, WE SHOPPED AROUND FOR A WHOLE BUNCH OF INVESTORS WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED AND NO ONE WAS REALLY INTERESTED. OTHER THAN WHAT THE YELLOWKNIFE TEAM IS, THERE IS A SECONDARY INVESTOR THAT IS INVESTED IN THIS BUILDING IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. >> THANK YOU. NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME RIGHT NOW. ANYTHING ELSE FOR MY COLLEAGUES? COUNCILLOR FEQUET. >> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY'S PATIENCE. WE TRY TO JUST MAKE SURE WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION FOR THIS DECISION. COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. FIRST FOR ADMIN. THANK YOU TO DIRECTOR MCLANE FOR THAT VERY FULSOME AND AWESOME EXPLANATION. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT WE WANT TO RISK PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT IT DOES ALSO SOUND LIKE THERE ARE SOME ALTERNATIVES TO GET US THROUGH IN THE MEANTIME IF NEEDED. MY FIRST QUESTION IS THE WALL HYDRANT THAT IT WAS CURRENTLY INSTALLED ON THE ROADWAY OF THE CURRENT NEST BUILDING. DOES IT ADDRESS ONE OR BOTH OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU MENTIONED? ONE WAS THE REDUCTION OF FLOW FROM THE MAIN AND THE SECOND BEING THE RISK OF INTERNAL INFRASTRUCTURE FAILING DUE TO THE WATER BEING CUT OFF. I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THAT EXISTING WALL HYDRANT THAT IS THERE RIGHT NOW ADDRESSES ONE OR BOTH OF THOSE CONCERNS. >> THAT FOR ME [INAUDIBLE] >> YEAH. MR. VAN DINE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DIRECTOR WHITE. >> I WILL PASS IT TO DIRECTOR MCLANE AFTER. JUST WANT TO IDENTIFY THAT ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP BY OUR REVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION IS THAT WHEN AND IF THAT WALL HYDRANT IS UTILIZED, THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PRESSURE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SPRINKLER WITHIN THE BUILDING WOULD ALSO BE AFFECTED. AT THIS TIME, I CANNOT SAY THAT IT DOES. I WILL ASK MR. MCLENNAN IF HE HAS ANY ADDITIONS. >> I GUESS MY ONLY COMMENT IS I WASN'T AWARE THERE WAS ONE EVEN INSTALLED THERE, AND THAT WOULD BE THE SUMMATION OF MY ANSWER. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILLOR FEQUET. >> I GUESS I'LL TOSS IT OVER TO BOREALIS. I GUESS JUST MAYBE A SIMPLE QUESTION. WHY DID BOREALIS PROCEED WITH FINANCING IN SEPTEMBER 2023 PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THEIR FINAL AND STAMP DRAWINGS IN DECEMBER OF 2023 TO UNDERGO THE CITY REVIEW AGAINST ITS CODE AT THAT TIME? >> GO AHEAD, MR. PARKER. >> MAYBE I'LL HAVE TO PASS THAT OVER TO SURREY. IS THAT ALL RIGHT? CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? THANK YOU. >> SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >> I'M ASKING TO MAKE SURE I HAVE THE TIMELINES RIGHT, BUT IT APPEARS FROM THE CHRONOLOGY AND EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED THAT FINANCING WAS SECURED IN SEPTEMBER 2023 OR THEREABOUTS. THE FINAL SUBMISSION WITH STAMP DRAWINGS AND EVERYTHING THAT IN INITIATED THE CITY'S FULSOME REVIEW AGAINST ITS CODE DIDN'T TAKE PLACE TIL LATER IN DECEMBER OF THAT SAME YEAR, 2023 OR THEREOF. A FEW MONTHS LATER, AND IT SEEMS LIKE BOREALIS HAD PROCEEDED WITH FINANCING BEFORE CARRYING OUT THAT STEP. I'M JUST CURIOUS. >> WE DID HIRE PROPER CODE CONSULTANTS, PROPER ENGINEERS TO GO THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING AND ACTUALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE MEETING ALL THE CODES THAT THE CITY HAD OR EVEN NBC 2020. WE HAD DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE ACTUALLY SUBMITTING THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. ALSO HAVING SAID THAT, WE ALSO DID APPROACH THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL AND ASKED THEM TO REVIEW IT. IN OUR VARIANCE REQUESTS, THE PREVIOUS CODE CONSULTANT FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL, HE AGREES WITH OUR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION SAYING THAT A FIRE HYDRANT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING AS WELL. >> THANKS FOR THAT. THE ENGINEERS WHEN THEY DID THEIR REVIEW OF THE CODE, THEY WOULD HAVE REVIEWED THE CITY'S BILLING BY-LAWS? >> THEY DID. >> THEY WOULD HAVE PRESUMABLY NOTICED THAT IN MAY 2022, [01:10:04] WALL HYDRANTS WERE REMOVED. >> THE WALL HYDRANT WAS NOT ACTUALLY ON OUR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, EITHER. WE JUST RECENTLY INSTALLED THE WALL HYDRANT AS A SECONDARY MEASURE. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE'RE COMPROMISING THE SAFETY OF ANY OF ITS OCCUPANTS OR THE PUBLIC. >> THE ENGINEERS DID REVIEW THE CITY'S BY-LAW THAT SAID WALL HYDRANTS WERE NO LONGER AN OPTION AND INFORMED BOREALIS OF THAT BEFORE YOU SUBMITTED YOUR DECEMBER 2023 PACKAGE? >> YES. >> CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE WALL HYDRANT THAT YOU GUYS INSTALLED? WHEN DID BOREALIS MAKE THAT DECISION TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT? >> I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE. I BELIEVE MAY OR JUNE THIS YEAR. >> YOU DID THAT KNOWING THAT THE CITY WAS NOT IN FAVOR AND WOULD NOT ACCEPT WALL HYDRANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2022 BUILDING BY-LAW? >> YES. IT WAS A SECONDARY MEASURE ON OUR PART. >> COUNCILLOR FEQUET. I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCILLOR MCGURK HAS A QUESTION OR A COMMENT. >> THIS IS WILD. THERE'S SO MUCH GOING ON HERE. I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR BEING PATIENT BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE TRYING TO FOCUS ON ONE ISSUE, BUT IT DOES NOT HAPPEN IN A VACUUM. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MAYBE THE DEVELOPERS CONSULTANTS COULD HAVE BEEN MORE DILIGENT IN THEIR REVIEW. IF THEY ARE EXPERTS THAT YOU HIRED, AND THAT IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A MUNICIPALITY TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OVER. THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE ON THAT. BUT WE ARE STILL NOW IN THIS POSITION WHERE OUR BY-LAWS, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT, ARE BLOCKING THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM OPENING, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE HERE. I KNOW THE QUESTION IS SUPPOSED TO JUST BE, SHOULD WE PAY FOR THIS? WE PUT THE 75% IN. BUT I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE DEVELOPER INSISTING THAT THEY HAD DONE WORK TO ENSURE THAT A VARIANCE THAT THEY WOULD PROPOSE TO THE CITY WOULD BE SUITABLE AND THEN THAT WE REJECTED IT. IT'S NOT QUITE CLEAR TO ME STILL WHY WE REJECTED IT. WHEN I LISTENED TO OUR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY DISCUSS THE REASONS WHY WE NEED OR WE AREN'T USING WALL HYDRANTS. IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS ARE THINGS THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED WITHIN A VARIANCE REQUEST. I'M NOT SURE IF WE PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEVELOPER TO ADDRESS EACH ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE REJECTED THEIR APPLICATION. I FEEL LIKE IT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT'S UP TO OUR STAFF AND I WANT TO TRUST OUR STAFF, AND I DO TRUST OUR STAFF TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS. BUT HERE WE ARE TRYING TO NOT BLOCK SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL, AND USEFUL TO OUR CITY. WE'RE GRASPING AT STRAWS JUST [LAUGHTER] TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THIS DECISION. I'M STRUGGLING TO ACCEPT THE IDEA OF CONTRIBUTING TO THIS PROJECT. TO THE FIRE HYDRANT QUESTION. IF THERE'S NO CLEAR REASON THAT WE HOLD A RESPONSIBILITY IN CAUSING THE PROBLEM TO GET TO WHERE IT HAS, IT SEEMS PRETTY EVIDENT TO ME AT THIS POINT THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY, [01:15:02] IT MOSTLY FALLS ON THE DEVELOPER, WHETHER YOU GOT GOOD ADVICE OR NOT IS THE QUESTION. BUT AGAIN, NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY. I FEEL LIKE UNLESS THERE'S SOME WAY TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE GETTING SOMETHING, THE CITY IS GETTING SOME RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT THAT WE ARE MAKING THAT IS NOT SIMPLY WE ARE DOING THIS SO THAT YOU CAN OPEN AND THAT'S GOOD FOR OUR CITY. OF COURSE, ALL DEVELOPMENTS ARE GOOD FOR OUR CITY. ANY NEW HOUSING IS GOOD FOR OUR MUNICIPALITY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN INCLUDE IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. SOME WAY, I DON'T THINK IT IS. I DON'T KNOW, TRYING TO PUT THIS BACK TO ADMINISTRATION TO FIND ANOTHER OPTION FOR A VARIANCE, WHICH CLEARLY THERE'S A REASON WHY WE DIDN'T APPROVE WHAT WAS ALREADY PRESENTED OR BROUGHT TO THE CITY. I THINK IT'S VERY HARD FOR ME TO SUPPORT THIS AND SET THE PRECEDENT WHEN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS HAVE TO BE IN A SIMILAR SITUATION AND THEN FORK UP THE CASH TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT SOMETHING WAS MISSED. THAT'S THE NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT, UNFORTUNATELY. [LAUGHTER] BUT IT SUCKS. IT REALLY SUCKS, AND I DON'T LIKE MAKING THAT DECISION. I DON'T LIKE MAKING THAT CALL BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BLOCK THIS FROM HAPPENING. BUT I'M STRUGGLING TO JUSTIFY IT. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MCGURK. >> COUNCILLOR FEQUET. >> THANKS CAT FOR JUMPING IN SO I CAN COLLECT MY THOUGHTS. FOR ME, I SIMPLY WANTED MORE INFORMATION TO CLARIFY IF THERE WAS A FAULT IN THE PROCESS OR IN THE INFORMATION, AND I BELIEVE I HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE MY DECISION ABOUT THAT. I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TO VOTE TONIGHT, AND I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE BOREALIS AND OUR WONDERFUL STAFF TO CONSIDER THE TEMPORARY MEASURES THAT MR. PARKER SPOKE ABOUT THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE IN THE INTERIM WHILE THE REQUIRED HYDRANT CONFIGURATION IS INSTALLED. THANKS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILLOR FEQUET. FOR ME, THIS HAS BEEN AN EXCRUCIATING ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIG OF A PROCESS. SINCE THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST ISSUES THAT CAME TO ME AFTER TAKING OVER AS MAYOR AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES OF WHAT'S IN OUR BUILDING BYLAW, WHAT CHANGED WHEN, WHEN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WERE PUT IN, WHEN BUILDING PERMITS HAPPENED, WHAT'S ON THE DOCKET? AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN I LOOK AT IT, THOUGH, AND WITH WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED HERE, I CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, PUT YELLOWKNIFER'S TAXPAYER MONEY TOWARDS THIS DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT OTHER DEVELOPERS HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO BRING PROJECTS FORWARD. THERE'S JUST TOO MANY UNCLOSED LOOPS AROUND DECISIONS, ADVICE, TIMELINES OF THE FACT ALL OF IT BRINGS BACK TO ME THE BY-LAW WAS THERE IN MAY 2022, AND EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED AFTER. ULTIMATELY THAT REQUIREMENT WAS THERE. WHETHER WE THINK IT'S FAIR, RIGHT, WALL HYDRANT NOT WALL HYDRANT, ULTIMATELY, THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE BY-LAW CURRENTLY. THAT WAS KNOWN RIGHT FROM THE START OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS. FOR ME, THAT'S WHERE I AM. I'D SAY FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM MY COLLEAGUES, THAT SEEMS TO BE THE MAJORITY OF OPINION. THAT'S THE END OF THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING, AND WE'LL BRING FORWARD A MOTION AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE THAT OFFICIAL THAT WE WILL NOT BE PROVIDING THIS FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THIS FIRE HYDRANT VOLT. OF COURSE, THAT COULD CHANGE THAT CAN POTENTIALLY BE VOTED DOWN, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE MY COLLEAGUES SIT. THANK YOU, MR. PARKER FOR COMING. [INAUDIBLE], THANK YOU FOR COMING. I KNOW IT'S A TRICKY DECISION. AS YOU SAID, MR. PARKER AT THE START, IT'S A LOSE LOSE IN MANY WAYS ALL AROUND. I APPRECIATE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS THOUGH IN TERMS OF TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT FOR OUR CITY AND IT'S REALLY GUT WRENCHING THAT IT'S SITTING HERE AT THIS MOMENT, BUT IT SEEMS WHERE ME AND MY COLLEAGUES ARE. THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. >> WITH THAT, WE'RE AT THE ONE HOUR AND 20 MINUTE MARK IN OUR MEETING, AND WE WOULD BE TAKING A BREAK AT THE ONE HOUR AND 30 MINUTE MARK. ARE MY COLLEAGUES GOOD TO TAKE A 10-MINUTE BREAK NOW? NO OBJECTIONS. I SEE HEAD NODDING. LET'S TAKE OUR 10-MINUTE BREAK NOW BEFORE WE START OUR NEXT ITEM. WE'LL BE BACK AT 1:35. [01:20:03] >> WE WILL CALL OUR MEETING BACK TO ORDER. NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM REGARDING MINUTES [5. A memorandum regarding Minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting of June 26, 2025.] OF THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 26, 2025, AND I'LL PASS IT OVER TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. THE HERITAGE COMMITTEE MET AND THE MINUTES LAY OUT THE MATTERS AT HAND THAT THEY HAD DISCUSSED AND PRESENTED, AND THIS IS BEING PRESENTED TO COUNSEL AS INFORMATION. >> DO MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE. WE WILL MOVE ON. NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMO REGARDING MINUTES OF [6. A memorandum regarding minutes of the Community Advisory Board on Homelessness meeting of July 24, 2025.] THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD ON HOMELESSNESS MEETING OF JULY 24TH, 2025, AND I'LL AGAIN PASS IT OVER TO THE CITY MANAGER. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ON THIS ONE. AGAIN, IT'S FOR INFORMATION. I WOULD JUST SIMPLY UNDERSCORE THAT THIS WAS AN ADDITIONAL MEETING THAT COUNSEL DECIDED TO HOST AT THIS TIME OF THE SEASON, AND IT WAS WELL ATTENDED, AND I BELIEVE THE MINUTES DESCRIBE THE MATTERS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT THAT TIME. >> THANK YOU AGAIN. ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES AROUND THAT? SEEING NONE, WE WILL GO ON TO ITEM SEVEN OF THE AGENDA, [7. A memorandum regarding whether to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to enter into a five (5) year contract with Dragon Toner for the services of Integrity Commissioner for the City of Yellowknife.] A MEMO REGARDING WHETHER TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR, CITY MANAGER, TO ENTER INTO A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT WITH DRAGON TONER FOR THE SERVICES OF INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE AND OVER TO THE CITY MANAGER. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST UNDERSCORE IN ADDITION TO WHAT IS PLACED IN THE MEMO TODAY IS THAT WE DID GO THROUGH A PUBLIC PROCESS, COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR BIDS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SERVICE. THIS WAS THE SELECTED BID THAT CAME IN. IT'S ALSO THE ONLY BID THAT CAME IN, AND WITH THAT, I'M VERY HAPPY TO REPORT THAT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT WE'VE RECEIVED IN THE PAST FROM THIS PROVIDER HAS BEEN VERY CONSISTENT AND RELIABLE, AND WE'RE PLEASED TO RECOMMEND THEM AGAIN WITH THE CONDITIONS AND THE PROVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE MEMO FOR YOUR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MY COLLEAGUES? SEEING NONE. THEN WE WILL BRING THIS FORWARD THIS EVENING FOR APPROVAL. NEXT WE HAVE, AND THIS IS WHERE WE DID THE SWITCH AT THE START OF THE MEETING. [9. A memorandum regarding whether to amend Zoning By-law No. 5045, as amended, to rezone the lands from PR and NP to RI-1 and NP, legally described as: i. a portion of Lot 13 Block 81 Plan 4623, a portion of Lot 15 Block 78 Plan 4059, and a portion of Road (School Draw Avenue); and ii. a portion of Block 77A Plan 512, a portion of Lot 2 Block 201 Plan 2396, a Portion of Road (School Draw Avenue) and a portion of Road (Lundquist Road).] NEXT, WE HAVE A MEMO REGARDING WHETHER TO AMEND ZONING BYLAW NUMBER 5045 AS AMENDED TO REZONE THE LANDS FROM PR AND NP TO RI1 AND NP LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS AS IT IS IN THE AGENDA, I'M NOT GOING TO HURT EVERYBODY BY GOING THROUGH THAT. MR. CITY MANAGER, OVER TO YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE QUITE A BIT OF PREPARATION FOR THIS MEMO TODAY, AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR WHITE AND ALSO TO HER MANAGER TO WALK US THROUGH THE ESSENCE OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED THROUGH THIS REZONING. >> OVER TO YOU. >> GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. AS ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN MOVING FORWARD WITH OUR INTENSIFICATION FIRST AND TRYING TO BRING NEW LAND THAT IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE MUNICIPALITY TO MARKET FOR HOUSING. THE PRESENTATION TODAY THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE BY MUHAMMAD, OUR MANAGER OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS INTENSIFICATION FIRST AND HOUSING AND A NUMBER OF OTHER LARGE PROJECTS IS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU AS A PROPOSAL ALONG SCHOOL DRAW AND THE CORNER OF LAND QUIST. IT IS THE SECOND PROJECT THAT WE'VE BROUGHT TO GPC AND COUNSEL THIS YEAR FOR INTENSIFICATION. THE FIRST WILL BE THE GITZEL, IF YOU REMEMBER. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AND PROPOSING FOR IS A REZONING APPLICATION THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE LAND THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT AS HOUSING, AS WELL AS INCREASING THE TOTAL AREA OF THE NATURE PRESERVE WITHIN ITS ADJACENT LANDS TO THE PROPOSED HOUSING. SUPPORTING THE MEMO TODAY IS A PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT, AS WELL AS A TRAFFIC STUDY AND SUPPORTING GEOTECHNICAL. WHEN WE HAD CONVERSATIONS A WHILE AGO ABOUT THIS PARCEL, SOME PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA SAID, YOU SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT THE THE LAND IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY WERE OF THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT COULDN'T. THIS IS NOW BEING SUPPORTED BY SUCH A STUDY. THROUGH THIS PROJECT, COUNSEL AND ADMINISTRATION HAS HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC BOTH FOR AND AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW TO IDENTIFY THAT IN ADDITION TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS FOR THIS LAND WITH MULTIPLE INDIGENOUS GOVERNMENTS. AS THE CITY'S POPULATION IS 25% INDIGENOUS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO AND COUNSEL HEARD LAST WEEK ABOUT PARTNERSHIPS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND YOU WERE ENCOURAGED TO UNDERTAKE SOME MORE. WE'VE BEEN HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, AND THEY ARE LOOKING TO DEVELOP THE PARCELS NOT JUST FOR MARKET HOUSING, BUT NON MARKET HOUSING, AS WELL AS DEMONSTRATING PROTECTION AND CELEBRATION OF CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP. THE PROPOSAL, IF IT MOVES FORWARD TO STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, [01:25:04] WE HAVE INVITED AND THEY HAVE AGREED TO COME FORWARD AND PRESENT THEIR IDEAS FOR THESE SPACES. IF THAT COMES FORWARD, I THINK WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT DATES THAT WOULD BE. JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUT THE CONVERSATION AND I KNOW SOME MEMBERS OF COUNSEL AREN'T HERE, BUT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER AFTERWARDS. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MUHAMMAD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> REMINDER, MIKE. >> THANK YOU, MS. WHITE. GOOD AFTERNOON THROUGH MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS IMPORTANT ZONING APPLICATION. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS FIRST BRIEFLY ABOUT THE TRAJECTORY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. WE'LL DISCUSS ABOUT THE ZONING CHANGE THAT IS FOR THIS APPLICATION. WE'LL ALSO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS. WE'LL ALSO TALK ABOUT THE OUTPUT OF OUR TECHNICAL REPORTS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ALSO TOUCH ON SOME OF THE BENEFITS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE NEXT STEPS. AS MS. WHITE ALREADY MENTIONED, IF YOU REMEMBER IN BACK IN FEBRUARY 2023, COUNSEL HAS DIRECTION TO DO SOME INITIATIVE FOR MORE INFIELD DEVELOPMENTS TO INCREASE OUR HOUSING SUPPLY. IN THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THESE ARE SOME OF THOSE LANDS THAT HAS BEEN DIRECTED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THE FIRST ONE, IF YOU CAN REMEMBER WE ALREADY APPLIED FOR ON APRIL 2025, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR SUBDIVISION THROUGH OUR TUTORIAL GOVERNMENT, AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD FOR DISPOSAL OF THIS LANDS. THE SECOND ONE IS TODAY'S LANDS THAT WE PROPOSE FOR ZONING CHANGE ON SCHOOL DRAW. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE SEQUENCE, WE HAVE THE NEXT ONE WILL COME AS BURWASH DRIVE LANDS, WHICH ARE ALSO AVAILABLE AND WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INTENSIFICATION, FOLLOWED BY SOME EXTENSION OF NEVEN AREA AND LASTLY THE TAYLOR ROAD LARGE SITE. FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE ULTIMATE INTENT TO DEVELOP TWO SUBDIVISION. ONE IS AT THE WESTERN SIDE OF SCHOOL DRAW, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE SLIDE, AND THE OTHER ONE IS TO THE EASTERN SIDE. THE WESTERN BLOCK IS PROPOSED FOR 10-30 MULTI UNIT HOUSING FIVE MULTI UNIT LOTS. THERE WILL BE TWO TOWNHOUSE BLOCK PROPOSED AND ONE FEATURE CONNECTION TO THE WESTERN SIDE. IN THE EASTERN BLOCK, THERE ARE TWO MAJOR PART OF IT. ONE IS THE PROPOSED AREA FOR FUTURE HOUSING FOR 10-15 UNITS. THESE ARE BASICALLY SMALLER SCALE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN THAT AREA, AND THE REST OF THE PART IS PROPOSED AS NATURE PRESERVATION BLOCK. THROUGH MR. CHAIR, I WOULD REQUEST TO PUT AN ATTENTION ON THIS SLIDE AND TO THE NEXT ONE. THIS WILL ACTUALLY EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE DOING IN DETAIL. THIS ONE IS THE WESTERN BLOCK. THE FIRST SLIDE SHOWS WHAT IS THE CURRENT ZONING, WHICH IS PARK AND RECREATION. IN THE PARK AND RECREATION GEO ZONE, THE PERMITTED USES INCLUDE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES. IT ALSO PERMITS, WHICH IS DISCRETIONARY, BUT IT ALSO PERMITS, COMMERCIAL RETAIL FACILITIES AS WELL AS MARINA FACILITIES BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE FROM THE WATER BODY. THE OTHER THE PROPOSAL ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION 1, WHICH IS, WE CALL IT A MODERATE INTENSIFICATION. IT'S NOT A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED. IN THE RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION ZONE, THE ZONING BY ALLOWS FOR DUPLEX, FOUR PLEX, SIX PLEX, AND OTHER MULTI UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. NOW, IF WE GO BACK, IF WE GO TO THE EASTERN SIDE, THE IMAGE AT THE LEFT SIDE SHOWS WHAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED. THE LIGHTER GREEN IS PARK AND RECREATION AROUND 1.3 HECTOR AREA, AND THE DARK GREEN AREA PROPOSED AT THE LEFT SIDE IMAGE, [01:30:01] NATURE PRESERVATION AREA, WHICH IS 1.4 HECTOR. WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS TO INCREASING THE NATURE PRESERVATION AREA. WHAT DOES MEAN IS IT IS ENCROACHING ON THE PARK AND RECREATION. THE TOTAL INCREASED AREA WOULD BE 1.7 HECTOR, AND THE REST OF THE PART IS THE REDUCED PART OF THE PARK AND RECURSION AREA, WHICH IS 0.7 HECTOR, AND NOW WE ARE PROPOSING IT CHANGING TO RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION 1. BECAUSE THE NATURE PRESUMPTION AREA IS IN PROXIMITY TO THE NEWLY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING SOME DEVELOPMENT CONTROL TO MITIGATE ANY IMPACT. FEW OF THEM INCLUDES AS I MENTIONED, THAT THE NATURE PRESUMPTION WILL BE INCREASED AND THEN THERE WILL BE A 10 METER BUFFER FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AREA TO THE NATURE PRESERVATION AREA. THERE IS AN EXISTING STORMWATER AS NATURAL BARRIER BETWEEN THESE TWO LAND USES. WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSING THAT WILL ACTUALLY REPLACE THE CURRENT, I WOULD SAY, INFORMAL PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO THE SOUTH TO ROTARY PARK. BECAUSE THE NATURE PRESERVATION AREA IS INCREASED, IF YOU CAN SEE IN THE SLIDE IN THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THE BOARDWALK INDICATED THROUGH A DASHED, ORANGE LINE, THAT WILL BE NOW WITHIN THE NATURE PRESERVATION AREA. PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS WITHIN THE PARK AND RECREATION, BUT BECAUSE WE ARE INCREASING THE NATURE PRESUMPTION AREA, NOW THE BOARDWALK WILL BE COMPLETELY PRESERVED THROUGH THIS ZONING CHANGE. THERE WILL BE THE RECENT SHOP OF MOST OF THE AREA OF FULL OF FLATS THROUGH THIS NATURE PRESERVATION ION AREA. THAT MEANS WE WILL BE ABLE TO NOW SECURE THIS AREA AS A PROTECTED AREA IN FUTURE. WE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF TECHNICAL COMMENTS. FEW OF THEM INCLUDES DRAINAGE THAT IS INSIDE THE DEVELOPAL AREA, WHICH WILL BE RETAINED, AND THAT WILL BE WITHIN THE BUFFAL AREA. MUNICIPAL SERVICE HAS TO BE CONNECTED WITH THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. IF THERE IS ANY HYDRANT REQUIRES, WILL ALSO INCLUDE THAT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. THERE IS A NAKA POWER INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE EASTERN BLOCK WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED AND THAT WILL BE ALSO RETAINED THROUGH AN EASEMENT. AS MS. WHITE ALREADY MENTIONED, THAT WE WENT THROUGH A NUMBER OF REPORTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE RESULT FROM TRAFFIC REPORT DID NOT WARRANT ANY UPDATE FOR OUR EXISTING ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT ALSO PROPOSED AND RECOMMEND THE SIDEWALK, AS I JUST MENTIONED AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SO THAT THE FUTURE RESIDENTS CAN EASILY AND SAFELY USE THE OPEN SPACE. IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT, IT JUST FOUND THAT THIS LAND IS SUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT WITH APPROPRIATE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, INCLUDING ENGINEERING PEEL, FILL AND PILE FOUNDATION OR ON-SLAB WHICH IS QUITE COMMON AND NO PERFORMER FROST EXPECTED ON THIS SITE. TROUGH MR. CHAIR, AS MS. WHITE ALREADY MENTIONED, WE HAD ENORMOUS RESPONSE FROM PUBLIC REGARDING THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH INCLUDES BOTH THE SUPPORT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR MORE HOUSING UNITS AS WELL AS THERE WERE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE LOSS OF PROTECTED GREEN AREA. THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT ECOLOGICAL AND BIODIVERSITY IMPACT, FLOOD RISK AND UNSUITABILITY THROUGH THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND THE WAY ACTUALLY WE ARE CHANGING THE ZONE. WE ACTUALLY RESPONDED ABOUT THOSE CONCERNS AND CONFIRMED THAT THE NATURE PRESERVATION AREA THAT IS ALREADY EXISTING, WHICH WILL BE ENHANCED AND INCREASED, ONLY THE PARKS AND DEPLETION AREA WHERE THE LAND IS ALREADY DISTURBED THROUGH EXISTING SKATEBOARD FACILITY AND IRREGULAR PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITIES IS THE ONLY AREA WHERE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED. BECAUSE OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN A SMALL SCALE, IT WILL ALSO THROUGH THAT DEVELOPMENT, IT WILL ALSO ENHANCE THE ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT, AND OBVIOUSLY NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL PROVIDE SOME GOOD WATERFRONT VIEW FROM THE WATERSIDE AS WELL. [01:35:03] ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SIDE, AS WE ALREADY SHOWED IN THE FIRST FEW SLIDES, THAT WE ALREADY HAD A GOOD REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREAS OR DEVELOPABLE AREAS WITHIN THE CITY AND IDENTIFIED ONLY FEW LOCATIONS, WHICH ARE THE STAFF BELIEVE THAT MORE EFFICIENT AND EASILY SERVICEABLE. WE CAN CONFIRM THAT THERE ARE ONLY FEW LANDS AVAILABLE OF SUCH PROVISIONS, AND THESE ARE THE ONLY SELECTED LAND THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW FOR INFIELD DEVELOPMENTS. I'LL JUST TOUCH ON SOME OF THE POLICIES THAT WE ARE EMBRACING, INCLUDING THE INTENSIFICATION POLICY. AS YOU ALREADY KNOW, THAT WE ARE TRYING OUR BEST TO HAVE MORE IN DEVELOPMENTS THROUGH OUR INTENSIFICATION JUST BECAUSE IT CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH MORE EFFICIENT WAY USING OUR EXISTING SERVICES. JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON THAT PART AS WELL THAT IS JUST ONE PART OF THE SOLUTION OF OUR HOUSING SITUATION. THE OTHER PART IS IDENTIFYING LAND EXPANSIONS IN OUR OTHER AREAS THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WILL WILL BE COMING THROUGH OUR ONGOING COMMUNITIVE LAND UPDATE. OBVIOUSLY, THROUGH THE INTENSIFICATION, WE'RE LOOKING AT MORE HOUSING OPTIONS, REVITALIZATION OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. I ALREADY MENTIONED ABOUT OPTIMIZATION OF LANDS, AND ALSO IT WILL HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE CONTRIBUTION TO OUR EXISTING TRANSPORT NETWORK. INTENSIFICATION HAD OTHER BENEFITS, INCLUDING JOB CREATION AND LOW CARBON FOOTPRINT DEVELOPMENT. WE'VE ALREADY MENTIONED IN A PREVIOUS PROJECT THAT WE HAVE INCENTIVES AVAILABLE. THIS PROJECT WILL ALSO HAVE THESE OPTIONS TO GET BENEFIT BY OUR FUTURE RESIDENTS AND DEVELOPERS. WE CAN DISCUSS ABOUT THAT IN DETAILS. WE'RE INTERESTED. I WOULD REQUEST TO CONTACT US TO GET MORE DETAILS ON THIS. >> AS YOU MAY ALREADY BE AWARE THAT THE CMHC DESIGN CATALOG HAS ALREADY PUBLISHED IN THE CMSC WEBSITE. THEY'RE GOING TO LAUNCH THIS PRE APPROVED DESIGN SHORTLY AND THAT CAN BE USED FOR THESE LOTS AS WELL. THESE LOTS ARE DESIGNED IN A TAILORED WAY SO THAT THESE DESIGNS CAN BE FIT INTO THESE LOTS. THE BENEFIT OF THAT IS STREAMLINING THE PROCESS, REDUCING THE REVIEW TIME, AND ALSO THE DEVELOPERS OR RESIDENTS WILL GET BENEFIT FROM GETTING REDUCTION OF UPFRONT COST LIKE CONSULTANCY FEE AND OTHER TECHNICAL DRAWINGS. OUR NEXT STEP IS IF THIS PROPOSAL IS DIRECTED FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING, THEN WE'LL SET UP A PUBLIC HEARING MEETING AND THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE SECOND AND THIRD READINGS IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO APPROVE THAT. ONCE IT IS APPROVED, IF IT IS APPROVED, THEN WE'LL APPLY IT FOR SUBDIVISION TO GWT, AND IF IT IS APPROVED, THEN THE SUBDIVISION WILL BE REGISTERED AND WILL BE DISPOSED TO THE MARKET. THAT'S ALL FOR THIS PRESENTATION AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION AND TO MY COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILLOR FOOTE, STARTING WITH HIM THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION FOR YOU IS, HOW MANY UNITS DO YOU THINK WE CAN EXPECT ON JUST THAT R1 ZONING IF IT WERE TO GO FORWARD TODAY? SORRY EASTERN BLOCK. EASTERN BLOCK. >> GO AHEAD. >> THROUGH, MR. CHAIR. THE EASTERN BLOCK IS A SMALL AREA. MOST OF THE PART IS NATURE PRESERVATION. WE ARE ANTICIPATING IT WILL BE 10-15 UNITS. BECAUSE I ALREADY MENTIONED THERE IS A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT HAS SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. WE ARE NOT EXPECTING HIGHER STORIES. POTENTIALLY IT WILL BE ONE STORY, IT CAN BE TWO STORY, BUT POTENTIALLY, IT CAN BE ONE STORY, VERY LOW DENSITY, 10-15 UNITS IN THAT AREA. >> ONE SECOND, DIRECTOR WHITE WAS FLAGGING ME DOWN, SO I'LL LET HER JUMP IN AS WELL. >> SORRY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WAS PART OF OUR ANALYSIS PRIOR TO SOME OF THESE PARTNERSHIPS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH. WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT IS IF THEY CAN PUT TOWN HOMES IN THIS AREA. [01:40:04] I KNOW WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DUPLEXES, SO IT MAY ACTUALLY BE MORE THAN THAT. THEY WANT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THEIR DESIGNS IF THIS GOES TO A PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. >> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT, CLARITY. LOOKING AT THE GIS MAPPING, WE CURRENTLY DON'T OWN THAT WHOLE AREA JUST YET, DO WE? WE STILL ARE WAITING FOR THAT APPLICATION OF THE GNWT BEFORE WE CAN PROCEED. >> MR. VAN DINE? >> YES. >> WHAT'S THE TIMELINE GENERALLY LIKE THAT ON CONTENTIOUS LAND THAT HAS Y KDFN IMPLICATIONS AND STUFF. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WE WOULDN'T DESCRIBE IT AS CONTENTIOUS. I THINK THERE'S CERTAINLY THE REZONING PROPOSAL HAS A HIGH LEVEL OF PUBLIC INTEREST, AND WE CERTAINLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND RECOGNIZE THAT. BUT IN TERMS OF THE REQUEST TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AS A LAND APPLICATION, WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING IT BEING A COMPLICATED REQUEST. >> ALL RIGHT. LAST QUESTION. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONTINGENCIES IF THEY DO DENY THE REQUEST FOR LAND? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> SO THIS IS A GENERAL QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN OF HIGH CONCERN TO COUNSEL FOR QUITE SOME TIME, ACCESS TO AVAILABLE LAND FOR HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. AS MR. LAM HAS LAID OUT, THIS INTENSIFICATION PROGRAM HAS BEEN IN TRAIN FOR A LITTLE WHILE NOW. WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OTHER PROPERTIES THAT WE WILL BE THEN GOING TO SEEK A SIMILAR LEVEL OF REZONING AND APPROVAL FROM COUNSEL AS HAS BEEN LAID OUT IN THE PRESENTATION. >> WE BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC PROCESS, THAT AS REQUIRING COUNSEL CONSIDERATION, WILL AIR ALL OF THE RELEVANT PIECES OF INFORMATION FOR COUNSEL TO TAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS THAT WILL BE SET SOON WITH RESPECT TO THIS MATTER IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT COUNSEL HAS ALL THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION BEFORE IT TAKES ANY DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REZONING APPLICATION. >> THANKS. NOTHING ELSE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER COLLEAGUES, COUNCILLOR FEQUET. >> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. THANKS MANU FOR THE PRESENTATION. MAYBE A PROCESS QUESTION FIRST, RELATED TO THE COUNCIL PROCEDURES BY LAW IN RELATION TO ADVERTISING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FORMER CAPITAL UPDATE NEWSLETTER AND OUR WEBSITE, WHICH IS WHAT'S CURRENTLY MENTIONED, AND OBVIOUSLY, OUR WEBSITE IS NOT EASY TO NAVIGATE, WHICH IS WHY IT'S LOVELY THAT IT'S GETTING AN OVERHAUL. WHAT ARE THE OTHER AVENUES THAT THE CITY PLANS TO NOW ADVERTISE HEARINGS THROUGH? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR WHITE, JUST TO GIVE US THE FULL LIST OF ACTIVITIES THAT WE WILL WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS FULLY AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHEN WE'RE DOING IT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SHOULD THIS MOVE FORWARD TO A SECOND READING AND THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING. THE FIRST THING WE DO IS WE WILL BE POSTING ON SITE SO THAT IT'LL BE CLEAR TO ANYBODY IN AND AROUND THE AREA, AS WELL ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN AN IDENTIFIED AREA. I THINK THIS ONE WE DID 60 METERS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE CAPTURED AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. THEN WHAT WE'VE TAKEN TO DOING WITH A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS, SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WE HAD NIVN. WHERE WE HAD A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE ACTUALLY RESPOND TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO IS ON THAT LIST AND SAY, HERE IS THE DATE AND THE NOTICE OF THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING. I'M ALSO SURE THAT SOME OF THE MEDIA MAY BE HEARING THIS. IF WE DO DECIDE THIS EVENING THAT THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING DATE, THEN THAT DATE MIGHT BE CAUGHT BY THE MEDIA TO ALSO MAYBE REACH A BROADER COMMUNITY THERE. BUT WE ALSO WILL BE INCLUDING IT IN THE AGENDAS AS WELL AS OTHER NOTICES THAT COME OUT FROM THE CITY. THERE'S PROBABLY SIX OR SEVEN DIFFERENT WAYS THAT PEOPLE PHYSICALLY OR ELECTRONICALLY OR THROUGH THE MEDIA WILL HEAR ABOUT THIS. THANK YOU. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. BACK WHEN WE FIRST LOOKED AT THESE PARCELS THAT WERE UP ON ONE OF THOSE FIRST SLIDES, THOSE FIVE INFILL POTENTIALS. WE HAD AN ESTIMATE AT THAT TIME THAT THERE WAS ABOUT 150 DWELLINGS UNDERWAY OR IN THE QUEUE, AND WE NEEDED ABOUT 350 JUST TO CATCH UP TO OUR CURRENT HOUSING STOCK. WE NEEDED TO REALLY CATCH UP TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE WAS HOUSED. JUST WONDERING IF WE HAVE A CURRENT DAY ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY UNITS ARE UNDERWAY NOW AND HOW MANY HAVE COME ONLINE SINCE THAT JANUARY 2023 DISCUSSION, [01:45:04] AND WHAT THAT GAP BETWEEN OUR CURRENT DAY AND OUR EXPECTED NEED IS. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> THANK YOU. I INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE TO RESPOND TO THAT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I DO HAVE SOME NUMBERS HERE, BUT WHAT I WANT TO QUANTIFY IT WITH IS TWO THINGS. ONE, THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY OVER OWNERSHIP. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMETHING COMING ONLINE AS A RENTAL VERSUS SOMEBODY SELLING IT VERSUS A CONDO VERSUS A COOP. WHILE WE MAY BRING THE NUMBER THAT I'M SAYING HERE TO FINAL, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ALL HIT THE MARKET, IT'S BECAUSE SOMEBODY COULD ALSO TURN THAT INTO SAY A HOTEL. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS IN 2023, WE HAD 91 MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS. WE HAD 12 SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS AND ONE SECONDARY DWELLING. SAME WITH THE SECONDARY DWELLINGS, SOMETIMES WE FIND THAT THEY'RE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS, SO THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY IMPACTING THE MARKET DIRECTLY. 2024, 250 MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS CAME ONLINE, 15 SINGLE DETACHED, SIX SECONDARY. 2025, THIS IS JUST AN ESTIMATE BASED ON INFORMATION I WAS ABLE TO QUICKLY PULL, SO DO NOT HOLD ME TO THIS; 96 MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS, POTENTIALLY 10 SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS, 15 SECONDARY DWELLINGS. HOWEVER, JUST RECENTLY IN THE LAST WEEK, I'VE SEEN AT SIX OR SEVEN MORE. PEOPLE ARE A, HEARING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, AND SO WE ARE STARTING TO SEE AN UPTICK BECAUSE IF THEY'RE STARTING NOW, THAT MEANS THEY'RE LOOKING TO PLAN FOR NEXT YEAR. IT MAY NOT BE THIS YEAR'S NUMBERS, IT MIGHT BE NEXT YEAR'S, BUT EITHER WAY, IT'S DEFINITELY A POSITIVE STRIKE FROM 2023 WHERE WE WERE AT ONE SECONDARY DWELLING. SO SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. SOUNDS LIKE THINGS ARE WORKING AS THEY WERE INTENDED, SO THAT'S LOVELY AS WELL. I WAS JUST HOPING YOU COULD ELABORATE AND/OR REFRESH OUR MEMORY. THOSE FIVE PARCELS THAT WERE PUT UP ON THE PRESENTATION THAT WE JUST RECEIVED, THEY ACTUALLY WERE SEQUENCED NUMBERS 1-5 THIS TIME AROUND. I KNOW A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO THEY WEREN'T AT THAT TIME. OBVIOUSLY, YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THEM, THOUGHT ABOUT OUR BEST BANG FOR OUR BUCK. I'M HOPING YOU CAN JUST ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON HELPING US UNDERSTAND THAT ORDER OF THOSE FIVE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, YOU'VE PROBABLY RUN INTO SOME BARRIERS ON SOME OF THEM AND JUST TRYING TO IN AN EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHY THEY'RE SEQUENCED LIKE THERE. >> MR. VAN DINE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THERE ISN'T NECESSARILY A RATIONALE THAT PICKS ONE OVER THE OTHER OTHER THAN WE NEED TO GET THROUGH THE FIVE IN SORT OF A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME. I'LL INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE TO ELABORATE ON WHY THIS PARTICULAR ORDER. HOWEVER, I JUST WOULD LIKE COUNCIL AND PERHAPS THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO BE AWARE THAT WE'RE NOT IN THE GAME OF PICKING FAVORITES, OR WE ARE DEALING WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE HAVE, AND WE ARE PROCEEDING THROUGH THE WORK PLAN AS WE CAN, BUT OVER TO DIRECTOR WHITE FOR MORE GRANULARITY. >> THANK YOU. IT CAN BE HEAD SCRATCHING TO BE LIKE, WELL, IT WAS ORIGINALLY IN THIS ORDER, AND NOW IT'S IN THIS ORDER. AS WE WORK THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS, DIFFERENT ITEMS COME UP. DO WE NEED TO OBTAIN LAND? WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF US OBTAINING LAND? DOES IT NEED A COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT? DOES IT NEED A ZONING BY LAW? DOES IT NEED AN AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN? DOES IT NEED A SUBDIVISION? DOES IT NEED ZONING, ALL OF THESE PIECES COMING TOGETHER? REALLY, WHAT IS NOW FLOATING, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY TO THE TOP ARE THE ONES THAT REALLY HAVE THE LEAST BARRIERS, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. HONESTLY, THE REASON GITZEL MADE IT TO THE VERY TOP AND WAS NEVER EVEN ON THE LIST WAS BECAUSE WE KNEW IT WAS COMING, BUT WE WEREN'T SURE IF WE WERE GOING TO GET THAT OWNERSHIP. WHEN WE DID, IT JUST LINED UP APPROPRIATELY WITH WHAT WE WERE DOING. ALL OF THESE PIECES ARE MOVING. THEY'RE JUST MOVING AT DIFFERENT RATES BASED ON WHAT THEY ACTUALLY NEED TO HAVE IN ORDER TO GET IN FRONT OF COUNCIL FOR A DECISION. THERE'S NO RHYME OR REASON. IT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENS AND WHEN IT HAPPENS. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. THANKS FOR THAT. I HAVE A QUESTION JUST ABOUT, I GUESS I HESITATE TO CALL IT THE EASTERN BLOCK, SINCE WE DON'T LOVE RUSSIA THESE DAYS AS MUCH. BUT THE EASTERN BLOCK, YEAH, JUST INTERESTED IN THAT ONE PARTICULARLY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE CITY, OF COURSE, HAS A WATER LICENSE THAT IT OPERATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH. [01:50:01] ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN ITS WATER LICENSE IS IT HAS TO HAVE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. LOOKING AT THAT PLAN, PAGE 44 TELLS ME THAT THERE'S A SITE B LOCATED AT LUNQIS DRIVE, AND THAT RECEIVES JUST OVER A THIRD OF ALL THE DOWNTOWN AND NEARBY RESIDENTIAL DRAINAGE. IS THAT STILL TRUE TODAY, RECOGNIZING THAT PLAN AS A COUPLE OF YEARS OLD? >> MR. VAN DINE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR WHITE TO ANSWER THE SPECIFICS OF THAT ONE, BUT I'LL JUST POINT OUT IN MR. ALAM'S PRESENTATION THAT WE ARE ENHANCING THE NATURE PROTECTED AREA THROUGH THIS PROPOSAL AND WE'RE ADDING THE BUFFER, AND WE'VE ADDED A LITTLE MORE PRECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE PORTION ALONG SCHOOL DRAW, THAT WOULD BE LOOKED AS THE DEVELOPABLE PORTION OF THIS PROPOSAL. SO THE VISUALS, I THINK ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR ON THE NATURE OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT IN THIS AREA WITH THIS PROPOSAL THAN I THINK THE ORIGINAL INFORMATION THAT MIGHT HAVE GONE OUT INTO THE PUBLIC. WITH THAT, I'LL UNDERSCORE THAT THE GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN REFERENCED IN THE STUDY, I THINK POINT TO SOME OF THE DRAINAGE QUESTIONS THAT THAT WERE INDICATED IN THE LICENSE, BUT I'LL INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE TO GIVE YOU MORE SPECIFICS. >> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY IS PROPOSING, WE WILL ENSURE MEETS OUR WATER LICENSE REQUIREMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS. ONE OF THE REASONS TO ACTUALLY MAKE THESE ADJUSTMENTS WAS BECAUSE IT WAS IDENTIFIED INTERNALLY THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE MOVING OR ALTERING ANY OF THAT WATERWAY. WE'VE MADE THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THAT, PLUS IT WAS THE MANAGER WHO SAID, AND WE SHOULD ALSO BE PUTTING A BUFFER IN. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WILL BE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEVELOPER. THEY ARE AWARE OF THAT, AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY WORKING TO SEE WHAT KIND OF DESIGN THEY CAN HAVE THAT WILL ACCENTUATE WHAT IS ALREADY THERE. THEY'RE AWARE IT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AND WE'VE IDENTIFIED IT AS WELL AS PART OF THE REZONING, WHICH IS WHY WE MOVED SOME OF THOSE LINES FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CITY DOESN'T INTEND TO PURSUE ANY WATER TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR ANY OF IT STORMWATER EVER. THAT'S PRETTY COST PROHIBITIVE AND OTHER REASONS. WE HAVE THESE KEY AREAS AROUND THE CITY, THIS BEING ONE OF THEM. THAT IN ITS CURRENT STATE EFFECTIVELY IS PREVENTING ANY WATER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM ENTERING THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND IN THIS CASE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GREAT SLAVE LAKE, OF COURSE. I GUESS WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS AS I SEE OTHER JURISDICTIONS, HAVING TO SPEND MONEY TO DEAL WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND CREATE PSUEDO WETLANDS OR PARKS IN KEY LOCATIONS, WE ACTUALLY ALREADY HAVE THAT. WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IN MY MIND IS DO WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION OR STUDIES THAT EITHER THE CITY OR OTHER PARTIES HAVE DONE ABOUT THE TREATMENT CAPACITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THAT AREA. IF WE REDUCE ITS ABILITY BY WAY OF ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT ON A PORTION OF THAT LAND, IS IT GOING TO REDUCE THE TREATMENT CAPACITY OF THAT AREA TO SOMETHING, BELOW THE LEVEL THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY RELYING ON IT TO MEET OUR LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE GREAT SLAVE LAKE? >> MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE NATURAL OCCURRING ASSET THAT I BELIEVE THE COUNSELOR IS DESCRIBING IS A WONDERFUL COMPONENT TO THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY. I BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY MANY OF THE SUBMISSIONS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER IN THE FORMULATION OF THIS REZONING APPLICATION. IN TERMS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PIECE OF ALL OF OUR NATURAL BORN ASSETS AROUND THE CITY. WE HAVE NOT UNDERTAKEN THAT WORK AROUND WITHIN OUR CITY LIMITS. NEVERTHELESS, AS COUNCIL AND THE MEMBER WILL BE AWARE, THAT THE REGULATORY AND THE DECISION MAKING INSTRUMENTS THAT WE USE TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENTS ARE, THERE PRECISELY FOR THE REASON OF ENSURING THAT ALL RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AT THE PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME WITH A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT WITH A PARTICULAR IMPACT ARE CONSIDERED AND THAT WE WILL BE RELYING ON THE MCKENZIE VALLEY LAND WATER BOARD TO ENSURE THAT ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE PUT THROUGH THAT WE'RE ABLE TO SATISFY. THERE IS A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK WITH WHICH WE WILL WORK WITHIN. THIS PROPOSAL IS ENVISIONED TO WORK WITHIN THAT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK, [01:55:01] AND WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING WE DO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. I THINK THE ACTUAL DETERMINATIONS THAT I BELIEVE THAT ARE IMPLIED IN THE QUESTION, CANNOT BE ANSWERED AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCESS. WE WOULD NEED TO RELY ON THE REGULATORY STEPS THAT FOLLOW DEPENDING ON WHAT DECISION AND DIRECTION THE COUNCIL TAKES TO DETERMINE THE SPECIFIC IMPACT THAT IS, I BELIEVE BEING SOUGHT IN THE QUESTION THAT'S BEEN ASKED. THANK YOU FOR THAT RESPONSE. I RECOGNIZE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PUBLIC INPUT ENGAGED PUBLIC INPUT, AS YOU MENTIONED. BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF FOR AND AGAINST, I WOULD SAY I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE THAT CONTENTIOUS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THE WORD HERE. FOR ME, THOUGH, MY BRAIN IS, I THINK IT'S PRETTY BLACK AND WHITE FOR ME. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS WITH THE WESTERN BLOCK, BUT WITH THE EASTERN BLOCK, I WOULDN'T WANT MYSELF TO SUPPORT MOVING AHEAD WITH DEVELOPMENT THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY COST THE CITY MONEY LATER IF WE DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE TRUE. I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST PIECE OF INFORMATION I WOULD WANT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN EASY WAY TO GET THAT, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING IF A PORTION OF THIS AREA IS DEVELOPED, DO WE HAVE TREATMENT EFFICACY AT THE LEVELS THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY RELYING ON AND THAT WILL KEEP US IN COMPLIANCE. I'LL JUST LEAVE IT OUT THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN EASY ANSWER TODAY, BUT JUST SHARING WITH MY COLLEAGUES, I GUESS, THAT'S MY ROADBLOCK AT THIS POINT. ON THE EASTERN BOOK. FAIR ENOUGH, I'LL PASS TO MR. VAN DINE THOUGH FOR POTENTIAL RESPONSE? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WHAT I'LL DO, I THINK I OFFERED THE 10,000 FOOT RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION? I'LL TRY AND LOWER THE ALTITUDE AND GIVE IT TO DIRECTOR WHITE TO GIVE YOU MORE INFORMATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, THEIR STANDARD PRACTICES, BOTH FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, AS WELL AS FROM THE PLANNING PERSPECTIVE. WATER IN MUST EQUAL WATER OUT AND THE LOT MUST CONTROL, WHEN YOU'RE CHANGING THE PERMEABILITY OF THAT LOT. IT'S GOING TO HAVE ITS OWN SYSTEMS, WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE DESIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME THAT THEY'RE CREATING WHATEVER THAT DEVELOPMENT IS. IT'S GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENT IF YOU PAY 50% OF IT VERSUS IF YOU COVER 100% OF IT. THERE ARE MANAGEMENT WAYS TO DO THAT, WHETHER THAT'S STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PUT PONDING ON THE SITE, WHETHER THAT'S DISCHARGE INTO A WETLAND, WHICH WOULD BE CONTROLLED, OR WHETHER THAT'S DISCHARGE INTO A MUNICIPAL SYSTEM. IN THIS CASE, THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL THREE. IT WOULD BE FOR THE DESIGNER TO BE ABLE TO MEET PUBLIC WORK STANDARDS AND THE CITY DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THAT. THANK YOU. THANKS VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE, COUNSEL FEQUET? YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE? I'LL JUST JUMP IN HERE AS THE OWNER OF SAID DOCUMENTS. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT'S ON FILE ON REGISTRY AT MCKENZIE VALLEY LAND AND WATER BOARD. ANY APPROVALS OR DEVIATIONS FROM THAT APPROVED PLAN WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH AND BE SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY THE WATER BOARD. THIS JUST DIRECTLY SUPPLEMENTS WHAT MS. WHITE AND MR. VAN DINE JUST SAID. WE WOULD APPROACH THIS AS ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT AND GO THROUGH THE PROPER REGULATORY PROCESSES TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE COVERED. THANKS. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR GREENCORN, WHITE, AND MR. VAN DINE. COUNSEL FEQUET ACTUALLY NO, I'LL LET MY COLLEAGUES. FAIR ENOUGH. COUNCIL MCGURK. THANK YOU. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY. I WOULD ALSO SAY I THINK THE CONTENTIOUS ASPECT IS ON OUR SIDE, NOT NECESSARILY ON THE GNVT SIDE, I THINK THAT WAS WHAT WAS THE RETREAT TYING TO SAY. BUT, I'M SURE THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT SUPER CONCERNED WITH THE WESTERN, THE BLOCK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. I AM NOT VERY CONCERNED WITH THAT ONE, AND THE QUESTION REALLY DOES COME DOWN TO THE EASTERN BLOCK. IT'S INTERESTING. I WAS WONDERING IF ADMINISTRATION COULD SPEAK MORE TO THE INTERESTS FROM INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY BECAUSE IS IT LIKE A DFN OR WHAT IS THE BODY THAT IS INTERESTED? MR. VAN DINE. THERE'S SOME INFORMATION ON THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT WE'VE RECENTLY RECEIVED IN TERMS OF LAND INTEREST FROM THE DEL AND A DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. IN THAT, THEY'VE REACHED OUT AND [02:00:02] HAVE BEEN DOING A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH AND LOOKING INTO THE POTENTIAL IN THIS AREA. AS A TERRITORIAL CAPITAL, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE REGIONAL INTEREST FROM INDIGENOUS ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE TERRITORY TO INVEST IN YELLOWKNIFE IS NOVEL AND SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE FURTHER EITHER IN THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO OR ANOTHER. I THINK IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE OBVIOUSLY WANTING TO ENSURE THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE TO ALLOW WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO PURSUE THAT PROPOSAL DEPENDING ON COUNSEL'S DECISION, OR OTHERS THAT MIGHT BE EQUALLY INTERESTED IN THIS. YELLOWKNIFERS WILL ALSO BE AWARE THAT THE YKDFN IS A VERY CLOSE PARTNER IN MUCH THAT WE DO, INCLUDING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY THAT WE'VE EMBARKED ON WITH THEM SOME TIME BACK. THAT CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES THEY ARE IDENTIFYING INTERESTS IN THE WATERFRONT AREA GENERALLY, AS WELL AS STARTING TO CONTEMPLATE AND CONSIDER WHAT WIDER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES MAY EXIST WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. SO WITHOUT TOO MUCH MORE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THAT IS JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A SENSE OF THE LEVELS OF INTEREST IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, THE EAST SIDE AND THE WEST SIDES, BOTH AS BEEN PRESENTED BY MR. LAM, HAVE BEEN TECHNICALLY TESTED, HAVE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT QUESTIONS FROM A GEOTECHNICAL POINT OF VIEW, FROM A TRAFFIC POINT OF VIEW, WE'LL BE OPERATING WITHIN A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND SUBSEQUENT AUTHORIZATION. THE AREA THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED CURRENTLY, THAT IS OF MORE IMMEDIATE INTEREST IS THE EAST SIDE FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT SCHEME. THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE THAT I CAN SHARE WITH COUNSEL TODAY. THANKS. I APPRECIATE THAT. INTERESTING THE DEL AND A DEVELOPMENT CORP. I THINK WE DEFINITELY VERY CLEARLY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO YKDFN, BUT TO SUPPORT THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND THEIR INTERESTS, BUT I WONDER HOW WE WOULD CONSIDER OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS,. IF I COULD ADD MR. CHAIR. FOR THE BENEFIT OF, I WOULDN'T WANT TO MISREPRESENT, BUT THERE IS DIALOGUE GOING ON AMONGST THE PARTIES THAT I MENTIONED WITH RESPECT TO THIS AND SO FAR, ALL INDICATIONS THAT THERE'S AN OPEN FLOW OF COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION ON THIS. I WOULD NOT WANT TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT ADMINISTRATION IS EITHER OVERTLY OR COVERTLY UNINTENTIONALLY OR INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO CREATE COMPETITION OR BETWEEN DIFFERENT INTERESTS IN THIS SPACE. BUT WE ARE PLEASED TO SEE THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN APPROACHED IN BEING SEEN AS A POTENTIAL POSITIVE PARTNER AND TRYING TO SATISFY SOME OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING INTERESTS IN THE COMMUNITY. JUST TO ADD TO THAT TO, I WOULD CAUTION COUNSEL, IT'S AN IMPORTANT FACTOR POTENTIALLY AND MAYBE THERE WILL BE A PRESENTATION AT A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING IF WE MOVE TO THAT STAGE OR WHATEVER. BUT ULTIMATELY, NOTHING WE DECIDE CAN BE DEPENDENT ON POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY SOMETHING MAY OR MAY NOT OCCUR. WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE DECISION OF THE LAND IN FRONT OF US AND WHAT WE DO WITH THAT LAND IN FRONT OF US. DEFINITELY THIS PART OF MY LINE OF QUESTIONING [LAUGHTER]. BACK TO YOU COUNCIL MCGURK. BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT SHOULD WE PROCEED WITH THIS. IT DOES NOT EARMARK THE LAND FOR ONE PARTICULAR DEVELOPER. I APPRECIATE IT WAS NOT MY INTENTION TO INSINUATE THAT ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE PITTING DEL AND A AGAINST EACH OTHER, BUT I APPRECIATE MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT HAPPENING. SHOULD WE NOT DECIDE TO ZONE THIS AS RESIDENTIAL, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR DEVELOPMENT CORPS TO COME FORWARD TO US WITH INTEREST IN THAT LAND ANYWAY? [02:05:02] ARE YOU ASKING IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO REZONE, THAT IN THE FUTURE, THEY COULD COME FORWARD AND ASK US TO REZONE IT IN THE FUTURE. I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WE COULD MAKE AN AMENDMENT IN THE FUTURE, BUT I'LL PASS IT OVER TO MR. VAN DINE, ALTHOUGH I SEE HEADS NODDING SO I WON'T PASS IT OVER TO MR. VAN DINE. IT WOULD JUST BE A MATTER OF WAITING TIME AND THEN BRING IT BACK FORWARD IF WE WANTED TO MAKE A DIFFERENT DECISION IN THE FUTURE. GO AHEAD. I'VE JUST HAD AN ADDITIONAL ELEMENT OF THAT QUESTION IS, CAN THEY ASK FOR IT FOR THEMSELVES AND THEN ASK FOR REZONING? MR. VAN DINE. YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE LAND TENURE ACQUISITION AND THEN POTENTIALLY REZONING DOWNSTREAM IF THAT WAS THEIR CHOICE. I'LL JUST INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE TO REMIND US OF THE STEPS. THANK YOU. AT ANY POINT WHERE THE MUNICIPALITY IS A PROPERTY OWNER, AN APPLICANT CAN COME FORWARD AND MAKE AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. ALTERNATIVELY, IF THEY WERE WANTING TO HAVE ASSURANCES FOR DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL, THEY COULD FURTHER GO THROUGH THE STEPS OF CREATING A PROPOSAL TO BRING FORWARD, DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT PROPOSAL IS, IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN FRONT OF COUNCIL. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT IT IS AND WHERE THE AUTHORITY LIES. SAME WITH A PURCHASE THAT MAY LIKELY NOT END UP IN FRONT OF COUNCIL. THE OTHER PIECE TO REMEMBER IS THAT IF A DECISION IS MADE ON THESE LANDS, THAT NO FURTHER DECISION CAN BE MADE WITHIN A YEAR UNLESS IT FOLLOWS COUNSEL PROCEDURES. THERE'S THAT PART AS WELL. IT WOULD POTENTIALLY ADD LENGTH OF TIME TO ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES. THANK YOU. I GUESS BASED ON THE WAY THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS RESPONDED, BUT ALSO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS INTEREST FROM INDIGENOUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THAT THERE'S POTENTIAL OR LIKELY COLLABORATION WITH LOCAL INDIGENOUS GOVERNMENT. I THINK THAT I WOULD DEFINITELY BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL TO REZONE THIS, IF IT WOULD GUARANTEE OR BE GUARANTEED TO BE FOR USE BY THE INDIGENOUS DEVELOPMENT CORP. BUT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S NOT PART OF OUR OBJECTIVES AS A MUNICIPALITY ARE TO ENABLE THAT DEVELOPMENT AND THEY ARE THE STEWARDS OF THIS LAND AND IT'S THEIR DECISION TO USE THE LAND AS THEY SEE FIT. BUT TO JUST I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PROCESS WOULD JUST OPEN IT UP TO RESIDENTIAL USE. WE'VE HAD A VERY CLEAR. THE COMMUNITY HAS VERY CLEARLY SHOWN US WHAT THEY WANT NOT JUST FROM PEOPLE IN THE AREA BUT OUTSIDE OF THE AREA, AND I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE YOUR MISS TO NOT FOLLOW THAT, BUT, SO I'M NOT VERY MUCH SOLD ON THE OPENING UP THE EASTERN BLOCK IS RESIDENTIAL UNLESS THERE IS SOME ASSURANCE THAT IT IS GOING TO BE USED BY CERTAIN PARTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL MCGURK, COUNCIL PAYNE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING BEFORE I GET INTO QUESTIONS FOR MYSELF. ARE YOU GOOD TO GO? NO. I GOT SOME COMMENTS. BY ALL MEANS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S PEOPLE TRYING TO FIND REASONS NOT TO SUPPORT THIS, WHICH I DON'T UNDERSTAND. THE CITY HAS GOTTEN A GEOTECH WORK DONE. THAT'S A CHECK MARK. WE HAVE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IN PLACE. THAT'S A CHECK MARK. THE NATURE PRESERVE DOWN THERE IS GOING TO BE INCREASE, THAT'S A CHECK MARK ALL TO THE GOOD. WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF LAND. I DON'T CARE WHO THE DEVELOPER IS, AND I DON'T CARE WHERE IT IS. I WOULD SUPPORT ANY FREE LAND THAT WE CAN DEVELOP, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT. I DON'T CARE IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT A THIRD FLOOR ON CITY HALL AND PUT HIGH END CONDOS ON IT. I'LL SUPPORT THAT TOO. THE FACT IS WE NEED HOUSING IN THIS TOWN, AND WE ALL KNOW WE NEED HOUSING IN THIS TOWN. I'M NOT GOING TO BE FLIP FLOPPING ON, BECAUSE WE GOT A WHOLE LOT OF EMAILS FROM A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF TOWN. THIS IS NOT AN OLD TOWN ISSUE. THIS IS A YELLOWKNIFE ISSUE. I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. IF IT'S DEVELOPMENT NUMBER TWO OR NUMBER 22, [02:10:01] IT MATTERS NOT TO ME. WE NEED TO LAND, WE NEED TO DEVELOPMENT, WE NEED TO HOUSING, AND I'M IN FULL SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL PAYNE. YES. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR MYSELF. IN APPENDIX A ON PAGE 58, THE SCHOOL DRAW WEST LUNDQUIST LOCATION. IT NOTES DUPLEX SORRY, THE SCHOOL DRAW EAST LUNDQUIST LOCATION. IT NOTES DUPLEXES. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION. WAS THAT JUST LIKE A PLACEHOLDER STATEMENT OF DUPLEXES, OR ARE WE TRYING TO LIMIT THAT? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BYLAW IS SAYING WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY INTENDING. MR. VAN DINE? I BELIEVE MANAGER LM MENTIONED THAT THE R1 WAS OUR MODEST LEVEL OF INTENSIFICATION. DUPLEX IS THE LOWEST OF THE MODEST IN THAT RANGE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. JUST LOOKING AT THE MAPS. THIS ONE'S FOR MORE FOR CLARITY FOR THE PUBLIC'S UNDERSTANDING OF THINGS. PROBABLY DOESN'T HURT TO GET IT REITERATED FOR OURSELVES. LOOKING AT THE MAPS OF THE SCHOOL DRAW EAST LIST PROPOSAL, WE ALSO RECENTLY PASSED A BY LAW TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL SURROUNDING NATURE PRESERVED LAND FROM THE G&P. I KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT ACQUISITION, WHICH IS THAT I WANT AS MUCH OF THE LAND IN THE CITY BOUNDARIES TO BE WITHIN OUR LEADERSHIP AND CONTROL. BUT THAT FOR ME, DOESN'T MEAN ACTUALLY DEVELOPING THOSE LANDS AS BEYOND NATURE PRESERVE. IT'S MEANT TO STAY THAT WAY, BUT JUST UNDER OUR OWNERSHIP. THAT'S HOW I HAVE VIEWED THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE ADMIN TO SPEAK TO ITS INTENTION FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE AROUND THOSE LANDS, MR. VAN DINE. I'LL INVITE OUR CHIEF PLANNER TO GIVE YOU THAT ANSWER. THAT'S MY THIRD TITLE TODAY. CHIEF PLANNER, SO THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS. YES, WE HAVE MADE THAT APPLICATION, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY IN PART TO SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT. BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE ALSO HAVE A JOINT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY BETWEEN THE CITY AND YKDFN, WHICH THEY SUPPORTED US WITH THOSE WATER LOTS, WHICH ARE ACTUALLY DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO HERE. THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CITY PLANS THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LAND THAT WE'VE APPLIED FOR FROM THE G&P. THAT PARCEL IS ACTUALLY GOING TO SERVE A NUMBER OF PURPOSES. ONE IS IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THAT BUFFER AREA THAT MUHAMMAD TALKED ABOUT BETWEEN POTENTIALLY NEW DEVELOPMENT AND THE EXISTING DRAINAGE. THEN THE REMAINDER OF IT IS GOING TO BE THE NATURAL AREA WITH THE ROTARY PARK CURRENT WALKWAY THAT IS ON THERE, AS WELL AS ALL OF THIS LEADS TO THOSE TWO WATER LOTS, WHICH AGAIN, YKDFN WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE IN THE MUNICIPALITY MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT ACQUISITION. THERE'S A NUMBER OF PIECES, NOT JUST ABOUT HOUSING THAT TIE TO THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION IN THIS AREA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY LAST QUESTION IS IN THE CONSULTATION PORTION OF THE ZONING MEMO, IT SAYS THAT THE CITY RECEIVED OVER 200 PUBLIC COMMENTS, BOTH SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. WILL SOME RESIDENTS WELCOME THE INITIATIVE TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING. MANY EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL LOSS OF GREEN SPACE NATURAL AREAS. I HAVE TO SAY WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT WE RECEIVED, IT WAS PRETTY AGAINST. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET SOME MORE CLARIFICATION FROM A MIN ON WHAT YOU WERE HEARING IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S DOCUMENTED THAT WAS IN SUPPORT. MR. VAN DINE. WE HAD FOUR LEVELS OF NOTICE OF SUPPORT THAT'S OUTLINED IN THE CONSULTATION REPORT THAT'S THERE, AND THEY WERE COMPELLING. NO, I DON'T DISAGREE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE IN SUPPORT. IT'S COMPELLING, GETTING INTO MY COMMENTS NOW. I HAVE BEEN SKEPTICAL OF THIS LOT SINCE DAY 1, AND IF I THINK BACK ON IT, I TALK TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT. IF THIS HAD COME TO ME NOW AS SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN ON COUNCIL FOR SEVERAL YEARS, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE FORCEFUL IN MY OPPOSITION AT THE TIME AND JUST VOTED AGAINST MOVING IT FORWARD. STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB IN GETTING US THIS FAR. BUT ULTIMATELY, I LOOK AT THIS IS JUST FOR MYSELF. MY COLLEAGUES WILL END UP AGREEING OR DISAGREEING, AND THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS AND RIGHT TO DO SO. FOR MYSELF, THIS IS WE'RE MEANT TO LEAD IN OUR CITY, BUT IN ORDER TO LEAD, WE HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COME ALONG WITH US. WHEN I LOOK AT THE FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO WHAT COUNCILLOR PAYNE, AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH HIM THAT WE NEED HOUSING. BUT ONCE WE BUILD ON SOMETHING, YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT BACK, AND RIGHT NOW, THE COMMUNITY IS NOT WITH US, QUITE FRANKLY I'M NOT FULLY THERE YET EITHER. [02:15:01] I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT FOR ME, THIS IS A ABSOLUTELY FOR BLOCK WEST, BLOCK EAST. I'M NOT IN SUPPORTIVE AT THIS MOMENT, BUT ALSO, IF MY COLLEAGUES WANT TO GO FORWARD TO A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, ABSOLUTELY, I AM FINE WITH THAT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ALWAYS HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. ONE OF THE THINGS I REALLY HAVE TAKEN INTO MY THOUGHTS ON THIS IS, I'VE BEEN DRIVING THE PUBLIC TO ENGAGE. IT WOULD BE HARD FOR ME TO THEN NOT LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAID. I APPRECIATE THAT OTHERS OUT THERE MIGHT THINK DIFFERENTLY, BUT I CAN ONLY WORK WITH WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY GIVEN AND WHAT I WAS GIVEN WAS OPPOSITION. THAT'S NOT A KNOCK TO STAFF, YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB IN GETTING THROUGH THIS. I THINK IF THE PUBLIC'S MIND CHANGES IN FUTURE WE'RE SET UP AND FIRED AND READY TO GO ANYTIME PAST A YEAR, THAT'S WHERE MY MIND'S AT. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE I SIT AND WHERE I AM ON THIS ONE AT THIS TIME, BUT I'LL WRAP MY COMMENTS UP AND LEAVE IT THERE. BUT FOR ROUND TWO FOR ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES. IF YOU WANT, OTHERWISE, I CAN JUST GO WRAP IT UP AND GIVE YOU A PROCESS SPIEL. PROCESS SPIEL OR COUNSEL, YOU GOT SOMETHING. GO AHEAD. IN THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROBABLY GOING TO WATCH THIS RECORDING LATER AND THOSE WHO ARE ONLINE WITH US NOW AND THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY FOR HOURS HERE ALREADY. I THINK OBVIOUSLY IF THIS PROCESS WAS SOLELY BASED ON PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, THIS WOULD BE EASY BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN ALL DO THE MATH ON THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO TOOK THE TIME TO SHARE THEIR THOUGHTS. BUT FOR BETTER OR WORSE, OUR ROLE AS COUNSEL IS TO CONSIDER THE COLLECTIVE INTERESTS OF THE CITY AND MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF CITIZENS, CONSIDERING A VERY BROAD RANGE OF CONSIDERATIONS. THE POINT I RAISED EARLIER IS ABOUT THE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF THE AREA AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. I AM STILL INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING HOW ALLOWING A DEVELOPMENT IN A PORTION OF THAT REGION WILL CERTAINLY OR POTENTIALLY AFFECT THE EFFICACY OF THE CITY STORMWATER, BECAUSE THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS ADVANCE THE HOUSING AND THEN COST US MORE MONEY DOWN THE ROAD IF WE HAVE TO SPEND IT TO F TO REMEDIATE, TO ADD NEW GREEN SPACES. AGAIN, THAT'S JUST ONE THING ON MY BRAIN. THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER REASONS THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT UP THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE BROUGHT UP. I THINK I HOPE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE HOUSING PRESSURES THE CITY IS FACING. THE CITY DOES NOT CONTROL ABOUT 75% OF THE LAND WITHIN OUR MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES. WE HAVE AN EXTREMELY LIMITED LAND SUPPLY TO CONSIDER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. YES, WE NEED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EVERY OPPORTUNITY AND THAT PROVIDES A LIKELY OR REASONABLE CHANCE OF ACHIEVING THAT GOAL. THE REASON I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE SEQUENCING AND THE PRIORITY IS BECAUSE OF THE FIVE THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US AND OF THE ADDITIONAL FOUR THAT WERE ALSO PRESENTED IN THAT JANUARY 16TH, 2023 MEETING. THIS WAS THE WORST OPTION IN MY MIND. I WISH ALL THE TIME THAT WE'VE SPENT TALKING ABOUT THIS HAD BEEN SPENT FIGHTING THE GMT ON TAYLOR ROAD. WHERE WE CAN GET AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE THE SQUARE METERS OF AREA TO HELP ADDRESS THIS, AND THEN WE WOULDN'T BE PICKING OFF LITTLE THINGS. I REALLY APPRECIATE OBVIOUSLY STAFF DOING ALL OF THIS WORK AND TRYING TO MOVE ALL OF THESE AHEAD. I DO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT AND SOMETIMES IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE IN A CRAPPY SPOT, BUT DEFINITELY NOT ON THIS ONE, AND I WOULD JUST ECHO. I'M IN FAVOR OF NOT MOVING IT FORWARD, BUT I'M ALSO IN FAVOR OF A STATUTORY HEARING IF MY COLLEAGUES WISH TO DO THAT FOR THE EASTERN BLOCK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE FROM COLLEAGUES? MAYBE I'M MY BRAIN. I FORGET, DO WE OWN THIS LAND YET OR DO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THIS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN IT FROM THE G&P? A BIT OF A AND B, MR. CITY MANAGER. BUT WHEN COUNSEL FOR GET MAKES A GOOD POINT. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT PUBLIC OPINION, IT'S ABOUT IMPACT FOR THE SPACE AS WELL AND SO THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD COMES DOWN. BUT IN TERMS OF PROCESS, THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE END OF THE CONVERSATION. TONIGHT, WE HAVE FIRST READING OF THE BY LAWS. IF IT PASSES, FIRST READING OF THE BY LAW, THEN WE GO TO A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH WILL LIKELY BE OCTOBER 6TH IN THE EVENING IF WE GO TO THAT. AFTER THAT, WE WOULD THEN AT A FUTURE MEETING, AFTER THAT, HAVE SECOND READING AND THIRD READING. IN TERMS OF PROCESS FOR COLLEAGUES IN THE PUBLIC, BUT THAT'S THE PROCESS AHEAD. [02:20:04] WITH THAT, HEARING NOTHING ELSE FROM COLLEAGUES, WE WILL GO TO ITEM 9 ON OUR AGENDA, [8. A memorandum regarding whether to enter into a four (4) year lease with KS Precambrian Building Inc. for Suite 802, 4920-52nd Street, legally described as Lot 25, Block 26, Plan 1389 (Precambrian Building).] A MEMO REGARDING WHETHER TO ENTER INTO A FOUR YEAR LEASE WITH THE CAMBRIAN BUILDING INC FOR SUITE 8024920 52ND STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 25 BLOCK 26 PLAN 1389 FOR CAMBRIAN BUILDING. MR. CITY MANAGER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS REQUEST BEFORE COUNSEL TODAY STEMS FROM CONVERSATIONS THAT COUNCIL WILL BE AWARE OF WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING THAT WE'RE SITTING IN DOES REQUIRE SOME RENOVATION AND HAS LIMITED EXPANSION CAPABILITY. THE DECISION WAS TAKEN ABOUT A YEAR AGO, SO TO FIND SOME TEMPORARY SPACE, SOME STRETCH SPACE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO PROCURE FROM THE JAN STERLING BUILDING FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. SINCE THAT TIME, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH ANOTHER BUDGET CYCLE AND WE ARE NOW NO FURTHER AHEAD ON THE RENOVATION PROPOSAL WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING AND THE NEEDS FOR THE CITY CONTINUE TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SPACE AS A RESULT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED WITHIN THE CITY OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS OR SO. THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROCURE NEW SPACE AND ENTER INTO A NEW LONGER TERM, MEDIUM TERM LEASE ARRANGEMENT. THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE NEW BUILDING THAT WE LOOKED AT TOOK ON A BIT OF ADDITIONAL PLANNING THOUGHT AS TO REQUIREMENTS FOR US OVER A MEDIUM TO LONGER TERM, INCLUDING THE ABILITY TO GROW SOMEWHAT, IF NECESSARY. IN CONTRAST WITH THE CURRENT FACILITY THAT WE ARE IN THAT WE WERE GRATEFUL TO HAVE AND GRATEFUL TO OCCUPY. IT DOES OVER THE MEDIUM TO LONG TERM, NOT PRESENT THE SAME ACCESSIBILITY AS WELL AS OPPORTUNITIES WITH RESPECT TO GROWTH OR EXPANSION, IF NEED BE. THE MEMO TODAY LAYS OUT SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS. IT DOES LAY OUT SOME OF THE COST DIFFERENTIALS. WE ARE BOUND BY SOME OF THE TERMS OF A NEGOTIATION TO RESPECT SOME OF THE COMMERCIALITY OF SOME OF THESE THINGS. SOME OF THESE MATTERS, SHOULD COUNSEL HAVE PARTICULAR QUESTIONS, WE WOULD LIKELY NEED TO SHIFT TO AN IN CAMERA CONVERSATION ON THOSE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. BUT IN TERMS OF THE PRINCIPLES AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE, I BELIEVE I'VE LAID IT OUT AND THE MEMO LAYS OUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO OBTAIN FROM COUNSEL BY WAY OF APPROVAL AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. VAN DINE, AND TWO COLLEAGUES. I JUST REITERATING WHAT MR. VAN DINE JUST SAID, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO POTENTIAL FUTURE LEASE WHEN IT COMES TO NEGOTIATION ASPECTS THAT AREN'T IN THE MEMO, THEN WE'LL GO IN CAMERA FOR THAT, WE'LL MAKE A MOTION TO GO IN CAMERA. BUT TO START OFF, ANY QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES. COUNCIL MCGURK. JUST A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT ANY ADDITIONAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT CHARGES BEYOND IT SETUP. IS THERE GOING TO BE DO YOU ANTICIPATE ANYTHING? MR. VAN DINE WE HAVE NO. FROM ANYONE ELSE, COUNSEL RYAN FEQUET. THANKS, MR. CHAIR. JUST CONFIRMING THAT IS THE CITY INTENDING TO KEEP ITS ADDITIONAL SPACE THAT IT ALREADY HAS IN ADDITION TO THIS NEW LEASE OR ARE WE GOING TO BE POTENTIALLY COMING UP TO THE EXPIRY OR EXITING THAT ARRANGEMENT? MR. VAN DINE, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WE WOULD BE DIVESTING OF THE CURRENT LEASE FROM THE CURRENT BUILDING AND MOVING INTO THIS NEW LOCATION, SHOULD COUNCIL APPROVE IT? THANK YOU AND JUST CONFIRMING THAT THE PROPOSED LEASE RATES AND UTILITIES ARE IN LINE WITH BEST PRACTICE OF COMMERCIAL RATES IN OTHER DOWNTOWN VENDORS. MR. VAN DINE. THANK YOU. WE DID DO A NEIGHBORHOOD CHECK AND MARKET CHECK JUST TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE AMOUNTS THAT WERE BEING OFFERED TO US WERE WITHIN THE MARKET RANGE FOR A SIMILAR BUILDING, SIMILAR LOCATION, SIMILAR ACCESS AND THEY ARE. COUNSEL FEQUET? THANKS FOR CONFIRMING, THEY SEEMED TO ME TO BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE AS WELL. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD DONE THAT HOMEWORK. I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT AND PARTNER WITH OUR INDIGENOUS GOVERNMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS SO THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? OH, COUNCIL PAYNE. NOT A QUESTION. I WANT TO SHOW MY SUPPORT FOR THIS. WE NEED THE OFFICE SPACE, AND THIS SEEMS LIKE IT'S A GOOD WAY FOR US [02:25:03] TO GET IT AND TO SUPPORT SOMEBODY LOCAL AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILLOR PAYNE. JUST FOR MYSELF, MAKING SURE WE'RE DOTTING ALL OF OUR EYES AND CROSSING WITH THE CURRENT BUILDING. CAN ADMIN JUST TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE LIMITATIONS THAT YOU'RE SEEING WITH THE CURRENT SPACE AND AS I SEE THE CITY MANAGER'S HEAD NODDING VOCIFEROUSLY, I'LL PASS IT OVER TO HIM. JUST TO REMIND COUNSEL THAT WHEN WE ENTERED INTO THAT ARRANGEMENT, WE THOUGHT IT WAS A RELATIVELY SHORT TERM. THE AMOUNT OF INVESTIGATION AND THE APPROACH TO LOOKING AT IT THROUGH THE LENS OF A LONGER TERM PERSPECTIVE, I THINK WOULD BE A BIT DIFFERENT THAN A SHORT TERM PERSPECTIVE, SO THE CURRENT BUILDING HAS IT'S BEEN USEFUL. WE'VE BEEN GRATEFUL, IT'S BEEN STAFF HAVE BEEN THERE'S BEEN NO TECHNICAL OR OTHER CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING. WHEN YOU START LOOKING ANOTHER CONCENTRIC RING OUT, THERE IS DEFINITELY A QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO ACCESSIBILITY COMPARED TO THE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY. AGAIN, I'M JUST INVITING COMPARISONS RATHER THAN A COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF ALL FACTORS ACROSS THE CITY. THE SECOND ISSUE THAT BECAME RELEVANT RELATIVELY EARLY IN OUR USE OF THAT SPACE WAS AND SOMETHING THAT MANY ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES IN THE DOWNTOWN FACE WITH ALL THE TIME, AND THAT IS PARKING. WE ARE NOT IMMUNE TO THE ISSUES OF PARKING AS ANY OTHER OFFICE PROVIDER. THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE LOCATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY IS SLIGHTLY THAT MUCH MORE CENTRAL AND SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO CITY HALL PROPER TO ALLOW FOR A FLOW OF EITHER CITY BUSINESS ACTIVITY OR PUBLIC FACING SERVICES THAT MIGHT BE MORE EASILY ACCESSIBLE IN THE NEW LOCATION. AGAIN, I WANT TO REITERATE THE CURRENT SPACE BY NO MEANS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR THE PURPOSES WITH WHICH WE ENTERED INTO IT. WE ARE JUST LOOKING TO A MEDIUM TO LONGER TERM HORIZON AND LOOKING AT IT THROUGH THAT LENS, WE SEE OBVIOUSLY ADVANTAGES WITH THIS PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE PRESENTING WITH YOU TODAY. PERFECT. THANKS VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES? NO. MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO GO ON CAMERA. NOTHING ELSE FOR MYSELF, SO WE'LL MOVE THIS FORWARD. WITH THAT, WE COME TO THE END OF OUR MEETING, WE GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN COUNCIL MCGURK, SECOND BY COUNSEL FEQUET AND WE WILL SEE YOU ALL TONIGHT. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.