Good afternoon everyone. I'd like to call the meeting to order at 4:30 today
and acknowledge that the District of Tofino operates within the territory
that's locally at First Nation. And a notice to attendees that the
meeting is being video recorded and will be published on the District of Tofino's
YouTube channel. And notice to the virtual attendees to
sign up for the public comment and question period using the Q&A function
in Zoom. To register, participants are required to enter their full name,
residential address, and the agenda item they wish to speak to.
And I'll move from the chair that pursuing to section 15 of the District
of Tofino meeting procedure bylaw number 1229 2016 as amended the June 9th, 2026
Committee of the Whole meeting be held electronically via Zoom and live
broadcasted on the District of Tofino's YouTube channel and that the facility
provided for the public to watch and hear the meeting be located at the
Clayoquot Sound Theatre, 380 Campbell Street in Tofino, BC.
» Seconded. >> We we don't do
» Thank you. Uh Counselor Sawyer,
all those in favor? None opposed, motion carried.
Uh I'll also move from the chair that the June 9th, 2026 Committee of the
Whole agenda be adopted. Thank you, Mayor Law. Seconded. All
those in favor? Seeing none opposed, motion carried. And I'll move from the
chair that the minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting held March 3rd,
2026 be adopted. Thank you, Counselor Thomas. All those
in favor? Seeing no opposed, motion carried.
I'll look up to Miss Hepner. Do we have any public comment on agenda items
today? >> Thank you, counselor Steer. No one has
signed up on the public comment. I will now make an open call for comment.
Those in the gallery who wish to speak, please raise your hand. If there's
anyone attending online, we assume they would like to make a comment. You can do
so now using the Q&A function. When you begin a comment, you will need
to state your name, your address, and the agenda item you are speaking to. I
will now do a call, calling once, calling twice,
calling three times. There are no comments at this time, counselor Steer.
» Thank you. So, there are no delegations today, so
we do have a correspondence from Laura Landy and Chrissy Montgomery,
co-founders of the Nova Surf Lifesaving Club, regarding a request for seasonal
space for the Nova Surf Lifesaving Club van.
I'll look to the committee to see if there's any comments regarding them.
» Sure, I'll comment. Um I thought that this was um
they have two asks here, and I thought it
pretty reasonable. Um I didn't know if
Uh so, the Where is the Where is it here? The first ask is to have a
a permit, and then the second one was an appointed
a designated parking space. And I was wondering if I didn't know if
perhaps a a designated parking space could be like
a time limit that when they're in use, it might
work for them. So, it's not out of use for the rest of
the community for the whole period of the day.
» Any other comments from anybody?
Anyone? >> Yeah, I think it's uh I think it's a
reasonable request. I think it's really great
» [clears throat] >> community
society. So, I think it's supportive of
doing something to to meet their request.
» I'm sorry. >> Um yeah, I'm also in favor of the
request and find it reasonable. I also find or feel that designated spot would
help communicate the presence of the
lifeguard.
» So, Thomas, I did see your note. I think I think
great. Maybe I'll I'll look quickly to staff in terms of the request itself. Um
I'll be happy to maybe refer to staff to give us maybe some of the
technical work that would have to be done to honor that request. If you feel
there's general consensus that we'd like to move forward with that request.
Any any comments? >> Yeah, I think that it's certainly
something that that staff can work on. It sounds like council or the committee
is supportive. So, I think the next step would be to refer your request to staff.
Um and if there's any There's There's a couple checks and balances that we need
to put in place if anything needs to be turned around.
» No, it's not we just work on it.
» How about So, a resolution to um to refer to staff.
Anyone like to make that? >> Yeah.
» Mayor Law, thank you. >> I'll move that the committee of the
whole recommends to council uh that staff be
requested to return to council with a recommendation
regarding
Eno Surf Lifesaving Club request. Parking.
Does that make sense? >> Um we may not need to return to council.
So, if we were able to remove that that part from from the motion, we could just
refer the request to to staff to execute.
» Yeah, but for staff to execute that council
recommendation, it has to come to regular council.
» It will as part of the the minutes of the
So, then >> So,
» Okay. It's okay. I think any we can certainly look at that.
» Sure. Uh so, we've got the motion on the table. We have a seconder. Thank you,
Councillor Sawyer. Call the question. All those in favor?
Seeing none opposed, motion carried. Great. So, we can move further into the
agenda today. We've got a wonderful agenda today. So, starting with 8.1, uh
Mini Peaks Legacy Project, mini soccer pitch.
Pitch, sorry. Verbal report from Community Services.
Mr. Lax, good to see you. >> Hello.
Thank you for having >> Mayor and Council, good evening.
» Thank you for attending.
» Yeah, so I'm here to present um an opportunity for our town to um there is
a project that will be a legacy of the FIFA World Cup. And it's um they are
working with the Province of British Columbia as well as Via Sport and the
Vancouver Whitecaps to build 20 mini soccer pitches across the province.
Um basically what they provide is an
artificial turf, fiber fences and boards, and um
and then programming support as well as coach and education training.
And they look to create accessible spaces that um have some informal play.
So, think about our basketball courts or our pickleball courts, anybody can go
in there as well as support um uh youth amateur sport at our grass
level. Uh the program timeline, so it has
opened for expressions of interest. And they will be working with the
communities um to um
look at the the sites that are selected. Um and then it's just ongoing. There's
no end to the um application time. It's just until they have awarded all 20
million pitches. And then they have a very aggressive
timeline to have at least two built by September 2026.
Um and then we'll work through the the rest of the money.
Um and they'll support programming for
after launch for 3 years. Um
so looking at potential locations for it, um
one would be the Wickaninnish >> new school of blacktop. For those of you
who've seen it, it's in somewhat disrepair. And so um it's also where the
largest mass kids congregate on a daily basis. So
uh and accessible um for our remote communities to walk up from the dock. So
that that is one that definitely uh one location that we've looked at. And the
purpose of today is to this um assess the feasibility of this project um for
our community and determine whether we should
uh put in an expression of interest as sort of like a a first phase. And then
understand the opportunities that it provides for our recreation and our
community services, and then the responsibility shared responsibilities
and next steps for it. Um
one of the uh
for the communities that they will award, what they're looking for are
recreation infrastructure gaps. Um I hope um mayor and council uh and our
parks and rec master plan support that we are one of those communities in a
very big way. We have very heavy pressure on our school fields,
being one for both school use as well as for community use.
Um we have just a one single gym that we have access to. And then um thank you
for your support of the community service and recreation department
because we have a growing youth sport participation because of it.
Very we to see that and and hope to find good homes for that increase in sport
participation. Um in terms of community benefits is
that we will have more community This will add one more
community hub for kids to play at and take some of the pressure off of
the old and the gym and the community hall which um
have scheduling [clears throat] demands on on them or or
quality concern like when it rains, you know, 300 mm a month
here during our soccer season it makes it hard to harder to play on the field.
So, having this what this mini pitches is artificial turf so you can play on it
year-round. Um it'll also allow for multi-sport use and we're looking we
would look into with the turf what what are the prime
candidates for how for which sports would be best fit onto
the turf. Um and and to the playing service
and really what they're looking for what it'll provide is is more active engaged
youth. They'll have one more space to play at.
So, what the mini pitch or mini peaks project provides so they
um they sport project management. They do
the design work with you for the design as well as the installation as well as
other hardware such as goals and perimeter boards or fencing.
But one of the things were that is really excited about this project is
that they also since it's with the Whitecaps, they provide 3 years of coach
training and education. And so, for our volunteers, um
it would just mean a lot to in terms of their coaching path to be able to access
Whitecaps have a great reputation within the
Lower Mainland community of of both the player and coach development. And for us
to be able to access that as a remote community would would be huge. It
really, internally, one of our goals is having greater continuity of of
knowledge and support for our volunteer coaches. And And so, that aspect of it
is is shouldn't be overlooked, I'd say. Um what the program does not cover is
the site prep for um um
for the surface. And then, the long-term maintenance piece, as well as the
operational costs for it.
Um so, the next steps is um with your support is is submitting an expression
of interest. Then, uh our department will have to develop a project sheet.
And then, uh also do have further discussion with
the Mini Peaks uh technical team. So, they're just onboarding their technical
staff. It's come together very quickly for them. And so, some of the the
questions that we would be proposing would just be answered be able to be
answered in the couple of weeks. So, um
So, our recommendation is that the community as a whole recommend that
council support our expression of interest for the Mini Peaks project. And
that should the expression of interest be successful, that staff return to
council at a future meeting with options for
final consideration.
» I think is this your first time presenting?
» It is it is as staff. Yes. >> Thank you.
Great. Looking to the committee. Counselor sorry. Then Counselor
Anderson, Counselor Thomas. >> I just have a question to the chair
regarding the potential other sports that could
make use of that space. I know that currently the informal groups, ball
hockey group enjoy that space and while it is
informal, I wouldn't want to take it away from them if they didn't
have any other options. Is that artificial turf conducive to that?
» So that is that will be one of the questions for that technical team. I do
see two things. One, I do see field hockey
being played on turf. I'm not sure what the difference would be between
the field hockey and and sticks. Right now
anecdotally from we have been hosting ball hockey at the community hall and
they choose to play inside even in good weather right now instead of playing at
the blacktop. I would have um So in in terms of we've talked about
that as staff, you know, for the saltwater classic that that is a space.
Um but I I would leave it until we spoke to the
technical team to be able to answer that.
» Okay, thank you. >> Counselor Anderson, Counselor Thomas and
then Counselor Swan. >> My question to the chair is um
what sort of surface are they looking for? I'm
wondering how much site prep is necessary.
If the blacktop is a good surface to work with or it has
to be removed. >> So
um we're not sure in terms of
in in speaking to some people like we'd have to there'd have to be I think
a geotech analysis to figure out uh what would be needed on top but
um or just set the the site appropriately.
Um so that isn't that that isn't answer we'd have to
return turn with.
» Um I think on the surface I'm kind of
supportive because I think with um the controversy and the cost related to FIFA
we should try to grab onto any benefits we can get from such a large event
coming to the province. Uh similar questions already been asked and also
sorry I asked about what happens to the sports that get neglected from there and
then Councillor Anderson brought up um the potential for preparing the site. So
I was wondering where the maybe that's not a question for you but for other
staff but where the cost would how we would pay for that for preparing
the site like where that would come from from the budget and then I was also
wondering about the ongoing maintenance that's required for AstroTurf. Like
what's the lifespan going to look at for that? Um
cuz other infrastructure I think we're pretty familiar with but knowing if we
need to replace the AstroTurf in three years or five years or if it should last
the 10 um would be useful information. >> Um
should I refer that to you in terms of the possible site prep?
» Yes Mr. Um we're understanding that likely we're moving a block off and
we're rebuilding that whole section. What that costs and how we pay for it
would be the subject of the project sheet. So if there's an expression of
interest we'll get us in the a foot in the door to say this might be a good
site and then once we once we know if we're approved or not then we would come
back to council and say it looks like the site prep's going to cost this.
Here's where we think our funding is. Is Is something else we're also in support
of? So is what I just certainly think then. I think
um and think about the long-term uh tell what what our needs will be over the
10-year period. I know that's something that Mr. Berman and his team have
already started to put their brains our minds to. But again, that would be
something that we'd bring back. So, let's assume that for that opportunity.
The the EOI doesn't commit us to anything. It just says that that we're
interested, basically.
Councilor Sloan? >> Mhm.
» And then also that's right, and then Mayor Wood.
» Um I think that this is a great idea and
um I'll I'll be supportive of it. And my
question would be like as going forward if um
there be any consideration of putting some coverage on it so we could extend
the usage? >> Yeah, so I think um
that would be one of one of the considerations, but
at the um sort of high level that we're in
right now, um those details um but
in the Parks and Rec Master Plan, albeit it is a draft, um you know,
covered space has been set up and spoken about as priority, so
I think it would be important to look at as a consideration, for sure.
» I think it's a great idea. I wish you would have applied for it. I think a lot
of the questions we just heard from council are a little presumptive,
assuming we get the thing. So,
if we get the grant and then we can talk about
it once we get it.
» I concur. I think it's a great opportunity. I think one of the things
that makes that space less than useful right now is it's is the surface.
It's got, you know, the blacktop isn't great and it's
it's not really great. It's not flat. So, I think if we fix that and get a
grant to do it, I think the parking funds are sufficient to to carry
anything that goes over, and I think it'll
it'll be multi-use. We did have a a movable ice rink here
several years ago that was quite popular going to flood spot.
There are you know, mobile things that could go in there for recreation. I'm
sure you could dream up. So I think it's a great idea.
» Um maybe if we could get the recommendation back up onto the board. I
think there seems to be a general consensus but
we'd like to go at this thing. Get that back up there while
or any members >> [clears throat]
» like to volunteer to read the recommendation.
» I have one more quick question. >> Sure. Go ahead.
» Um and
when I first saw this, I thought Bert Mary Park might be another choice.
And we don't know if that was eliminated in staff
discussions or not. But if
if this site turns out to not be suitable, it would be good to um
that's why we got to ask him about
» Through the chair to Council Anderson, we have thought about Satchel possibly
and Bert Mary. From what I understand at these early stages, part of the interest
from Thunder has been our partnership with the school and the benefit to the
the school kids and the access there. So if something
that seemed to be what has to this point what we know now that that's what sort
of grabs their interest is that partnership. Peace. We don't have that
same thing at Bert Mary. I do agree that Bert Mary is in need of some programming
and you know, possibly a redo of Satchel. So we'll definitely keep that
in the back of our mind if something changes.
» It It does bring up a point there. I'm just curious if being on SD70
property it would retain our asset or how how would that
I know we'll probably get that information what's later on but it is on
SD70 property so whose asset would it be?
» Should the chair to Councillor Steer
you want to share the share? >> I think that's TBD like we we'd have to
work through that process. Um likely being expansion over MOE projects
and and then agreement about who's responsible for what exactly.
I think at this point we're looking at our perspective but SD70
sounds like they're interested in it they just may not have the funds to do
it. We had done together.
» Any Councillor would like to move it? >> Yeah, I'll move it.
» No, I'll move it. >> Go ahead.
» I'll move it to the end. I move that the Committee of the Whole
recommend that Council support the expression of interest for the Mini
Peaks project and that should the EOI be successful staff return to
Council for at a future meeting with options for
final consideration. >> Seconded by Councillor Quick Master. All
those in favor signified opposed and motion carried.
» Thank you very much. >> Next up on the agenda we have multi-use
path >> safety improvements and another verbal
report from Community and Protective Services.
» I got to take behind the scenes here. >> [laughter]
» Uh good evening Committee of the Whole. Uh Dean Collard Bylaw Supervisor Planner
1 for the District of Squamish. Um I'm here tonight to provide a brief
update for the community regarding multi-use path safety grant that was
recently applied and received for by the District of Squamish.
Um so yeah, today's agenda today we'll go over the overview of the multi-use
path, concerns raised by the community around safety, a grant opportunity
received by the district, plan to implement those safety measures
regarding the pilot program, and finally update community engagement
opportunities.
So, as you're all familiar with multi-use path, the
multi-use path or MAP, also known as, is a 8.8 km
linear active transportation trail that connects downtown Tofino with several
beaches and neighborhoods on the Esowista Peninsula.
And the MAP represents the combination of more than 30 years of planning and
hundreds of hours of fundraising by volunteers. Over the past decade, the
MAP has received significant investments through grants
and the province's resort by initiative that has funded surface improvements,
widening, and extension branches to Pacific Rim National Park Reserve and to
Ucluelet. In actualizing the district's
multi-modal transportation plan and cycling network plan, the MAP has become
Tofino's one of Tofino's most popular and widely used civic pieces of
infrastructure. With this, user traffic has
significantly increased over this period of time and serves a diverse set of user
groups including local residents, seniors, youth, and visitors, each with
their own diverse set of mobility behaviors.
We're also seeing a wide range of uses on the MAP, each with their own movement
habits including dog walking, e-biking, e-scootering, commuter cycling,
skateboarding, wheelchair use, walkers for breath, and general
recreation use. This traffic often peaks in higher
visitation windows, particularly in summer.
And over recent years, the district has
received feedback pertaining to safety concerns
from several different sources including local residents, the RCMP, Island Health
staff at the Tofino General Hospital, Tourism Tofino, and the Tofino Chamber
of Commerce, amongst other community stakeholders.
So, the Vision Zero Grant. So, following this feedback, staff collaborated with
Island Health to identify an appropriate grant stream to respond to these
community concerns. And in British Columbia, the Vision Zero
in Road Safety Grant program was created in 2021 from the joint partnership of
the government of BC, the BC Injury Research and Prevention
Unit, Unit, the First Nations Health Authority, and five other local health
authorities, including Island Health. The grant program provides funding to
British Columbians who are seeking to create safer roads and spaces for their
communities. A Vision Zero approach recognizes that people make mistakes,
and sometimes these mistakes can result in road crashes and injuries. However,
sometimes these mistakes However, governments, health
professionals, and road designers, and road users can work together to
implement proactive measures that minimize the severity of these crashes.
Stream number one was selected by staff to seek funding for the design and
installation of low-cost transportation infrastructure that improves the safety
of vulnerable users. And in applying for this grant, staff
referenced several policy guidelines to fit community concerns in identifying
safety enhancements. Staff reviewed the Tofino's e-bike or e-mobility device
policy, Tofino's multimodal transportation plan, Tofino's wayfinding
sign plan, and the British Columbia Active
Transportation Design Guide for safety mitigation measures.
So, the grant application submitted by staff focused primarily on road user
education, signage, and surface painting to take a proactive communications
approach and it's intended to reach a diverse set
of user groups and mobility devices. Staff applied for the Vision Zero grant
stream number one in fall 2025 and was successful in their application
receiving $70,000 in the spring of 2026.
Fine.
Yeah, here we go. About the safety measures. Perfect. Thank you.
Uh the funds received from the Vision Zero grant are intended to be focused on
several incremental safety enhancements primarily around messaging and signage.
These measures target a high use section of the MUP and are planned to be
introduced this summer as a pilot program to gather feedback and guide a
broader active transportation safety strategy.
Reviewing community feedback against local and provincial policy documents
that I just mentioned, staff will work with Allen Health to develop uh the
following safety precautions including larger and clearer simply worded signage
alongside the MUP that will replace the existing signage, surface messaging
painted on the asphalt pathway, slower speed zones in high traffic and limited
sightline areas, keep right signs and ring bell to pass
signs, consultation with bike, e-bike, and
scooter rental companies to increase education,
printed brochures and messaging for tourism to give out to MUP and
businesses to give out to MUP users, on-site MUP education, and a feedback
gathering mechanism.
There we go. Timeline. So, you'll see here a section of the MUP
in blue on the map up getting in the village for extending out to Tunnels and
North Trestle and Beaches and then out to the National Park Reserve.
The yellow section here in the middle is proposed to be the slower speed zone for
for the map north of Sharp Road where most of the pilot program is primarily
focused on. And stuff we're planning to implement
the pilot program throughout this summer beginning with a print campaign offering
user education to rental businesses and tourists in Tofino.
Onsite education is also planned by staff offer handouts and user education.
Um implement the implement of signage is planned for July and sort of it's
painting for later afterwards. Uh following collection of feedback from
user groups, the community and and staff will then return to council with their
findings.
Final communications and engagement. So throughout the pilot program staff are
planning on publishing a Tofino survey. Staff will also engage with rental
businesses and the Tofino Chamber of Commerce.
Uh and then staff will return to council uh and continue gathering feedback to
the following follow up their strategy on them.
And with that I conclude my update for council.
For your time. And happy to answer any other questions. No formal
recommendation recommendation um seeking this council time. Just
just an update but happy to take this.
» Can you tell me what a speed zone is? Is it just a matter of putting a sign up
saying slow slow down? >> Yeah, essentially. So so the provincial
recommendation on speeds is 32 km/h and that's in our e-mobility device policy.
So that's multi-use path wide. But we're seeing that higher traffic area kind of
north of Sharp Road. Our intention is to designate that as the slower speed zone.
So we're intending to to increase signage around that area.
Enforcement can be can be tricky but we're choosing to take corrective
enforcement uh and and use signage communication to to help mitigate that
use.
» Thank you. >> Uh Council Member
» Uh just one one comment we have with that um signage.
Like uh for a cyclist myself, I
it's kind of out of out of your view range when you're turning. The
» [clears throat] >> bike path are a little bit I don't know.
I I think the more effective uh
messaging would be right on the surface. And free standing signs,
they start to get pretty numerous. I would
and it the more you have, the less you
really see them. Because they So anyways, that's just a
just comment from being a cyclist that and
the free standing signs aren't really well
observed or or easy to see sometimes when you're
cycling. >> Agreed. Yeah, thank you for the
question, uh Mr. Henderson. Um yeah, the the pilot program implements both kind
of like a surface painting pilot program where we'll paint actually on the map
with communication and signage there and then also signage, typical signage, but
larger and um uh more eye-catching.
» So, uh you're someone who's hasn't used technology much, but what's the value in
in a print uh campaign? And And I see that it it's launching in June and I And
I know it's a pilot program, so maybe you will then evaluate the value of the
print program, but what what is the the print campaign?
» Good question. Thank you for the question. Um so, we're intending to kind
of create some messaging on a printed format to hand out to e-bike rental
businesses so that they can use that in kind of their orientation walk-through
when a customer rents a a bike. Um and then also for staff to hand out on the
mop um if there's some some compliance issues or kind of education issues. Um
something that uh a visitor or local resident can can take home and read and
also um follow up with our feedback mechanism through Talk Tofino.
Thank you.
» Seeing nothing else from the floor. >> Thank you, Mr. Recchia. Appreciate it
once again. >> [clears throat]
» So, moving on, we now have traffic and parking regulation bylaw
amendments by Mr. Purton coming up.
» Good morning, Mayor and Council and the Committee of the Whole.
Today, I'll provide an overview of proposed amendments that were
presented in my report to Council to the District of Tofino traffic and parking
um regulation bylaw along with related updates to supporting
bylaws.
Beach pay parking was introduced in 2021 and downtown parking pay parking
followed in 2023. Since then, there have been a few
amendments updating fees. Um however, all fees will cease to have any
increases post 2026. In January 2026, staff verbally
discussed uh potential bylaw amendments with Council.
Uh the committee subsequently directed staff to return with a detailed report
to allow for more time to review implications and provide informed
feedback and direction. Those discussions raised questions about
resident downtown resident passes, commercial
passes, business impacts, and whether the current bylaw language and fee
schedules are as clear as they should be.
As staff worked through the 2026 rule out, it also became clear that there was
opportunities to simplify some of the rules and optimize the
public-facing information.
One area staff are recommending changes to is the commercial vehicle pass
system. Right now, the traffic bylaw refers to a
downtown-only commercial pass and a beach-only pass, each at $120.
While the fees and charges bylaw lists the same fee as applying to both pay
parking areas. Staff are proposing that all pay parking
fees be consolidated into the fees and charges bylaw, so there's one clear and
authoritative source for the fee schedules.
Staff are also proposing that the commercial vehicle pass apply
consistently across both areas, similar to how it's listed in the fees and
charges bylaw, currently, with clear wording on what the pass
allows and where restrictions would remain, such as long-term or overnight
parking in certain locations.
Another [clears throat] area for committee consideration is the downtown
resident parking pass. Um as council could recall, a recent uh
in 2024 draft parking traffic and parking control regulation bylaw
amendment introduced a phased reduction in the number of permits allowed per
unit, housing residential unit or the housing unit.
The question staff has is whether the committee would like staff to continue
with the 2024 model where the first permit is free and the second permit is
$150 or the 2025 model where each permit is
$150 to a maximum of two permits per unit.
In either case, staff are proposing clearer bylaw language similar to the
commercial passes on how these permits can be used and to which blocks they
apply to.
At the January 2026 Committee of the Whole meeting, staff were asked to take
a closer look at the hourly rates options that were presented in light of
current economic pressures. That analysis included a benchmark
review of places such as Jasper, Whistler, and Parks Canada locations
along with local parking data which continues to show that usage is
primarily visitors based and the and and long and long duration parking remains
limited. Based on that review, staff do recommend
a fixed 3-year schedule that holds the current rate throughout 2027
and introduces moderate increases in 2008 28 and 2029.
In staff's view, this provides stability while supporting sustainable program
revenue over time. The alternative approach would be a
CPI-based model. While this model would be predictable,
it would mean revenue growth follows inflation
rather than actual costs and pressures associated with operating the paid
parking program in the long term. Uh the revenue it generated under both
options and subsequent incomes is is shared within the report that community
impacts.
» [clears throat] >> Staff are also recommending that the
downtown pay parking start date shift to April 1st to reflect early spring
visitor demand that we do see. And more broadly, one of the
housekeeping items that I previously mentioned in the commercial pass slide
is to reduce duplication risk across bylaw framework by placing all fees in
the fees and charges bylaw, keeping the regulatory provisions in the
traffic bylaw, and locating offenses only in the
municipal ticketing and notice adjudication bylaws.
Uh the next step, and subject to committee direction, would be for staff
to prepare the necessary bylaw amendments and bring them forward for
council consideration before the 2027 pay parking
season commences. Uh then with that, I'll leave the
recommendation on the screen and open up the floor to questions and discussion.
» Thank you, uh Mr. Kirkland. I appreciate it.
Presentation once again. I have a feeling there's going to be a few
questions and comments. I'll look to the committee
to see.
No, go ahead with this with whatever you
would like in this department. >> Um
Um I was going to say that I'm in support of the schedule option one over
option two. Um knowing that option one kept the
rate steady for residents Frank Island and all those things, and
the increases are just falling on the visitor usage. And I think having a
more dependable model and clearly indicated that option two with the CPI
wasn't going to meet our needs. Um for the over the downtown residential
permit, um, I would be good with either the three first permit paying for the
second one or either way adding the second permit back
on. I think we heard some people that, um,
not having that second permit was, um,
detrimental to some people's lifestyles. And then what was the other
one? Yeah. Anyway, overall I thought it was
great. Um, I appreciate cleaning up, um, the things that were confusing for the
public and getting things in
» Thanks. Councillor Sawyer. >> Uh, thank you through the chair. I'm
also in favor of the 2024 parking permit model for downtown
residents, um, given that we're also eventually going to see increased
density in that area. Um,
it makes sense that more people will be needing to park on the street.
» Different conversation brings us into uh, so the there was the option of um,
the 2024 model and the 2025. So >> 2024 was one free permit and then one
permit at 150. Yes. >> Yes.
» Yes. >> Thank you.
First moment. >> Um,
yeah, I like the it seems to make sense to consolidate
the, um, downtown rates into the into the fees and parking bylaw. Um,
I'll go a little bit against the grain and I would like to see two permits per
per household, but I still would like to incentivize people to park on their own
property. And you can I think a
large parking permit is not unreasonable for a parking spot. Um,
uh, and I like the three model recommended
by staff.
Uh, what was the option one again?
And I think that's all. Oh.
Oh, it doesn't matter for the expansion of the dates.
Um And I I wasn't really in favor of
expanding the dates of the pay parking because I felt that
it might put pressure on the downtown businesses because we don't people who
live out of town or the visitors who are visiting out of town don't have the
option to bike into town or they have less of an option because of the
weather. So, I didn't feel comfortable with that.
Um I also have concerns about that because
um I know my family sometimes bikes into
work and it's really difficult to bike to work in
April when the weather can be so bad. So, I wasn't I wasn't in favor of
expanding that.
» Fair enough. >> Yeah, I like uh I like option one.
Uh so, I can compare it with everybody and I'm
torn on the downtown resident passes. I'm going to
be neutral, so I'll see. Let's see what uh
» Councillor did you have a >> Yeah, I like option one. I am
quite happy 2024
will fulfill the permits. The
first permit is zero and second is 150. I'm in favor of increasing parking April
1.
» Councillor did you >> Um also option one
is my preference. Um
I
I haven't really made up my mind. Two options of paying separately or sticking
with the 2024 model. I I think I think I think if we stick
with the 2024 model the fee should be maybe
150 should I see it does go up a little bit
and it's not significant. So maybe it could be 175 or 200 with the
first option the first parking spot. Brief. Um
I we need some incentive to get people to build their own parking.
Um because
parking whatever public buying is expensive.
This is expensive and it's privately obtained. So
Um there's
I'm assuming these permits though permit the vehicle to park
um anywhere. And they don't get a designated spot.
Um because I think some people
» for the >> start to sort of claim a spot for them.
And I'm really against that. Should be all spots should be open to
everyone. Including
Yeah. >> Through the chair, I can offer some
information if that is a question. Um the through the the the amendments that
we're proposing would contain the spot to the resident's block. And right now
how it reads would be the resident's street. So it does somewhat contain that
a little bit more um and answer the question too, it it doesn't provide a
designated parking spot for folks within their block.
» There should be some turnover in all spots, and so it's all very doable.
Very affordable.
» Go ahead. >> Um I think we've gone through everybody,
so I'll uh and
uh just take a quick summary. Seems uh option one in terms of the fixed
schedule uh seems to be the consensus of of the committee.
Um and there's uh I I'd say somewhat split, but uh
certainly uh the two permanent sites um in the residential parking permit area
um with uh questions around possibly increasing I think the 2024 model, the
first one free, the second one um to to have a fee associated with it, and
there was uh Councillor Anderson had recommended and and I and I would
support uh looking for the reasons I just said uh we want to incentivize
people uh to be you know, one free spot, that's great, and then to to have a
second there. Um and then public property isn't cheap, so uh I I would
certainly look to increasing that that permit fee for the second one. Um
150 is a great deal to have a second uh space available to you, so
uh certainly I would support that. Um in terms of the start date, we heard
from Councillor Sloman with some concerns around there, um and then
Councillor McMaster I I would be in support of starting in
April 1st as well. I think um where um you know, the potential revenue uh gains
from that um I think are important. My one concern
and and question that I did have um just uh in terms of consultation with
Tourism Tofino and the Chamber of Commerce in terms of um just feedback in
terms of what they anticipated the the impacts might be in
terms of tourism. Um I'm I'm certainly um
supportive of raising those revenues, but I just want to be cautious that you
know, it is not a it's not an inexpensive place to come
visit. So, I was just wondering if there was consultation at all with Tourism
Tofino and the chamber regarding those paid parking fees.
» Uh through the chair, not specifically and directly. There was consultation as
we did roll out the paid parking year for this year.
If the committee wishes, staff can consult
with Tourism Tofino and and the chamber as we continue to move through
the bylaw amendments. >> I think it would be I think it would
just be important to keep that that conversation um
you know, council will decide on in the end, but certainly just to have that
input just to help us inform what the potential impacts might be
perceived impacts might be in terms of that
potential increase to those fees. Um
Councilor Anderson, did you did you think about that second
» Yeah, there was I support consolidating fees and so on.
» Yeah, I think that's broad consensus across the board. Of course, makes
sense. And Mayor Law, did you have anything maybe you want to add in terms
of you've heard some of the pieces from the rest of council to help
see what the rest of council was thinking.
» I think I concur with
» We'll have another chance to We'll have
another chance to discuss this at the next regular council, so by then maybe
we'll see what staff
» Um I think since you mentioned it, I would be
not in favor of moving the year back to April 1st.
Um so, basically keeping it where it is because uh
as one of the goals of Tourism Tofino and the Chamber of Commerce is to push
the off-season tourism. I do recognize that not having to pay for parking is
one of the things that may factor into people's decisions. And if we're trying
to encourage people to come in the rainier months, them not having to walk
this far may also be an incentive for them.
» After sorry, that was certainly one of the considerations I thought to
incentivize that shoulder season and and that's why the consultation maybe with
the chamber and tourism to you know, that was my one concern. We really would
like to see people that coming as much in or to incentivize that shoulder
season. So with increasing the parking fees in those time frames.
I I know many people do travel outside of the peak periods because they can
take advantage of those the lower cost of these things.
» don't have the free shuttle then. >> And we do not have the free shuttle. We
do do have transit though. We do have paid transit. So
um Great. Well, thank you. I think um
um counselor explain.
» Yeah, I want to follow up comments in regards to that. I was thinking like
when we're reviewing this is one of the reasons we developed the downtown pay
parking was not to to gain funds although we
discovered it's really a useful source. Um was to move traffic. And I think when
we're looking at April, that's starting to look at
gaining revenue and not moving traffic and moving people in the spot.
» Yeah, thank you. Good point. Um
Mr. Kirkland, do you do you have enough information now um or is there anything
else that we may have missed in terms of um feedback on on the regulation?
» Uh through the chair, I think I have enough
information to come back to council and and comments uh readings of of future
amendment bylaws and in for there's work that we can that
staff can do to consult with the chamber and tourism to you
know, to do that to help inform the decisions of
expansion of pay parking so on and so forth.
» Good luck. >> I just wanted to say that I think I'm
persuaded by Councillor Sawyer and Councillor Sloan
change the dates.
» I think you're probably looking at it almost a majority of that but certainly
maybe some feedback tourism to see
you know if there's a perceived impact but certainly the points brought up by
Councillor Sloan Sawyer are very relevant.
Um Councillor Manson
» Um something that occurred to me in parking a little while back too was I'm
wondering if there's any uh we're getting any feedback or any
interest in creating EV parking spots.
You know, I don't know. It's this bylaw wants to anticipate that.
I think eventually
famous EV spots that might have a different fee schedule.
» Lock down Mr. Kirkland is that something that's uh been contemplated? I didn't
see it in the report but um that's something that's been called I
know with the co-op and the number of EV stations there and out of tourism to
Tofino the EV charging stations there of course here there
as as a spot as well as that's something that's been considered to within the
conversation. >> Um through the chair we
there is other spaces that we have looked at in
looking into EV and and looking into long-term like maintenance
and costs that it would be associated with. There's if that's where where
you're where that was one of that as well.
Um but we can certainly look into it a little bit more into the
future and then we can perhaps include something in a future report that speaks
to that question. >> Okay.
» We can look at that at the next meeting. >> Okay.
Um for the rest of you I don't see anyone
with their hands up, so thank you Mr. Curtlin once again. There's a number of
recommendations um
around of us here. Who would like to take take this one on? Thank you
Counselor Wright.
» So, I move that the Committee of the Whole
recommends Council that staff be authorized to prepare amendments to
District of Tofino Traffic and Parking Regulation Bylaw number 1091 2009.
» Seconded by Counselor Thomas. All those in favor?
Seeing none opposed, motion carried. >> I move that the Committee of the Whole
recommends Council that staff be authorized to prepare amendments to
District of Tofino Fees and Charges Bylaw number 1271 2019.
» Seconded by Counselor Thomas. All those in favor?
Seeing none opposed, motion carried. >> I move that the Committee of the Whole
recommends to Council that staff be authorized to prepare amendments to
District of Tofino Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaw number 1088
2009. >> Seconded by Counselor Thomas. All those
in favor? Seeing none opposed, motion carried.
» And I move that the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that staff
be authorized to prepare amendments to District of Tofino Notice Adjudication
Bylaw number 1107 2010.
» Seconded by Counselor Thomas. All those in favor?
Seeing none opposed, motion carried. That
uh I think is there anything else on Oh, but it looks like you're probably
So, you don't have to sit down. Next up on the agenda, a draft uh water supply
policy, a report from infrastructure and public works.
» That's simple water in there. >> Here, here.
» All right. So, the uh next presentation that I have for the committee is on the
district's draft private water supply policy
uh for information, discussion, and direction.
This work builds on earlier updates to council regarding water system
performance in response to the increasing interest that we are all
seeing from applicants in using private water systems
their developments during the summer and early fall something in those times.
In late 2025, staff advised council that a policy on private water supply would
be developed in 2026. Uh the topic also came up in discussions
during the repeal of the limits to growth policy.
Since then, staff have continued to see growing interest in in private interest
and wells, rainwater harvesting, and treatment-based systems as a way to
reduce reliance on the municipal system during peak demand months.
At present, these proposals are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
This can lead to inconsistent expectations and variable design
standards. A formal policy will provide clarity for applicants, it will support
staff's decision-making, and align with council's strategic focus on water
security. Implementation will likely require
amendments to the water utility bylaw to ensure the policy is aligned with
existing authorities.
The draft policy establishes a structured approach for proposals that
rely on private water systems sources during the restricted months, which are
defined in the draft policies July 1st to September 30th.
The purpose is to support responsible growth while protecting the watershed
and ensuring that development during peak periods does not exceed the
capacity of the municipal system. The policy also recognizes examples of a
range of private sources, as I mentioned in the last slide, groundwater,
rainwater harvesting and treatment based systems as three examples.
Um each of these carry different risks, design considerations, and reliability
expectations.
Um this policy requires applicants to
demonstrate that proposed systems are reliable,
include appropriate storage, and are designed and sealed by qualified
professionals. Storage must be sized
to support the level of demand reduction proposed.
Policy doesn't require storage for the full
um amount of usage during the restriction restricted months in every
case, but applicants must show that the system can reasonably achieve the
intended or designed for reduction. As a general benchmark, the draft policy
currently notes that the district may consider systems sized to provide
approximately 50% of the projected restricted months demand where supported
by a qualified professional and rate reasonable
rainfall or refill assumptions. This is not a requirement, but it is
included to give applicants a practical reference point for the scale of storage
needed to meaningfully reduce municipal demand during
the defined restricted months. Acceptance of a private system does not
guarantee the performance by the district.
Responsibility operation and maintenance requirements required remains with the
private property owner. This will be further reinforced by an
section 219 covenant where appropriate.
These covenants will ensure that the use and maintenance of the private water
system and the level of demand uh reduction committed to is maintained
during the restricted months. Policy also reinforces is that
unauthorized municipal water use during peak periods may result in enforcement
under the water utility bylaw.
Following committee review, staff will refine the draft policy, prepare any
necessary bylaw amendments in consultation with legal counsel, and
return to council with the final policy and related amendments for
consideration.
Staff are also seeking committee direction on whether engagement should
occur before the policy is finalized. So, a few options could include
proceeding directly to a final policy based on committee feedback.
Uh targeted engagement with developers, builders, and larger water users, which
staff are suggesting. Or a a general broader engagement
platforms such as Talk to Fenelon and social media.
Um engagement may help along the way of finalizing the the draft policy. Um it
may help clarify reduce future challenges in
administrating the policy, and ensure the policy reflects practical
considerations.
With that, I will leave the recommendations on the screen, and
I'm here to take any questions and any discussion. Thank you.
» Thank you again, Mr. Curtin. I know this is something we've been looking forward
to. I think the community has been looking forward to this uh forward. Look
to Committee will start uh ask whatever you
want, or so. >> Um well, I guess the big question is
really what are the words on public engagement
and I support fairly broad and targeting public engagement.
Um it's in the interest of
of showing that we're active on
water and serious about water
usage and um
and also to keep keep it on top of mind the public as well and increase increase
the opportunities for education around this.
All things that I would support. Um
so that's that's one point. The other point I had on was
as we go through this and I guess it would be a
more to do with the water fee schedule might be another
follow up after this policy is adopted, but we do bill
for water and sewage based on metered water metered water use. So, I think
that needs to be something thought of about as as we do allow for
other uses how are we going to compensate for that that sewer part for
the water bill. Um
but it doesn't show up on the meters for now.
on source. Thank you.
» Through the chair, I can provide some clarity on that. Um
later this year staff will be working on a sewer and water utility rate review
and part of that would be um making adjustments to the sewer
utility bylaw where systems rely on or partially rely on private water systems
and and looking at how there can be rate equity that can be achieved. Some
possible examples could be putting meters on some properties that that
would meter how much sewer and or waste effluent is discharged into the
district's sanitary collection system.
I'm sorry. Maryland and then septic tanks.
» Thank you. I support public engagement on this. I feel like it'd be a valuable
time for us to learn about some individual scenarios that we might be
seeing and get staff time to prepare for the different types of homes and uses of
private properties. So, we'll be at flying for this.
As far as Counselor Anderson's point about um
the water entering the wastewater system in the summer,
I believe through the chair that this might be beneficial as low flow can be
something that can be more difficult to deal with in the summer if we're having
people conserve water, but then it's not moving the waste
through the system efficiently. Um having people use their own water
sources could in fact benefit us. I'm not sure if that's accurate. So,
maybe observation you know. >> Mr. Kerpen.
» I mean any thoughts on the potential for in
terms of that potential reduction in volume that we as we ask for people to
conserve the water, but we also have a lot more people using the system. So,
I'm wondering if there's a balance there and if that's not somehow affects our
system. >> If it's a through the chair, it's a a
great point and question. I I think initially when I
think about that is the the magnitude and the scale that you
would have to see to have impact at the actual wastewater treatment plant would
have to be very great. So, there may be some impact, but it it also may not be
noticeable from an operational lens as well, but it's definitely something to
note and as time goes on we can monitor that.
» I agree.
» Yeah, just a comment. I have actually going to talk I'll just have a comment
on that. And then I get a question. Actually the
one is just considering the sewer, you know,
not using the water by potentially 50% and then you try and make the difference
because of the sewer use. I think the idea is that we're incentivizing or
we're trying to incentivize even with grants
uh to or people to find novel ways to do this thing. So, I think maybe the the
idea of finding a way to up the sewer charge is a bit counterproductive.
We're going to incentivize it, we might as well incentivize it and say
and that that may be one of the easiest ways to do it is just say
pay for sewer as much, but uh that's my comment on
that. But uh question I have is we're we're looking at engagement with
builders, which I think is great idea right off the bat.
Um the community, which I think is also a good idea. What about with other
communities that have policies? I know many communities on
Vancouver Island have own source water uh
policies already and and people buy their water or supplement their water
with rain. So, is is there a way to to And uh maybe it's already happened,
that's my question. Is has that already happened where
uh those uh existing policies in other communities have been
looked at and other, you know, structured crews have been asked for
their their advice for our situation?
» Um it's a good question. Through the chair,
we haven't had any direct staff-to-staff engagement with other communities. I
have through developing this researched a
little bit about what other communities are doing and there's not a lot of
direct private water supply policies and there are
different unique challenges that different communities face and very
similar systems that are in place. Uh So, yeah, to answer the question, we
haven't done a lot of outreach to to to speak with other staff
at other communities.
» Yeah, through the chair, just I just have one more follow-up comment that I I
know other communities [clears throat]
and people who do supply their own water and and the
beauty of this I think one of the reasons even if the water rain catchment
or home source water is insufficient, uh people can bulk purchase water.
Top it up and and meet their if you do go down the road of
of a covenant, they can still meet their covenant obligations to supply their own
water even if the rain capture didn't work. They can
simply purchase water. So, I I think it's great.
» Councillor Thomas. >> Thank you. I I'm in favor of
um consultation with as as broad a group as
possible. And I think maybe the really direct stuff with the builders and that
will be useful if there's any feedback on the policy itself and maybe the
broader community would be more informational.
Um Cuz there might be people who it doesn't
directly apply to, but they're very interested to hear what the solutions we
are coming forward with for the water and then the other comment was just um
thank you for including item 4.5 in the policy. Uh speaks to Councillor
Solomon's motion from a couple of years ago about granting
rain water catchment. So, it was really um
it was really nice to see that included in this policy.
» Thank you. Councillor Master.
» Yeah, I mean, I'll I'd like to read I think it's going to spell would be uh
uh cross-contamination between our water and their water, but you know, I'm sure
the safeguards will be in place. I'm just hoping it will be.
Um I don't like the idea of mentioning the
desalination. Cuz unless, you know, what's going to
happen with the salt? Is that that's a big environmental
problem as well. Uh the way it's written at the moment, I
wouldn't be in support of that until I have further details.
Um If people are going to drill wells, I
want uh specific tests
to be added to the existing database as to what aquifer we're tapping into and
what depth. And I think that would help in the future.
So, it would have to be stipulated in the
I mean, it's a good start.
» Thank you. >> Okay, I just want to make sure.
» I would I'm just saying I think the draft policy is
is straightforward and complicated and I like that. I wouldn't
heap too many layers of complexity onto it.
I think um
Yeah, correct. I think there's general consensus around the engagement,
certainly directed and broad and
from the committee. Um and I wanted to echo Councillor Thomas's uh
and I I had just a a personal question in terms of the the grant funding for
the rain catchment systems. Thank you so much. I think uh once again, building on
the work of Councillor Zwolman's uh motion. Um it
uh there was a just just a quick question. Um
There's through the budget process we'll allocate um
you know, what we we see as appropriate. And I I did a quick bit of research in
terms of some of those storage tank units and and the hardware associated
with that. Um and I I had had staff put any thought as to
in terms of the incentivization and what may be the uptake. Was there any number
that that jumped out in terms of what might be an appropriate
grant amount through the budget process? Just something to consider when when I
looked at like a you know, a 330 gallon IBC tank, you know, it's is almost $900
before taxes and hardware and installation and all that. Was there Was
there any thought as to what might be an appropriate amount?
» Uh through the chair, nothing specific within like for a overall program-wide
amount. Um we have done through the policy
identified like what um components of the private of the
system would be qualified under the grant and have left it at the supply of
the tank at this time for those very reasons cuz there's
the bill of materials could grow pretty long and and and how much that would be
and uh I think
keeping all of the budgetary information outside of the policy and bringing that
into the financial planning process is was what our our intent was. So, we
haven't looked at grouping that like what our
overall estimate of how many people may or may not be applying for
the grant would be. So, we haven't done a full estimate on it yet.
» I I do understand. Yeah, I was just wondering if you had any thought on the
cost. Um I appreciate the work and sir, look to the committee see if there's any
other comments or questions. >> I have one comment. It's a bit random,
but I I've just come back from Edmonton and then there was a an announcement of
some changes in the build Canada homes uh
funding stream. There is a new billion-dollar per community fund for
infrastructure directly related to housing.
So, [clears throat] you know, I'm not sure where the
the the grant money is coming from, but it might be an interesting
something to look at. That's all. I'm just throwing it out there that might be
an option to pitch to build the new build in Canada homes.
» So, I see we do have a couple of recommendations on there. Which
counselor would like to step up and apply this time?
Thank you, Counselor Lewis. >> I move that Committee of the Whole
I move that private water supply policy attached as amendments 1 through 7 for
draft private water supply dated June 9th, 2026 and provide comments and
direction to staff. >> Seconded.
Seconded by Counselor McMaster. All those in favor? Seeing none opposed,
motion carried. >> I move that the Committee of the Whole
recommends to Council that staff be authorized to prepare an amendment to
District of Tofino Water Utility Bylaw number 1346-2024
to align with the private water supply policy as approved.
» Seconded. Seconded by Counselor McMaster. All those in favor? Seeing
none opposed, motion carried. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Thank you.
Next up on the agenda, we have public property use regulation bylaw. We have a
referral report from Community Services and Mr. McMaster. Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
Yes, uh just to we'll call a 2-minute point of privilege here.
» There we go. Now I will reconvene our meeting and if
we get out of council learning Sorry, if we have Mr. McColl.
» [laughter]
» Thank you Katie. I'm back again uh this time to review the public
property use regulation bylaw.
So, a bit of the agenda today. I'll go through the legislative background
and then a few discussion points around complaints, construction permits,
decibel readers, a jurisdictional scan, potential amendments, and communication.
So, a bit of background here in 2025, Council received correspondence from the
public regarding noise nuisance. And the correspondence included a few items
including construction noise, limited hours, building permit expiration
concerns, a suggestion for the use of decibel readers, and it was included
with a petition of 405 signatures supporting restricted hours for
constructive construction activity related noise.
Uh at that meeting, Council discussed the correspondence and then passed a
resolution that the correspondence be referred.
So, a bit of legislative background in noise nuisance, uh section 64 of the
Community Charter provides the authority uh for municipal councils to regulate,
prohibit, and avoid those requirements in relation to nuisances.
And section 7 of our bylaw, the District of Ucluelet public property use
regulation bylaw 1098, 2009, uh
there's a few provisions in there uh that regulates noise um and prohibits it
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Uh and fines are escalating from $50 to
$200. After hours, um when staff aren't able
to respond, our RCMP are able to enforce um
uh these matters under the Criminal Code of Canada under a few provisions on that
fact. So, um staff respond to both formal and
immediate complaints from residents regarding noise. And over the past 4
years, about a third of those complaints resulted from bar or restaurant noise,
about a third from residential noise, 15% from short-term rentals, 10% from
hotels and resorts, and the remain- remainder being miscellaneous.
Uh in the letter uh they also mentioned lengthy construction projects that
sometimes go beyond the regulatory time limit and uh that create noise nuisance.
And the district's building bylaw uh stipulates that a building permit should
expire if no substantial construction has commenced for a period of 2 years.
Um the building bylaw also provides extensions to adjust these delays longer
than 2 years. Planning and building staff consider
extending these applications based on several factors, including noise
complaints, personal financial hardship, hardship based on the availability of
goods and materials due to supply chain disruptions, and hardships based on
housing construction staff and skilled labor.
In staff's experience, it is more likely for a development to exceed the 2-year
period than for a building permit to be canceled.
The letter to council also referenced decibel readers as a potential tool for
bylaw enforcement staff. So, decibel readers is a device that
measures the intensity of sound in the environment in decibels. And these
devices are often used in large cities with a complex set of sound emitters.
To use these devices the devices for effectiveness and procedural fairness, a
sound mapping exercise is typically done to distinguish between base levels of
existing or environmental noise and new construction noise.
Sound mapping includes installing noise meters in different neighborhoods over a
period of time in each season as rain, wind, and storm activity can produce
measurable sound that is registered by decibel meter.
These devices range up to $800 per unit with calibration ancillary devices.
And during a scan of other communities, staff found that these devices are
uncommon in resort municipalities and similar sized towns.
So, staff also conducted a jurisdictional
scan of other resort municipalities and similar sized communities.
So, in Whistler, um the prohibitions are actually more
restrictive than Tofino with weekday and holiday morning prohibitions for
construction noise and sound. In Ucluelet, uh apparently there their
noise noise bylaw is very similar to Tofino. Revelstoke is less restrictive
than Tofino. And Bowen has passed uh has specific prohibitions on construction
noise, including weeknights and Sunday mornings. And Cumberland has
prohibitions on construction noise on weeknights, Sunday mornings, and holiday
mornings. So, a few potential amendments uh that
council may choose to consider um and mainly to align with other communities
and also to balance the development and development priorities for the community
and the community well-being. Staff has have offered some paths to potential
amendments. So, um uh if council chooses, council could proceed with a
prohibition for construction noise like the other municipalities I mentioned on
the previous slide. Uh could add a new definition for construction noise. Um
and they may choose to permit uh construction noise on weekends and
statutory holidays. However, with perhaps a delayed start time um or an
earlier ending and earlier ending days. Um but essentially opening this up
for a council discussion and and uh and consultation.
Finally, uh no public consultation has been conducted to date uh for any of
these amendments, or any pathways here.
But if council chooses to direct staff to draft amendments tonight,
a talk to FINA we're to we're suggesting a talk to FINA page be launched after
first reading. Um
We'll choose to proceed. With that, happy to open up questions or
» Yeah, thank you, Mr. McColl. Uh Mayor London
Looking all around. Uh Counselor Thomas, start and then
» Good question on that. Um it was about the
um two-year building permit for the construction as long as construction has
reasonably um started. And I think when the letter writer who brought up the
specifics um one year testimony,
uh her concern was that the construction was ongoing, but there wasn't an end
date to you've started the project, you have to finish the project. And I was
wondering if there was um any way you could respond to that concern.
» Yeah, thank you for the question. >> It's probably like this year, I think.
» Yeah. Yeah, and happy to refer to director here. Um
uh that that building bylaw is mostly managed by
the building inspector. Um so, hesitant to to to comment too much there, but in
my consultations with building inspector,
um uh usually there is leeway given to
uh construction that um lasts longer uh for that for the hardships that I
mentioned in those extension considerations. Um
but we are aware of a few building permits that have been canceled um that
have exceeded. So, um staff use their discretion, but happy to if if you
choose to expand it further on. >> Yeah, thank you, Anthony Shera.
Counselor Thomas, um I can't have a conversation with the
building inspector. It's it it it's it's it's um
often we're extending. The question I think in this case particularly is how
long it's extended and how far along are they extended till they get they can
cancel building permit and the building's three quarters of the way
and it's it's a it's a quite a financial hardship
in the millions of dollars. And so this is not I think it's
definitely an unfortunate situation. That's something I can raise with the
building inspector to have a conversation about
what that may look like in the future. I I do take your point that probably
this one was it wasn't really started and it just
took him so long.
» Yeah, I just want to echo what Councillor Thomas says, you know, that
the the complaints around building really is about the time
of years that there's excessive noise like in building.
Construction can be very [clears throat] very So I think
to balance it, I think it's reasonable to perhaps
put some kind of weekend limits like Cumberland did on on building because it
starts to impact, you know, people's lives without in you know, impeding
building because we don't want to impede building. We don't want to make it
longer by restricting building. I think there might be some
some leeway to look at weekend restrictions start and end times for for
construction noise. So maybe that's probably reasonable.
» Excuse me. >> Yeah, I
I think my concerns echo with you that have spoken before me. Um
I think I'm I spend a lot of time outside of where I
live and I'm giving company that makes a lot of noise and I don't think it's
unreasonable to have shorter work hours that noise is permitted because I also
really value quiet time outside. So I think like
having some restrictions on Uh I think what was the more
more strict community um I'm going to hold.
Like I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to stop building at 5:00. I
think what I'm I have concerns cuz I also heard it from one the Headwaters
complex building was built was um
they went quite late in the evening cuz the crews come up here so they're
maximizing their their work were remote communities so they extend from like a
work from the the allowable hours and I think that's really difficult when you
can't plan your life around it. So I feel like
» [clears throat] >> limiting some hours um
I I feel like having some sort You can always gauge
the sound mapping was it called? Yeah. I I think that's reasonable as well. Um
you wouldn't want to live next to something really loud all the time.
Um And then what was the other one?
Yeah, um I I feel like I understand the situation
you have a permit for 2 years. You've done a lot of work like the letter
writer has said that work has been going on so it would automatically apply for
having work done. But I I feel like in this situation the work has been going
on for so long if hindsight couldn't have given us the
opportunity to to pressure the builder to do it in a faster period and
and then we wouldn't be in this situation so
I think going forward maybe it would be valuable to have some sort of
situation that we could encourage people to have their
construction done in a short amount.
» Eric, is there anyone else in the Councillor Slater Councillor Wrightson
with that to my left? >> I'm now looking at the big picture here.
The more numerous complaints were from restaurants and for entertainment noise.
So, I do see the value in installing decibel meters there.
So, it does feel like we're talking about two things here. We're talking
about the you know, personal impact
of construction noise when people tend to live around a construction site and
we're talking about general noise created by businesses that is ongoing
and not contained to years. So,
um wherever we land on the day or week
or time restrictions for construction specific noise, I definitely support
decibel meters to make sure that we're monitoring what the same way we monitor
like pollution and you know, um
form [clears throat] and character
um that we're maintaining our character. >> So, for clarification for me, when you
say I use support decibel meters, like the purchase of a a district?
» Yeah, like the um sound through the drain that Mr. McCauley was speaking
about where you would install it in around a neighborhood and you would
measure the flow of sound throughout the year and be able to set that baseline.
» Uh you know, I wrote down Counselor
Anderson and then Mayor McCauley. >> Yeah, there
there's two different
kind of two two things as well. There's there's noise levels that
come from other activities other than construction and then
the construction noise is a different kind of noise
than loud music or or loud very loud loud people or something like
that. So, both can cause disturbances, but
construction I see more as as an activity that you're
kind of limiting the time frame of rather than noise.
So, I'm
I'm I'm just wondering if if the communities that did limit the
the have have limits on noise, what was it Were any of them limiting
the activity where you could have construction, or was it all just about
noise? And
construction disturbing fluid. Exactly. >> Yeah, exactly. Thank you for the
question. That's very interesting. Um yeah, in in several of the municipal
municipalities, they define construction noise, and they have additional
provisions or restrictions specifically to construction noise. Um so, noise that
has its regular permitted hours, and then construction noise is often further
restricted um for uh weekends, statutory holidays, and earlier weeknights. I
don't know if that makes sense.
» I just a question through the chair about the well, decibel meter. Now,
there's I know there's official Center for Disease Control apps that can go on
your iPhone and they give you uh an official sound uh decibel
reading. Are you For the $3,000 to $8,000, are
you you talking about uh permanent or movable
piece of hardware? >> Yeah, no, these would be mobile devices
that officers would use to enforce against the the noise bylaw. Um and they
come with uh further calibration devices. That's why the cost is quite
high. Um they start at a much lower, but they can be up to $8,000 per device. And
then the the sound mapping exercise is kind of like to have established the the
baseline. Um so, that they can use that understanding
when seeing the the bylaw in different particular neighborhoods.
» Um one thing I was thinking about is like
when we we discuss all this, there is the provision in there for the for
anyone who feels that they can't work within the new parameters that are set
going forward, they can come to council still and they can
we can give them permission to do whatever they need to do.
But it just limits the ongoing noise or
» Go ahead. >> Uh decibel meters are
» [laughter] >> a real problem separating the ambient
noise from the actual issue. >> If you like that
» you'd be spending a lot of money for nothing positive. Plus often
[clears throat] the noise complaint can be
you know, at that particular time rather than
ongoing. So unless the by-law officer happens to be right there when that uh
saw fires up or something like that, you know, something like that.
It's not worth the effort. So um
I think a lot of construction noise mostly complaints tend to be early
morning. Um
not at 5:00. I think people get upset when they hear something fires up at say
7:30 or 8:00 or something like that. I agree. I think it would be good to see
some restrictions on the noise at the weekend. People deserve that.
Um I think we also have to figure that the more we make it difficult to build,
the more expensive it's going to be to buy a house.
Or affordable housing and so it's a very fine line, but I certainly
wouldn't support decibel meters.
I mean, after using it at the legion um to no success.
» Perfect. >> Yeah.
» Um I just had a question around through the chair
around the building permit. So,
they expire if you haven't started significant construction, but once
you've started significant construction, do they never
expire? Do they Are they finished at point of occupancy?
If you read part of your house unfinished,
but have occupancy, does the building permit continue indefinitely?
Just because I remember that the original letters
referenced some municipalities where the building
permit is sort of contains the construction
period. So, and I don't I don't see anything
or hear anything about it. About that.
» Probably outside of your knowledge base, but I can Mr. Rogers.
» Uh thank you and to the chair. I can speak to a high level. I don't have the
bottom in front of me. A couple years is what I made in it, but
from what I understand, uh they don't expire once they're issued
unless there's an extended time. That's kind of a consideration that the
building inspector has to make like how many how much What is that extended
time? There's some gray area in those things because we've all talked about,
you know, not everybody can build a house in 6 months. It takes 2 years to
build a house. Financial problems. There's a million different reasons why
things don't finish on time. And what you know, where we've kind of aired
on, you know, up to now has been trying to get people to get their houses built
without causing them financial hardship. In this case, again, I you know, this is
an egregious case. How long it's taken and how noisy it's
been. Um but it's really the only one that
I've that I know in my 18 years here that we've had this significant issues.
I think the you know, as you're McCall put up on this the slide at how many
complaints we have, none of them are related to construction noise except
So I don't So I don't I don't think I think we have to be careful about making
policy that it you know it it's it's responding
to one specific instance versus what it's going to benefit the community. And
I say that with full empathy for the what this neighbor has had to go through
and and and wouldn't wish it on anybody, but um
you know, as we make decisions the decisions about potentially changing
weekend construction seems like the the wisest choice of action probably the
best place for us to be. >> Yeah, I just wanted to understand how it
worked and and because the letter did have
that
Yeah. Sure, I just never thought about the decibel meter and I realized, you
know, I've got a noise n o i n o and I o s h meter on there, but I
realize you can't you there's no way you could use that uh to to for bylaw or
work safety C or anything. Uh which made me think uh you know,
councillor Masters points that uh there'll have to be a professional
decibel meter, you know, registered if anybody was to use that for enforcement
uh and then you know, a baseline enforcement as Mr. Councillor Masters
says there's going to be issues with the ambient noise. So I just after all that
just thinking about that and listening to I think you know,
it simply a start and end date on a weekend for
construction or something like that would would
suffice. Uh then it would we could avoid all of that uh
issues that that would thoughts on.
» Yep. Um my comments were just going to be I'm in favor of limiting the hours
just on weekends and statutory holidays knowing that weekdays I know Saturday
and Sunday are really long time with something with benefit And think about
construction maybe outside of building homes when we think about work on the
back lawn or things like that where it's nice to be able to go and get that done
maybe before there's a lot of activity out.
Um so, leaving the weekdays alone. And now, with the decimal reader, I
don't think it's a good use of district funds. Um noting that we don't
have bylaw staff to respond to things after hours. The RCMP will be able to
respond to things. The limited amount of noise complaints that have come through.
It just seems like a really big chunk of money and a large amount of staff time
to go out and map these areas and do all those things when I think we have so
much higher priorities from bylaw enforcement
when we look at short-term rentals or some of the other things that we've
we've talked about as priorities around the table.
» So, if to in summary, and I I don't think I know you've been listening, but
just in summary, it seems that there's not a lot of support for the purchase of
of that decimal reader.
Um and it looks like in terms of And I think the the point being brought up in
terms of the I mean, it's been identified there's two issues really
that that have been identified. The letter
writer had said they had endured an egregious situation that
brought this to our attention, and that is to be recognized. And but then, when
we look at the actual stats and the data that you presented to us, it does
indicate that the vast majority are outside of that particular construction
area. So, the the idea, and I think it's a generally a
good idea is is to look at community well-being in terms of those
restrictions around timing and when that might be. And it seems there's a
broad consensus around weekends limiting those times to
Well, wait to see what they You've heard some of the recommendations
here. So, I think as a general, you have enough information to help you to move
forward from what you heard from the council tonight.
» Absolutely. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. McColl. Not counselor.
» Sorry, just a final comment. Did Did we discuss opening this up to
the community for feedback? We can. So, I think that I mean it might come back
that community may say, "Well, you know what?
We really want to be able to
build houses on Saturday." Something. So,
» [laughter] >> Yeah, [clears throat] I'll I'll add two
things. Yeah, so I'll need a formal recommendation from council to uh I'll
be authorized to draft those amendments for um the bylaw and then uh the
communication plan uh suggested after first reading. Um the
bylaw go to talk to the community public consultation for feedback on.
» Uh
So nice when I see those recommendations. I think that I don't
have to do that. Um did any of the councilors want to
make that uh what can I If If you want to just
repeat, I can you know from the from the chair I can
» Yeah, I've got a recommendation here that staff be authorized to draft
amendments to the public property certain activities bylaw pertaining to
restricting construction hours on weekends.
» I'll make that motion from the chair. >> [clears throat]
» Committee recommends. >> Thank you. Uh yes.
Uh I'll make that motion from the chair. All those
I'm looking at any Counselor Thomas. Anything to comment?
» Before we vote on it, I just have a comment. Um
just for clarity. So, within the noise bylaw there is
breakdowns in the subsections of what type of noise and there is a subsection
that directly references construction noise. Are we just going to be altering
the or getting feedback on that subsection
for limitation or are we going to be making another bylaw and calling it
construction noise as was referenced. Because um that was a
point made that some municipalities have their own construction noise bylaw.
Whereas our noise bylaw currently this is a small
section that defines it. >> Mr. McCall for comment. Thank you for
your question, Councillor Sawyer. Um yeah, the the direction here is just to
amend the current bylaw to add those provisions to restrict that the noise
that construction noise will begin. Um but staff aren't at this point
recommending a whole new bylaw, just amending the current bylaw is fine.
» 728
» Uh with that any further comments? Well, then I'll call the question. All
those in favor. And the motion carried. Was there a
second one there? Mr. McCall, no, that was it. Excellent. Okay, great.
» [laughter] >> Thank you.
» All right. Well, looks like we've a good part of the agenda finished. Uh
there is no unfinished business and I'll look up to Mr. Planner if there are any
questions there well, maybe in the gallery as well
as potentially online. >> Thank you, Councillor Steer. I will now
make an open call for questions from those present in the gallery and those
participating online. For those in the gallery who wish to speak, please raise
your hand. If there is anyone attending online via Zoom who would like to ask a
question, please do so now using the Q&A function.
Before asking a question, you will need to state your name, your address, and
the agenda item you're asking to. I will now do a poll.
Calling once. Calling twice.
Calling three times. There are no comments at this time, Councillor Steer.
» Great. Thank you. Um I'll move from the chair then to move
us into closed uh that the meeting be closed
to the public pursuant to sections 92 B1 and 92 B3 of the community charter to
discuss matters relating to 92 B the consideration of information received
and held in confidence relating to negotiations
between the municipality and a provincial government or the federal
government or both or between a provincial government or the federal
government or both and a third party three between the municipality and a
first nation or prescribed indigenous entity or between a first nation or
prescribed indigenous entity and a third party.
Seconded by All those in favor
Anyone not opposed? Motion carried. We'll take uh uh
a minute, 5 minutes, whatever it takes to
close Thank you. All right.