Thread by @sebastiansajda

Big crowd half an gour before #SurreyBC Council. I'm seeing multiple media outlets on scene and quiet a line to get into chambers. Watch this thread for Tweets!

Supporters of Harmony are here with green kneckerchiefs (is that the technical term?) and buttons.

Chambers are fuller than this hastily taken picture suggests.

Folks still shuffling in a few moments before council is ready to begin. No sign of McCallum or any obvious SPS supporter presence.

Mayor Locke just called the meeting to order. Locke is making some changes to the agenda. The CR on the RCMP untransition plan is being moved immediately after the presentation on the plan. One of the 4 NoMs from last time being removed (at applicants request).

Locke now giving a territorial acknowledgement. Minutes being adopted. And we are now going into presentations. There are 3 presentations in this section. First one is a BC Municipal Safety Association Gold Star award. This is to recognize the city as a safe employer.

The second presentation is on a similar topic, but seemingly directed at the city's safety record when it comes to young workers.

Clapping on that first award... started by staff? Kind of a weird era we are in, given how council was run for the last 4 years.

This second one is a video presentation. Folks don't use the ability to send materials to the clerk ahead of time. Might be good for those commenting on the budget for Dec. Also, city uses VLC player, which I highly approve of.

This is the big one!

Commissioner Edward's speaking now. Saying this is the first time he's been asked to speak to council in years. Starts by emphasizing that officers - RCMP and SPS - are a high priority for them. Says he has not commented much on the transition, despite wanting to.

Now he is calling out SPS and SPU for comments they have made in public that are erroneous. Throwing serious shade in that direction. Edwards saying he has been a city cop longer than most of the SPS exec team have. Says he won't criticize city cops, but he won't...

...allow for incorrect or erroneous critcisms or charges agains the RCMP. Talking about the challenges the RCMP faced in the opening years of the COVID pandemic. RCMP did their duty in hard times while a police transition was underway. Stresses his job has been policing...

...and not the political decisions around who does the policing. Goes over some history; RCMP has been policing Surrey for 70 years. Pop growth, COVID 19, no additional resources, the 2022 border processes the RCMP handled quite well.

Speaking now to 135a and how it was a 'pit of suffering'; next sideshow the same street without tents two years later. Says they alleviated that suffering through collaboration. Says RCMP built a local solution. Says Surrey RCMP local and not directed by Ottawa.

Edwards now praising the Mental Health Outreach Team, Surrey Gang Enforcement Team, Mobile Street Enforcement Team, Project Lavender, and Shattering the image. All he says are local Surrey intiatives built by/with Surrey RCMP and community for Surrey specifically.

Showing the decline in crime in Surrey and asks how folks can claim Surrey RCMP is not doing a good job. Says this has been done without additional resources. Says transition has been disruptive. Says he is proud of the work accomplished.

Says a decision was made to abbreviate planning for the transition in order to get boots on the ground. Says transition was split into 2 phases. We are in phase 1. SPS officers come in and work under the RCMP, under Comissioner Edwards command. Says phase 1 is not transition.

Says phase 2 is when SPS takes over. Says that the planning around this is not there yet. IT, capital transition, legal agreement, etc., all still need to be completed to go forward. Legal agreement not even drafted yet. Says planning can't be unitaleral. Says even in...

...phase 2, the SPS will need RCMP support. However, there is not even a model yet for how RCMP would work to support SPS in phase 2 of the transition. Says such a road is possible, but complex and requires help of the NPF.

Says SPS still needs to hire over 450 officers. Says it is a difficult market for hiring officers. Says this will stretch out the depenency of the SPS on the RCMP. Thus, there is no end date and there is budget uncertainty.

Presenting RCMP as the stable choice. He is now characterizing SPS as a mix of officers from different agencies. Says RCMP can fill in additional officers by 2023.

Says RCMP already has a laundry list of existing infrastructure that SPS does not. Says the path forward for RCMP is simple. They need a staffing plan for 161 people. Says that will offset the SPS that are currently assigned.

Says family is first and there is need for certainty for all officers' families (SPS and RCMP). Says if he is given the green light, he will immediately move to staff up to 161. Says he has heard in media RCMP can't meet the staffing challenge; he disagrees.

Here is where he expects to get the officers from.

Says recent contract negotiations have made RCMP pay on par with municipal officers. Says that any SPS coming over the Surrey RCMP can spend their entire carear there. Says he has high repsect for SPS officers and will make sure they are treated fairly.

Edwards pointing out that he came through the RCMP as originally a municipal officer. He has been treated fairly. Says SPS officers won't have to go to depot in Regina. Says it will be streamlined. Says he stopped recruiting to make way for SPS, not because he can't find recruits

Says national team is now spooling up and that if you add up all the sources of officers, he has access to more than they actually need. Says he can achieve this goal by end of 2023 by collaborating with SPS. Says his goal is to execute the priorities set by Mayor and Council.

Interestingly, says if there is a governance issue they are flexible and willing to talk. Perhaps this presages a new public safety board? Says they are committed to the city and ready to move forward.

Thanks council and audience applauds. About 20 or so ppl standing ovation.

Locke opens the floor to questions. @delford asking about numbers. Says province says we are 1500 members short in the province. Says we need 270 (in Surrey?). Asking how RCMP will accomplish this? Does Surrey get priority on recruits?

@delford Edwards says he is prepared to answer this one. Says there are 519 vacancies, with 277 vacancies that are unfunded and could never be filled. So, funding exists now with recent Prov move. Says main driver will be the experienced officer recruitment plan.

Elford says he doesn't understand the math. Asks how many hard and soft vacancies.

Says there are 734 funded positions. He needs 161 to get full power; SPS needs 450+. Says there are no hard vacancies anymore. Soft vacancies around 60.

Elford asking how to fill the 60 positions. Edwards says that in any big business, there will always be employees who are out of comission (sick, injured, vacation, etc.,). Says RCMP has always been close to the funded number. Says 785 number had unfunded positions.

Elford now asking about the pledge that 94% of SPS won;t patch over to RCMP. Edwards says he won't speak to union business/politics. Says that employment decisions like that are individual; individual officers will make those decisions.

Stutt now asking if Surrey RCMP can recruit locally; says they are looking at a program where they can post recruits from Surrey directly back to Surrey. Says he is a proponent of this and wants to see it happen.

Locke now asking about local accountability. What about a board to oversee the RCMP? Locke asking for phones to be on mute as there have been interruptions. Edwards says he reports directly to the Mayor or a delegate. Says a public safety committee could be the delegate.

Says he has to follow mayor and council otherwise he will be replaced. Says Police Act allows for a local police board. Says RCMP would be willing to explore that option in conversation with the province.

Locke asking for final Qs.

We are now going into the CR. This should be another opportunity for continued debate. Locke calls for divison. First motion to recieve (Bose/Annis/Carried). Two is to endorse priorities in the report (Annis/Bains). Nagra asking about the $521 million in transition costs.

Asking when we will see that number. Staff saying that they are working hard to do a financial analysis that will be included in the next report on Dec 12th. Staff says they can't speak to that specific number now.

(I don't think this is where this stuff should be happening). Annis is now speaking to the officers assigned to the untransition. Says we need transparency. Says report needs to refelct real costs; cites need for accuracy. Wants additional person on committee; forensic accountant

Locke is asking if this is an amendment to the motion. Staff says it can be treated that way. City Manager says that the two RCMP staff mentioned by Annis aren't included in the report; makes motion to ammend difficult. Might need a standalone motion.

Annis' request has been decided to be a seperate motion. (Of course, we are only on 2 and that is just to endorse priorities around policing). Annis wants to have her motion between items 2 and 3. Staff suggesting go through report and add Annis motion at end. Locke agrees.

Staff now saying maybe the mover of the motion (Annis) feels it is critical that the motion come sooner. Kind of a procedural jumble. I am always surprised when this happens at council, but maybe I am just a procedure nerd.

Annis wants her motion considered as soon as possible. Locke says that instead council will consider it as item 5. Says she is happy to entertain the motion, but easier to be at end. Item 2 passes with @delford and @nagra_m in opposition.

@delford @nagra_m Item 3. The frameworkd itself (Stutt/Hepner). Elford speaking now. Says he is dissapointed a representative of the SPS was not here to give their side. Says he won't support untransition. Says it is a waste of time and money. Says SPS police board has working well (!).

Says community has been supportive of SPS. (this is badly written speech, Elford). Says a plan that counts on SPS patching over is inherently flawed. Says some jobs will be eliminated and plan "makes no sense." Says he hopes Farnworth (sees through the politics at play).

Annis now. Says we have no facts, don't know the costs (referendum suggestion time?). Says it is difficult to make a decision with taxpayer money. Says we need the facts and an "unbiased" factfinding. Says she can't endorse without the fact. No referendum motion.

Nagra now. Asking if staff can invite SPS chief to give a presentation. Stutt addressing Elford and Nagra. I love when councillors actually address eachother like this. Says that other big cities with muni forces have long history; they aren't startups taking over...

...policing in a large city. Those cities grew with their police forces, in some cases for over 100 years. Asking why there is so much talk about the hardship of SPS officers and no talk of the hardships this causes to RCMP members. Stutt pointing out that Annis previously...

...supported KTRIS. Now asking Nagra where the SPS numbers are? Now praising the restraint of the RCMP when it comes to not getting involved in the debate. Says transition has been going for 4 years and they aren't even halfway there. Is the expectation that RCMP support...

...SPS while they get their house in order? If we are going to do an audit, what happens while that is going on? Transition advances, RCMP can start hiring again, will be chaos. Says it is obvious RCMP can hire officers to fill its smaller gap than the SPS can recruit up.

Stutt gets applause for his comments. He ends by saying that we aren't going backward because we haven't even really gone forward yet.

Hepner now asking about capital costs and capital transfers. Staff says there is no mechanism in place right now to transfer the RCMP...

...assets to city and then to SPS. Stutt again now talking about a forensic audit. Who would be audited? The RCMP? The city? The SPS? Who would be audited (under the Annis proposal?). Staff says we should hold those issues until Annis' motion comes.

Locke speaking now to questions around the finances and "the numbers." Says that the report that staff would be together as a result of this CR being accepted would be the final word on costs and "the numbers."

Says this tonight is just one step in the process. Calls question.

Nagra, Elford, and Bose in opposition to accepting (3). Now we are on (4). Same vote breakdown. Now we are considering Annis' motion. Staff saying that a forensic audit only looks backwards and not into potential costs.

Staff saying that staff wil figure out models going forward for both RCMP and SPS. Says if Annis' wants thrid parties involved, the motion needs to reflect this. And this may affect the December 12th deadline.

Cam now pointing out that forensic audits are called around "untoward" activity and assumes Annis' didn't mean in that sense. Says if it is desire of council to have an independent body look at the plan, that can be entertained. Says he is confident in city staff.

Annis' now. Says she is looking for someone who is unbiased to look at the numbers. (Doesn't this imply that city staff are biased? Does city staff - the CPAs in finance - have a dog in this fight?). Seems to think report will be written by RCMP instead of city staff?

Hepner now. Asking if the internal factfinding by finance is the kind of process that Annis is describing. Cam says yes; that is what staff is working on. Says that is is very complex and has many assumptions, but promises it will be "unbiased and logical."

This attempted motion by Annis is a big flub. She didn't understand the process and inadvertantly (?) suggested that staff is presenting biased reports to council.

Mayor Locke stressing that time is of the essence. Says that they have attempted to slow SPS down and SPS has refused to stop hiring. Need for province to make a decision ASAP so as not to bleed more money. Locke asking Annis' now what she wants to do; asking staff for input.

Wow. Annis is going ahead. Wants an independent accountant to sit on the committee making the report. Annis is seconded by Bose. Elford asking for clarification. Asking if there will be financial component on Dec 12. Staff says CFO is on that committee and staff will do financial

Bose now. Says getting someone on that committee that isn't affiliated with SPS or RCMP would be useful (CFO is on that committee, right? He is neutral). Nagra now. Says he supports. Asking to invite SPS chief again.

Stutt now. Asking that if we have an auditor that will slow things down, can we direct SPS to stop spending during the delay. Locke "Want me to take a guess at that?" Staff asking for clarification on question from Stutt.

Staff saying that such a move would require the SPS board to come to a decision/agreement. Says staff can take it under advisement and asked the board. City manager saying they had asked SPS suspend spending. SPS didn't respond (left them on read, I guess).

Bose saying this is not to slow things down, but instead to add some transparency. Stutt says he understands, but it will end up taking additional time to get the proposal forward and into Farnworth's hands. (No way will SPS do it; no mechanism to agree to it during a meeting).

Hepner again. Maybe we don't need an auditor and instead some kind of a peer review? Locke asking if that is a question for staff? Hepner asks if BDO can audit the SPS/RCMP transition numbers. Locke says she is unclear about nature of auditor/accountant in motion.

Annis trying to clarify now. Explcitly saying she wants someone other than RCMP, SPS, or City of Surrey staff involved. Stutt asking if Annis' is implying that city staff is biased? Asking her if she thinks ongoing work is biased. Annis denies. Says we haven't seen numbers.

Annis doubling down that she isn't saying city staff are biased. The motion makes no sense unless she is saying that staff are biased.

Locke asking for a repeat of the motion so she can call the question. Staff repeats motion; it is to appoint an independent accountant.

Hepner interrupts vote to ask his question again. Would a peer review be a viable alternative to an independent accountant. Annis says no. Wants someone not affiliated with SPS, RCMP, or City.

Motion fails on a 5-4 split.

Okay... so 1h30m in and we are passed presentations and one corporate report. Going to be a long meeting.

Oh, Locke making a statement. Says we have 17 delegations and many speakers. Asking people to be mindful of speaking time. Asking for folks to be concise.

Seeing some media and a small chunk of the audience leave after that corporate report. Council chambers still pretty full.

Delegation time. 2 letters in support, 1 in opposition. Richard Landale speaking to this. Says the tree preservation table says zero trees will be removed; says that isn't true. Says written materials have questions for staff. Says city report not complete and accurate.

Says there are 8 protected trees on the lot, but they aren't listed; some already destroyed. Asking for application to be tabled and for the application to be reviewed.

Second delegation. 2 pieces of correspondance, both against. Richard Landale speaking now. Says this is the last densely populated tree stand. Says all 25 trees to be destroyed. Says inspection of site shows many trees just below protection threshold.

Deb Jack speaking now. This is infill, but not sensible infill. Pointing out value of the Alder trees on the site (super carbon eaters).

Delegation 3! No registered speakers or letters. Annie Kaps speaking first. Points out need for speakers to identify themselves (so I don't misidentify them, hah!). Annie asking about the issue around variances again. How can variances be listed with just one dimension so no area

She wants area of variances to be included in reports. Makes sense to me. Pointing out that some city trees being cut. Also notes that the variances issues will come up muiltiple times, but she won't speak to every one.

Staff responding to questions around variance. Says there is no possiblity to reverse variance here; variance is to get site and house into compliance. Re: monetary value around variances. Says local govt act doesn't provide way for city to be compensated.

Landale speaking to this now. Regarding variance compensation, says local government act can't do this. Says that council actually does have the power to set bylaws for any number of things. Says council can establish a bylaw to value variances. Compares to tree protection bylaw.

Delegation 4. Landale speaking to this one again. Says this application omits facts around tree loss. Additional tree loss from road extensions (10 city trees). Asking for city to require compensation for city owned trees.

Open speakers now. Mike Kompter of Hub Engineering. A regular fixture at council. Says when he met with owner he told him there was no money in this development; says owner didn't care. Loves neighbourhood. Says owner got 12 of 16 neighbours to support this project.

Delegation 5. Big addordable housing development by Kekinow Native Housing Society. 175 units. 3 pieces of correspondance. 1 support, 1 against, 1 neutral. 2 registered speakers.

Richard Landale speaking to this one. (seems like people are still trying to get into chambers? Seeing staff trying to seat people). Richard is speaking to the asbestos sewer pipe and associated asbestros infrastructure features. Says this is a significant enviro undertaking.

Asks staff if city taxpayers are expected to pay for these upgrades? Richard Speaking to traffic again. Says that this development will push traffic along 84th avenue.

Lillian Chow now. Says she is pleased to support this affordable housing project for indigenous people; points out Surrey has largest urban indigenous population. Says the project will help meet housing shortfall identified in Surrey housing report.

Says the project has a wellness centre and that it has lower parking needs (as is common with affordable housing projects); it is located close to parking so it shouldn't be a big problem re: traffic.

Deb Jack now speaking to the fact that the development has a flat roof. Says it should be greened; shrubs, trees, etc., Says anytime this is not done it is a missed opportunity.

Delegation 6. Bit of a complex rezoning involing multiple lots. 2 support, 2 against, 1 neutral correspondance. First speaker is Landale. Says there are issues with the designations in the report. Asks if council can even follow what is going on.

Landale now speaking to the traffic situation. I honestly find it hard to follow these kinds of numbers 2h15m into a meeting. I think comments on traffic would do well with some infographics or maps that can visualize the issues.

Deb Jack now speaking to the tree report. Asking how city monitors ongoing covenants around trees/green buffers. Says that while travelling in city she sees many such areas in poor repair. Locke asking staff about buffers; staff says they hold money that is released after inspect

Annie Kaps now speaking. Not only are there 5 variances with no area, but they don't even list the length of any of these variances. (That is quite silly if the case; this application seems like a bit of a mess). Staff says the variances conform to landscape and are complex.

The agent from the engineering firm is now speaking. Says that the site has irregular shaped parcels that are being rezoned to conform to the local pattern of lots. Pointing out that the variances are being requested to deal with the triangular lot shapes.

Says this will "clean up" the area and owner has been in contact witih Cloverdale Community Association.

After a short bio-break we are now on delegation 7. My laptop is running out of power, so I might have to switch to phone mode. Missed the correspondance, but it sounds like there were several who expressed opposition.

My laptop died midway through Landale's delegation. He is asking staff how much importance do they put on OCPs and NCPs? Said it would be useful for public to now.

Excuse me, he was asking COUNCILLORs not staff as to how much importance they put on OCP and NCPs. Andy speaking in support as it will provide housing for KPU students. Says increased density means more affordability.

Hardeep Sidhu speaking in support. Lives in area and says that it needs more housing.

Next speaker not here. Speaker doesn't give name. Says project conforms to OCP and thinks area could support higher density. Says it is located on arterial routes. Says it will also help preserve historic Cloverdale downtown.

Final registered speaker appears to have also left. Open call for speakers and Deb speaking now. Points out facility has no indoor amenity area. Says indoor amenity area important. Says anyone going to green areas nearby will have to cross major highway.

Deepak Chopra (sp?). Says Locke was his first MLA. Says he is supporting the project due to location in relation to KPU, new hospital, commerce, highway. Says projects like this new Canadians get settled.

Asks for council to unanimously support this. Guy kind of sounds like he wants to get into politics.

Delegation 8. Small drugstore as part of a clinic. Special zoning laws around this. Seems like something that could be streamlined.

Annie Kps speaking to this. Says the guidelines are being violated too much. 400m requirement down to 20m.

Delegation 9. This is a rezoning that splits 1/2 acre lot to two 1/4 acre lots. Three people wrote in with opposition. First speaker is Landale.

Landale says council should allow local citizens to enjoy the special zoning they have there now. Concerned about tree removal given there is a childcare centre there.

Deb Jack now. Has a question. Tree report says an offsite tree is being removed, but no explanation is given. Wants future reports to explain things like this.

Delegation 10. 6 against, 1 with concerns. 1 registered concerns at council but wnt be speaking. Landale first out of the gates. "NO, NO, NO." Says Fleetwood doesn't need this. Says it violates Fleetwood plan.

Says Fleetwood community association also against. Says this site meant for townhouse, not 5 storey apartments. Says council needs to reject the plan to respect citizens' wills.

Landale also citing ICBC statistics. Concerned about lack of traffic information in report.

Open call now. Speaker didn't give name. Says she is a neighbour of the lot. Says Fleetwood plan Says this should be a townhouse. Uncomfortable as a mother with density; concerned about normalizing 'hi rises' (surelyv5 storeys us a low rise).

Deb Jack speaking. Concerned about the flat roof being underused. Next speaker. Didn't catch the name. Also against the building, would refer townhouses. Said area is a townhouse area already. Concerned about kids going to school given traffic increase.

Sunny Jhakar (?) Is one of the owners and also lives nearby. Says city staff have worked hard on this project. Says it aligns with Metro 2050 (last council opposed thatcplan from metro). Says it will provide affordable homed and cites provincial push for housing.

Says increased density means they will be contributing to a fund to improve infrastructure. He's now pointing out some specific features of the building chosen to better conform to the area.

Says there is no 'horizontal vehicular movement' on site and no idling means no carbon monoxide (he must have meant dioxide). Says he has 16 letters of support from neighbours

Another speaker. No name given. Lives nearby. Says there are many children in area; says increased densitybwould come at cost of quality of life for existing residents.

Fernando now. Echoes Landales "no, no, no." Says he moved to area when it was less developed. Townhouses sprung up and he wants that 'more friendly' style of housing to win out. Applause from chambers. Locke asks for no clapping.

Delegation 11 now. Rezoning. 1 piece of correspondence in support. Annie Kap speaking to this item. Asks why directors of firm not listed on this application. Says they will report back.

Delegation 12. Looks like someone is expanding their oceanfront home. 1 letter against. 2 in support not wanting to speak. Wow no delegations on this one!

Delegation 13. 1 letter in support and 1 against. Landale to start. Says this doesn't provide affordable housing; this is just a cash grab. Wants council to deny application and put the land into parks.

Into delegations at 3h20m and now it feels like I am just tweeting into the void. Okay, Deb now. Disagreeing with tree report. Says 9 tree undercount. Also has concern for uncompensated understory.

Delegation 14. Large townhouse complex. 2 letters against, 4 registered in support. A 'number' of registered speakers. Number means many.

Landale opens up. Says Dart Hill is under attack by developers. Cites an earlier development in November with a similarly large tree cut. Says city inconsistent re: parking minimums.

Richard getting into some technical issues about a partially overlapping petition area known as Hazelmere Estates.

Greg Norris speaking. In support. Says he has a young family that uses services nearby. Can't find anything affordable I area, so he wants this to go ahead to help people like himself and family.

Next speaker. South Surrey resident in support. Says they want to bring parents from Richmond. This complex would be ideal for people like them.

Dennis Whitfield now. Says he doesn't usually comment. Says those voices heard at council are those not seeking housing (that's some shade).

South Surrey resident. Seeking affordable housing options. Says too hard to get into the market. Points out councilors are all home owners (true, if only a renter was elected!).

Deb now. Calling it an urban clear-cut. Concerned about time for replacement trees to grow to provide sane natural services. Very concerned about tree cut in riparian area.

Annie Kaps now. Says this application an example of a variance that doesn't result in compensation to city. Also concerned about tree cut in riparian area; salmon need adjacent vegetation for stream health and stability.

Another speaker. Simon from south surrey. Speaking in favor for affordable housing concerns. Says land values too high for young folks to buy single detached homes. Townhouse needed for this reason. Made a weird comment about trees I didn't understand.

And now we've got Mike Kompter from hub engineering again. Says that the proposal is within parameters of Darts Hill NCP area. Says there was a stalemate between sewers and parks department. Detention pond was the compromise. Says it benefits everyone.

Delegation 15. Six business park buildings in South Surrey. 15 in support, 6 against in correspondence.

Did you know the city has a North and South planning dept. Maybe we need north and south hearings? There must be a better way to do this.

Landale now speaking to the OCP. Bringing up concerns around the increased density. Concerned about a line that says increased density is for "demonstration" purposes.

Richard also rising concerns around power lines in the area and deaths occurring under 'unusual circumstances.'

Richard running out of time. "You have one minute Richard" Says Locke.

Deb Jack speaking now. Says this is another urban clearcut. Praising that 30 trees to be cut will be made into wilderness logs. I.e. for use by animals as dens, nests or to be reclaimed by green areas/plants.

Development 16 now. 171 townhouses in South Surrey. Wow I yawned and missed the supporters/opposition. Darn. Sounded big.

Richard now. "My wife says I am too obsessed" with his delegations to city hall. 365 trees to be cut on this site. He is making the oxygen creation argument. I'm not sure this is the best approach. More on that later perhaps.

Maggie the agent for the application. Going into the history of the application along with a presentation. Was originally cluster housing. Apparently many were diseased. That is how a park was created on site.

Speaking to concerns around traffic, says the townhouses are comparable to single family homes with 2ndary suites. Also points out a school is coming to the area.

Anne Kaps now. Say the name of the project "Sunnyside grove" is a misnomer. Says green city fund contribution is not generosity, but just the cost of doing business.

Another speaker. Close by. Says he has no problem with it and those he's spoken to in area don't have a problem either.

Another adjacent neighbour. Has no problem with the project. Says younger folks will be able to afford housing here. Says 88% of Canada unpopulated, so we shouldn't care about the trees. "I'm a businessman." No shit.

Simon Markels from south surrey again. Supporting this due to need for affordable housing. Has some concerns around traffic, but there either is - or he is suggesting- some kind of onramp to help with traffic.

Jason Gill representing the developer. Says family developer committed to Surrey. Says this is third Mayor and Council to be considering this project.

Delegation 17. The BIG one. Harmony apartments. 178 in support, 20 against, 2 with concerns. 60 attending expressing support but not speaking. Biggest show of support I've seen by the numbers.

Richard Landale "I told you so." Will not support on grounds of transparency failures. Supports this kind of housing in theory. Urges council to do extensive research before voting. Cites some specific clauses to look into.

Natalie Heartman speaking. High school basics teacher. Says many students unsure about their life after high school. This kind of housing can support them as they contribute to society. Mentions support present in the room.

Lillian Chow now. Has a townhouse complex not far from Harmony site. Knows that there is high demand in that area. Says 93% increase in demand for nonmarket rental houses. Applauds those involved. "We want to live in a city where everyone belongs."

Deborah now. Says she supports harmony. Says seniors in her Poston don't qualify for affordable housing; Says projects like this are vital. Was devastated when the project was turned down.

Ian Jarvis now. Ocean Park. On thr Uniti board. Says Uniti has 60 years of experience providing this kind of housing support. Gives an impressive resume ad says staff report on this application is very good. Not a traditional developer.

Says they focused on south east corner to maximize units allowed. Says Harmony fits into current city plans. Says it retains trees and greenspace, Semiahmoo trail realignment is supported by Friends of Semiahmoo trail. Says Harmony will be a great step forward.

Glen Chambers now. Says he lives next door. Opposes this project as presented. Says he has opposed it three times. Says it does not comply with character of neighborhood or city plans. Says it will impact one and two level homes.

Cites variances, tree removal, and traffic as having an impact on area. Mentions that @delford and @nagra_m opposed the plans before. Note Safe Surrey 180ed on opposition to Harmony. I wonder how they will vote. He wants 4 storey max. Appeals to Locke's listening to community.

Says 200 letters delivered against this project. Says @LindaAnnisBC recuse herself last time. Why not this time?

Ann Bailey next from Rose Grove. Opposes this development. Mentions the 200 letters. Days this is not appropriate in this area. Says 6 storeys are too many. Says their efforts have fallen on deaf ears.

She read an excerpt from a letter from original architect. Says only redeanming aspect of the 6 storey building is more housing. Says it doesn't even fulfill definition of affordable housing.

Asks Locke to instruct staff to be less biased. Interestong use of language throughout that delegation.

Next speaker takes exception to a joke Richard made about having a hearing difficulty. Tearful mother concerned about what will happen to her daughter who has Downes Syndrome. The daughter speaks now. Says she needs a home in her community.

Next speaker. Katie speaking in support. She is a uniti board member ad mother of a child with autism. Says her child should always have a home in South Surrey. Wants us to recognize the privilege we have in even debating this issue. Calls for empathy and respect.

Next speaker in support. Lives in area and says that area needs this development. Says there is need for affordable housing. Says it is close to services (I checked out the area with Locke early last summer; does seem like a 15 minute neighbourhood).

Leslie Holmes now. Lives next to the sites. Says she has always supported affordable housing and says she has grand daughter with intellectual disabilities. Says she is AGAINST because the building is too tall. Says community supported a four storey building.

She is now speaking to election promises, specifically around listening to residents concerns (note Locke met with opponents of Harmony during the election and heard them out).

Speaker now is mother of someone who had to leave. Stresses that it won't be overwhelming on the lot. There won't be traffic jams as most lower income folks don't drive.

Anita Huberman speaking in support. Says Surrey needs to be a leader in affordable and inclusive housing. Surrey is going to be the largest city in BC. This project will provide much needed housing.

Says @SBofT supports this as it will provide housing for a wide variety of different folks. @anitahuberman also praising the (green) amenities integrated into the project. Will also provide construction jobs in area. Urges council to support.

Bob speaking now. Says he's had his eyes opened to the joys and needs of Uniti. Says he wants to bring up facts that don't get mentioned much. 6k support petition vs 400 against. Says 13x more ppl support than oppose. Says nearby zoning allows for tall buildings.

Next speaker points out that all mayor's running this last election all supported Harmony. Next speaker must have had to leave already.

Kathleen Mulholland. Adjacent to property. Says she is not opposed to concept, just to the height of the building. Says everyone in area has same issue (I never believe these nontestable claims; McCallum did this a lot).

Next speaker is Patrick Brownsword. Lives adjacent. Strongly objects. Agrees wholeheartedly in plan... okay. To save my sanity, I'll only tweet new points made.

Claims developer is intentionally causing maximum impact on neighborhood. I think he was being hyperbolic, but he speaks as if he is being 'literal.'

Eric Liebert (?). Rosewood strata in opposition. Am I going to have leave this meeting to catch the last bus? Sounds like it's that kind of a meeting. Or might we get a two part meeting? Happens in Van sometimes. Only happened once I recall in last 4 years in Surrey that...

... a meeting was adjourned to another day (that was when McCallum felt threatened by KTRIS presence in chambers).

Julianne Hayes from White Rock in support. Wants there to be affordable housing options in area.

I don't want to disrespect this public hearing process, but this is feeling like a bad day at Vancouver council.

Elizabeth Tickleman. Acting agent other proposal. Points out Surrey vacancy rate is 0.6% with many renters spending over 50% of their income on housing. Says Harmony is a critical step in right direction.

Roxanne Pope now. Child of two ppl with developmental disabilities. Says we need affordable housing in the city. The reality is the city is changing and we need more density. Renters lack stability, projects like this provide stability.

She is calling out @delford and @nagra_m for rejecting Harmony last tine without comment last time. She is inviting them to comment. I really want to be here for that! But I think the busses will have stopped running by them.

Next speaker is in support. Says affordable housing makes a huge difference to those who are able to access it. When he asks how much a 2 bedroom goes for in Surrey, immediately from behind me... "$2,600.00"

Brenda now limiting delegations to 2 minutes. 16 registered speakers left and potentially infinite open speakers (okay, that's an exagerration)

Okay I think I missed the last train...

Looks like I'm going to try and stream the mtg to my phone