[0:35] Good afternoon everyone. I'd like to
call the meeting to order at 4:30 today
[0:38] and acknowledge that the District of
Tofino operates within the territory
[0:41] that's locally at First Nation.
And a notice to attendees that the
[0:45] meeting is being video recorded and will
be published on the District of Tofino's
[0:48] YouTube channel.
And notice to the virtual attendees to
[0:52] sign up for the public comment and
question period using the Q&A function
[0:56] in Zoom. To register, participants are
required to enter their full name,
[1:00] residential address, and the agenda item
they wish to speak to.
[1:04] And I'll move from the chair that
pursuing to section 15 of the District
[1:07] of Tofino meeting procedure bylaw number
1229 2016 as amended the June 9th, 2026
[1:13] Committee of the Whole meeting be held
electronically via Zoom and live
[1:16] broadcasted on the District of Tofino's
YouTube channel and that the facility
[1:20] provided for the public to watch and
hear the meeting be located at the
[1:24] Clayoquot Sound Theatre, 380 Campbell
Street in Tofino, BC.
[1:29] » Seconded.
>> We we don't do
[1:31] » Thank you. Uh
Counselor Sawyer,
[1:33] all those in favor? None opposed, motion
carried.
[1:37] Uh I'll also move from the chair that
the June 9th, 2026 Committee of the
[1:41] Whole agenda be adopted.
Thank you, Mayor Law. Seconded. All
[1:45] those in favor? Seeing none opposed,
motion carried. And I'll move from the
[1:50] chair that the minutes of the Committee
of the Whole meeting held March 3rd,
[1:53] 2026 be adopted.
Thank you, Counselor Thomas. All those
[1:59] in favor? Seeing no opposed, motion
carried.
[2:03] I'll look up to Miss Hepner. Do we have
any public comment on agenda items
[2:07] today?
>> Thank you, counselor Steer. No one has
[2:10] signed up on the public comment. I will
now make an open call for comment.
[2:14] Those in the gallery who wish to speak,
please raise your hand. If there's
[2:17] anyone attending online, we assume they
would like to make a comment. You can do
[2:20] so now using the Q&A function.
When you begin a comment, you will need
[2:24] to state your name, your address, and
the agenda item you are speaking to. I
[2:28] will now do a call, calling once,
calling twice,
[2:33] calling three times. There are no
comments at this time, counselor Steer.
[2:36] » Thank you.
So, there are no delegations today, so
[2:39] we do have a correspondence from Laura
Landy and Chrissy Montgomery,
[2:43] co-founders of the Nova Surf Lifesaving
Club, regarding a request for seasonal
[2:48] space for the Nova Surf Lifesaving Club
van.
[2:52] I'll look to the committee to see if
there's any comments regarding them.
[2:56] » Sure, I'll comment. Um I thought that
this was um
[3:01] they have two asks here, and I thought
it
[3:03] pretty reasonable.
Um I didn't know if
[3:08] Uh so, the Where is the Where is it
here? The first ask is to have a
[3:12] a permit,
and then the second one was an appointed
[3:17] a designated parking space. And I was
wondering if I didn't know if
[3:22] perhaps a a designated parking space
could be like
[3:25] a time
limit that when they're in use, it might
[3:30] work for them.
So, it's not out of use for the rest of
[3:33] the community for the whole period of
the day.
[3:39] » Any other comments from
anybody?
[3:43] Anyone?
>> Yeah, I think it's uh I think it's a
[3:44] reasonable request. I think it's really
great
[3:47] » [clears throat]
>> community
[3:48] society.
So, I think it's supportive of
[3:53] doing something to to meet their
request.
[3:56] » I'm sorry.
>> Um yeah, I'm also in favor of the
[3:59] request and find it reasonable. I also
find or feel that designated spot would
[4:04] help
communicate the presence of the
[4:06] lifeguard.
[4:09] » So, Thomas, I did see your note. I think
I think
[4:13] great. Maybe I'll I'll look quickly to
staff in terms of the request itself. Um
[4:18] I'll be happy to maybe refer to staff to
give us maybe some of the
[4:22] technical work that would have to be
done to honor that request. If you feel
[4:24] there's general consensus that we'd like
to move forward with that request.
[4:29] Any any comments?
>> Yeah, I think that it's certainly
[4:32] something that that staff can work on.
It sounds like council or the committee
[4:36] is supportive. So, I think the next step
would be to refer your request to staff.
[4:41] Um and if there's any There's There's a
couple checks and balances that we need
[4:44] to put in place if anything needs to be
turned around.
[4:47] » No, it's not we
just work on it.
[4:49] » How about So, a resolution to um
to refer to staff.
[4:55] Anyone like to make that?
>> Yeah.
[4:58] » Mayor Law, thank you.
>> I'll move that the committee of the
[5:00] whole recommends to council uh that
staff be
[5:06] requested to return to
council with a recommendation
[5:11] regarding
[5:14] Eno Surf Lifesaving Club request.
Parking.
[5:18] Does that make sense?
>> Um we may not need to return to council.
[5:22] So, if we were able to remove that that
part from from the motion, we could just
[5:27] refer the request to to staff to
execute.
[5:30] » Yeah, but
for staff to execute that council
[5:34] recommendation, it has to come to
regular council.
[5:37] » It will as part of the the minutes of
the
[5:40] So, then
>> So,
[5:42] » Okay. It's okay. I think any
we can certainly look at that.
[5:46] » Sure. Uh so, we've got the motion on the
table. We have a seconder. Thank you,
[5:50] Councillor Sawyer. Call the question.
All those in favor?
[5:54] Seeing none opposed, motion carried.
Great. So, we can move further into the
[5:58] agenda today. We've got a wonderful
agenda today. So, starting with 8.1, uh
[6:02] Mini Peaks Legacy Project, mini soccer
pitch.
[6:05] Pitch, sorry. Verbal report from
Community Services.
[6:09] Mr. Lax, good to see you.
>> Hello.
[6:14] Thank you for having
>> Mayor and Council, good evening.
[6:17] » Thank you for attending.
[6:27] » Yeah, so I'm here to present um an
opportunity for our town to um there is
[6:34] a project that will be a legacy of the
FIFA World Cup. And it's um they are
[6:39] working with the Province of British
Columbia as well as Via Sport and the
[6:44] Vancouver Whitecaps to build 20 mini
soccer pitches across the province.
[6:49] Um
basically what they provide is an
[6:54] artificial turf, fiber fences and
boards, and um
[6:59] and then programming support as well as
coach and education training.
[7:03] And they look to create accessible
spaces that um have some informal play.
[7:09] So, think about our basketball courts or
our pickleball courts, anybody can go
[7:14] in there as well as support um
uh youth amateur sport at our grass
[7:19] level.
Uh the program timeline, so it has
[7:23] opened for expressions of interest. And
they will be working with the
[7:28] communities um to
um
[7:32] look at the the sites that are selected.
Um and then it's just ongoing. There's
[7:37] no end to the um application time. It's
just until they have awarded all 20
[7:42] million pitches.
And then they have a very aggressive
[7:45] timeline to have at least two built by
September 2026.
[7:50] Um and then we'll work through the the
rest of the money.
[7:54] Um
and they'll support programming for
[7:59] after launch for 3 years.
Um
[8:03] so looking at potential locations for
it, um
[8:07] one would be the Wickaninnish
>> new school of blacktop. For those of you
[8:11] who've seen it, it's in somewhat
disrepair. And so um it's also where the
[8:18] largest mass kids congregate on a daily
basis. So
[8:21] uh and accessible um for our remote
communities to walk up from the dock. So
[8:27] that that is one that definitely uh one
location that we've looked at. And the
[8:33] purpose of today is to this um assess
the feasibility of this project um for
[8:38] our community and determine whether we
should
[8:41] uh put in an expression of interest as
sort of like a a first phase. And then
[8:47] understand the opportunities that it
provides for our recreation and our
[8:50] community services, and then the
responsibility shared responsibilities
[8:54] and next steps for it.
Um
[8:59] one of the
uh
[9:03] for the communities that they will
award, what they're looking for are
[9:07] recreation infrastructure gaps. Um I
hope um mayor and council uh and our
[9:13] parks and rec master plan support that
we are one of those communities in a
[9:18] very big way. We have very heavy
pressure on our school fields,
[9:24] being one for both school use as well as
for community use.
[9:28] Um we have just a one single gym that we
have access to. And then um thank you
[9:35] for your support of the community
service and recreation department
[9:39] because we have a growing youth sport
participation because of it.
[9:44] Very we to see that and and hope to find
good homes for that increase in sport
[9:50] participation.
Um in terms of community benefits is
[9:55] that we will have
more community This will add one more
[10:00] community hub for kids to play at and
take some of the pressure off of
[10:05] the old and the gym and the community
hall which um
[10:11] have scheduling [clears throat] demands
on on them or or
[10:15] quality concern like
when it rains, you know, 300 mm a month
[10:22] here during our soccer season it makes
it hard to harder to play on the field.
[10:25] So, having this what this mini pitches
is artificial turf so you can play on it
[10:31] year-round. Um it'll also allow for
multi-sport use and we're looking we
[10:37] would look into
with the turf what what are the prime
[10:42] candidates for how
for which sports would be best fit onto
[10:47] the turf. Um and and to the playing
service
[10:51] and really what they're looking for what
it'll provide is is more active engaged
[10:57] youth. They'll have one
more space to play at.
[11:04] So, what the mini pitch or mini peaks
project provides so they
[11:10] um
they sport project management. They do
[11:14] the design work with you for the design
as well as the installation as well as
[11:19] other hardware such as
goals and perimeter boards or fencing.
[11:26] But one of the things were that is
really excited about this project is
[11:30] that they also since it's with the
Whitecaps, they provide 3 years of coach
[11:36] training and education. And so, for our
volunteers, um
[11:40] it would just mean a lot to in terms of
their coaching path to be able to access
[11:47] Whitecaps have a great reputation within
the
[11:50] Lower Mainland community of of both the
player and coach development. And for us
[11:56] to be able to access that as a remote
community would would be huge. It
[12:00] really, internally, one of our goals is
having greater continuity of of
[12:05] knowledge and support for our volunteer
coaches. And And so, that aspect of it
[12:11] is is shouldn't be overlooked, I'd say.
Um what the program does not cover is
[12:18] the site prep for um
um
[12:21] for the surface. And then, the long-term
maintenance piece, as well as the
[12:27] operational costs for it.
[12:37] Um so, the next steps is um with your
support is is submitting an expression
[12:42] of interest. Then, uh our department
will have to develop a project sheet.
[12:48] And then,
uh also do have further discussion with
[12:53] the Mini Peaks uh technical team. So,
they're just onboarding their technical
[12:58] staff. It's come together very quickly
for them. And so, some of the the
[13:02] questions that we would be proposing
would just be answered be able to be
[13:07] answered in the couple of weeks. So, um
[13:12] So, our recommendation is that the
community as a whole recommend that
[13:16] council support our expression of
interest for the Mini Peaks project. And
[13:20] that should the expression of interest
be successful, that staff return to
[13:25] council
at a future meeting with options for
[13:28] final consideration.
[13:34] » I think is this your first time
presenting?
[13:36] » It is it is as staff. Yes.
>> Thank you.
[13:39] Great. Looking to the committee.
Counselor sorry. Then Counselor
[13:43] Anderson, Counselor Thomas.
>> I just have a question to the chair
[13:48] regarding the potential other sports
that could
[13:51] make use of that space. I know that
currently the informal groups, ball
[13:56] hockey group
enjoy that space and while it is
[14:00] informal, I wouldn't want to
take it away from them if they didn't
[14:04] have any other options. Is that
artificial turf conducive to that?
[14:09] » So that is that will be one of the
questions for that technical team. I do
[14:15] see
two things. One, I do see field hockey
[14:18] being played on turf. I'm not sure what
the difference would be between
[14:22] the field hockey and and sticks.
Right now
[14:27] anecdotally from we have been hosting
ball hockey at the community hall and
[14:33] they choose to play inside even in good
weather right now instead of playing at
[14:38] the blacktop. I would have um
So in in terms of we've talked about
[14:45] that as staff, you know, for the
saltwater classic that that is a space.
[14:50] Um but I
I would leave it until we spoke to the
[14:54] technical team to be able to answer
that.
[14:57] » Okay, thank you.
>> Counselor Anderson, Counselor Thomas and
[15:01] then Counselor Swan.
>> My question to the chair is um
[15:06] what sort of
surface are they looking for? I'm
[15:09] wondering how much site prep is
necessary.
[15:12] If the blacktop
is a good surface to work with or it has
[15:17] to be removed.
>> So
[15:20] um
we're not sure in terms of
[15:25] in in speaking to some people like
we'd have to there'd have to be I think
[15:30] a geotech analysis to figure out
uh what would be needed on top but
[15:36] um
or just set the the site appropriately.
[15:40] Um so that isn't
that that isn't answer we'd have to
[15:46] return turn with.
[15:50] » Um
I think on the surface I'm kind of
[15:54] supportive because I think with um the
controversy and the cost related to FIFA
[15:58] we should try to grab onto any benefits
we can get from such a large event
[16:01] coming to the province. Uh similar
questions already been asked and also
[16:05] sorry I asked about what happens to the
sports that get neglected from there and
[16:09] then Councillor Anderson brought up um
the potential for preparing the site. So
[16:14] I was wondering where the maybe that's
not a question for you but for other
[16:19] staff but where the cost would
how we would pay for that for preparing
[16:23] the site like where that would come from
from the budget and then I was also
[16:26] wondering about the ongoing maintenance
that's required for AstroTurf. Like
[16:29] what's the lifespan going to look at for
that? Um
[16:32] cuz other infrastructure I think we're
pretty familiar with but knowing if we
[16:36] need to replace the AstroTurf in three
years or five years or if it should last
[16:40] the 10 um would be useful information.
>> Um
[16:45] should I refer that to you in terms of
the possible site prep?
[16:50] » Yes Mr. Um we're understanding that
likely we're moving a block off and
[16:55] we're rebuilding that whole section.
What that costs and how we pay for it
[16:58] would be the subject of the project
sheet. So if there's an expression of
[17:02] interest we'll get us in the a foot in
the door to say this might be a good
[17:04] site and then once we once we know if
we're approved or not then we would come
[17:08] back to council and say it looks like
the site prep's going to cost this.
[17:13] Here's where we think our funding is. Is
Is something else we're also in support
[17:16] of? So is what I just certainly think
then. I think
[17:19] um and think about the long-term uh tell
what what our needs will be over the
[17:23] 10-year period. I know that's something
that Mr. Berman and his team have
[17:26] already started to put their brains our
minds to. But again, that would be
[17:29] something that we'd bring back. So,
let's assume that for that opportunity.
[17:33] The the EOI doesn't commit us to
anything. It just says that that we're
[17:36] interested, basically.
[17:40] Councilor Sloan?
>> Mhm.
[17:42] » And then also that's right, and then
Mayor Wood.
[17:45] » Um
I think that this is a great idea and
[17:50] um
I'll I'll be supportive of it. And my
[17:53] question would be like as going forward
if um
[17:55] there be any consideration of putting
some coverage on it so we could extend
[17:59] the usage?
>> Yeah, so I think um
[18:03] that would be one of one of the
considerations, but
[18:07] at the
um sort of high level that we're in
[18:10] right now, um those details
um but
[18:16] in the Parks and Rec Master Plan,
albeit it is a draft, um you know,
[18:21] covered space has been set up and spoken
about as priority, so
[18:26] I think it would be important to look at
as a consideration, for sure.
[18:32] » I think it's a great idea. I wish you
would have applied for it. I think a lot
[18:35] of the questions we just heard from
council are a little presumptive,
[18:38] assuming we get the thing.
So,
[18:42] if we get the grant and then we can talk
about
[18:45] it once we get it.
[18:48] » I concur. I think it's a great
opportunity. I think one of the things
[18:50] that makes that space less than useful
right now is it's is the surface.
[18:56] It's got, you know, the
blacktop isn't great and it's
[19:01] it's not really great. It's not flat.
So, I think if we fix that and get a
[19:04] grant to do it, I think the parking
funds are sufficient to to carry
[19:08] anything
that goes over, and I think it'll
[19:11] it'll be multi-use.
We did have a a movable ice rink here
[19:15] several years ago that was quite popular
going to flood spot.
[19:20] There are you know, mobile things that
could go in there for recreation. I'm
[19:23] sure you could dream up. So
I think it's a great idea.
[19:28] » Um maybe if we could get the
recommendation back up onto the board. I
[19:32] think there seems to be a general
consensus but
[19:36] we'd like to go at this thing.
Get that back up there while
[19:41] or any members
>> [clears throat]
[19:43] » like to volunteer to read the
recommendation.
[19:52] » I have one more quick question.
>> Sure. Go ahead.
[19:55] » Um
and
[19:57] when I first saw this, I thought Bert
Mary Park might be another choice.
[20:03] And we don't know if that was eliminated
in staff
[20:06] discussions or not.
But if
[20:10] if this site turns out to not be
suitable, it would be good to um
[20:16] that's why we got to ask him about
[20:30] » Through the chair to Council Anderson,
we have thought about Satchel possibly
[20:35] and Bert Mary. From what I understand at
these early stages, part of the interest
[20:40] from Thunder has been our partnership
with the school and the benefit to the
[20:46] the school kids and the access there. So
if something
[20:49] that seemed to be what has to this point
what we know now that that's what sort
[20:53] of grabs their interest is that
partnership. Peace. We don't have that
[20:56] same thing at Bert Mary. I do agree that
Bert Mary is in need of some programming
[21:00] and you know, possibly a redo of
Satchel. So we'll definitely keep that
[21:04] in the back of our mind if something
changes.
[21:07] » It It does bring up a point there.
I'm just curious if being on SD70
[21:13] property it would retain our asset or
how how would that
[21:18] I know we'll probably get that
information what's later on but it is on
[21:22] SD70 property so whose asset would it
be?
[21:25] » Should the chair to
Councillor Steer
[21:28] you want to share the share?
>> I think that's TBD like we we'd have to
[21:32] work through that process. Um
likely being expansion over MOE projects
[21:37] and and then agreement about who's
responsible for what exactly.
[21:42] I think at this point we're
looking at our perspective but SD70
[21:47] sounds like they're interested in it
they just may not have the funds to do
[21:50] it.
We had done together.
[21:55] » Any Councillor would like to move it?
>> Yeah, I'll move it.
[21:57] » No, I'll move it.
>> Go ahead.
[21:57] » I'll move it to the end.
I move that the Committee of the Whole
[22:01] recommend that Council support the
expression of interest for the Mini
[22:04] Peaks project and that should
the EOI be successful staff return to
[22:09] Council for
at a future meeting with options for
[22:12] final consideration.
>> Seconded by Councillor Quick Master. All
[22:15] those in favor
signified opposed and motion carried.
[22:19] » Thank you very much.
>> Next up on the agenda we have multi-use
[22:24] path
>> safety improvements and another verbal
[22:26] report from Community and Protective
Services.
[22:34] » I got to take behind the scenes here.
>> [laughter]
[22:38] » Uh good evening Committee of the Whole.
Uh Dean Collard Bylaw Supervisor Planner
[22:42] 1 for the District of Squamish.
Um I'm here tonight to provide a brief
[22:46] update for the community regarding
multi-use path safety grant that was
[22:50] recently applied and received for by the
District of Squamish.
[22:57] Um so yeah, today's agenda today we'll
go over the overview of the multi-use
[23:01] path, concerns raised by the community
around safety, a grant opportunity
[23:05] received by the district, plan to
implement those safety measures
[23:10] regarding the pilot program, and finally
update community engagement
[23:14] opportunities.
[23:17] So, as you're all familiar with
multi-use path, the
[23:21] multi-use
path or MAP, also known as, is a 8.8 km
[23:27] linear active transportation trail that
connects downtown Tofino with several
[23:30] beaches and neighborhoods on the
Esowista Peninsula.
[23:34] And the MAP represents the combination
of more than 30 years of planning and
[23:38] hundreds of hours of fundraising
by volunteers. Over the past decade, the
[23:43] MAP has received significant investments
through grants
[23:47] and the province's resort by initiative
that has funded surface improvements,
[23:53] widening, and extension branches to
Pacific Rim National Park Reserve and to
[23:57] Ucluelet.
In actualizing the district's
[24:00] multi-modal transportation plan and
cycling network plan, the MAP has become
[24:04] Tofino's one of Tofino's most popular
and widely used civic pieces of
[24:08] infrastructure.
With this, user traffic has
[24:13] significantly increased over this period
of time and serves a diverse set of user
[24:17] groups including local residents,
seniors, youth, and visitors, each with
[24:21] their own diverse set of mobility
behaviors.
[24:26] We're also seeing a wide range of uses
on the MAP, each with their own movement
[24:30] habits including dog walking, e-biking,
e-scootering, commuter cycling,
[24:36] skateboarding, wheelchair use,
walkers for breath, and general
[24:41] recreation use.
This traffic often peaks in higher
[24:44] visitation windows, particularly in
summer.
[24:48] And
over recent years, the district has
[24:50] received feedback pertaining to safety
concerns
[24:53] from several different sources including
local residents, the RCMP, Island Health
[24:58] staff at the Tofino General Hospital,
Tourism Tofino, and the Tofino Chamber
[25:03] of Commerce, amongst other community
stakeholders.
[25:09] So, the Vision Zero Grant. So, following
this feedback, staff collaborated with
[25:13] Island Health to identify an appropriate
grant stream to respond to these
[25:17] community concerns. And in British
Columbia, the Vision Zero
[25:21] in Road Safety Grant program was created
in 2021 from the joint partnership of
[25:26] the government of BC,
the BC Injury Research and Prevention
[25:30] Unit, Unit, the First Nations Health
Authority, and five other local health
[25:35] authorities, including Island Health.
The grant program provides funding to
[25:39] British Columbians who are seeking to
create safer roads and spaces for their
[25:43] communities. A Vision Zero approach
recognizes that people make mistakes,
[25:49] and sometimes these mistakes can result
in road crashes and injuries. However,
[25:53] sometimes these mistakes
However, governments, health
[25:57] professionals, and road designers,
and road users can work together to
[26:01] implement proactive measures that
minimize the severity of these crashes.
[26:06] Stream number one was selected by staff
to seek funding for the design and
[26:10] installation of low-cost transportation
infrastructure that improves the safety
[26:15] of vulnerable users.
And in applying for this grant, staff
[26:19] referenced several policy guidelines to
fit community concerns in identifying
[26:24] safety enhancements. Staff reviewed the
Tofino's e-bike or e-mobility device
[26:29] policy, Tofino's multimodal
transportation plan, Tofino's wayfinding
[26:34] sign plan, and
the British Columbia Active
[26:38] Transportation Design Guide for safety
mitigation measures.
[26:43] So, the grant application submitted by
staff focused primarily on road user
[26:47] education, signage, and surface painting
to take a proactive communications
[26:52] approach
and it's intended to reach a diverse set
[26:56] of user groups and mobility devices.
Staff applied for the Vision Zero grant
[27:02] stream number one in fall 2025 and was
successful in their application
[27:06] receiving $70,000 in the spring of 2026.
[27:20] Fine.
[27:23] Yeah, here we go. About the safety
measures. Perfect. Thank you.
[27:26] Uh the funds received from the Vision
Zero grant are intended to be focused on
[27:30] several incremental safety enhancements
primarily around messaging and signage.
[27:34] These measures target a high use section
of the MUP and are planned to be
[27:38] introduced this summer as a pilot
program to gather feedback and guide a
[27:42] broader active transportation safety
strategy.
[27:46] Reviewing community feedback against
local and provincial policy documents
[27:50] that I just mentioned, staff will work
with Allen Health to develop uh the
[27:54] following safety precautions including
larger and clearer simply worded signage
[27:58] alongside the MUP that will replace the
existing signage, surface messaging
[28:03] painted on the asphalt pathway, slower
speed zones in high traffic and limited
[28:09] sightline areas,
keep right signs and ring bell to pass
[28:13] signs,
consultation with bike, e-bike, and
[28:16] scooter rental companies to increase
education,
[28:20] printed brochures and messaging for
tourism to give out to MUP and
[28:23] businesses to give out to MUP users,
on-site MUP education, and a feedback
[28:28] gathering mechanism.
[28:33] There we go. Timeline.
So, you'll see here a section of the MUP
[28:37] in blue on the map up getting in the
village for extending out to Tunnels and
[28:42] North Trestle and Beaches and then out
to the National Park Reserve.
[28:46] The yellow section here in the middle is
proposed to be the slower speed zone for
[28:52] for the map north of Sharp Road where
most of the pilot program is primarily
[28:57] focused on.
And stuff we're planning to implement
[29:00] the pilot program throughout this summer
beginning with a print campaign offering
[29:04] user education to rental businesses and
tourists in Tofino.
[29:08] Onsite education is also planned by
staff offer handouts and user education.
[29:13] Um implement the implement of signage is
planned for July and sort of it's
[29:17] painting for later afterwards.
Uh following collection of feedback from
[29:22] user groups, the community and and staff
will then return to council with their
[29:26] findings.
[29:30] Final communications and engagement. So
throughout the pilot program staff are
[29:33] planning on publishing a Tofino survey.
Staff will also engage with rental
[29:37] businesses and the Tofino Chamber of
Commerce.
[29:40] Uh and then staff will return to council
uh and continue gathering feedback to
[29:44] the following follow up their strategy
on them.
[29:48] And with that I conclude my update for
council.
[29:51] For your time. And happy to answer any
other questions. No formal
[29:55] recommendation recommendation um seeking
this council time. Just
[29:59] just an update but happy to take this.
[30:06] » Can you tell me what a speed zone is? Is
it just a matter of putting a sign up
[30:09] saying slow slow down?
>> Yeah, essentially. So so the provincial
[30:13] recommendation on speeds is 32 km/h and
that's in our e-mobility device policy.
[30:19] So that's multi-use path wide. But we're
seeing that higher traffic area kind of
[30:25] north of Sharp Road. Our intention is to
designate that as the slower speed zone.
[30:31] So we're intending to to increase
signage around that area.
[30:36] Enforcement can be can be tricky but
we're choosing to take corrective
[30:40] enforcement uh and and use signage
communication to to help mitigate that
[30:45] use.
[30:55] » Thank you.
>> Uh Council Member
[30:57] » Uh just one one comment we have
with that um signage.
[31:05] Like uh for a cyclist myself,
I
[31:09] it's kind of out of out of your view
range when you're turning. The
[31:13] » [clears throat]
>> bike path are a little bit I don't know.
[31:16] I I think the more effective
uh
[31:20] messaging would be right on the surface.
And free standing signs,
[31:26] they start to get pretty numerous.
I would
[31:30] and
it the more you have, the less you
[31:33] really see them.
Because they So anyways, that's just a
[31:37] just comment from being a cyclist that
and
[31:41] the free standing signs
aren't really well
[31:45] observed
or or easy to see sometimes when you're
[31:49] cycling.
>> Agreed. Yeah, thank you for the
[31:52] question, uh Mr. Henderson. Um yeah, the
the pilot program implements both kind
[31:57] of like a surface painting pilot program
where we'll paint actually on the map
[32:02] with communication and signage there and
then also signage, typical signage, but
[32:06] larger and um
uh more eye-catching.
[32:14] » So, uh you're someone who's hasn't used
technology much, but what's the value in
[32:18] in a print uh campaign? And And I see
that it it's launching in June and I And
[32:23] I know it's a pilot program, so maybe
you will then evaluate the value of the
[32:27] print program, but what what is the the
print campaign?
[32:31] » Good question. Thank you for the
question. Um so, we're intending to kind
[32:34] of create some messaging on a printed
format to hand out to e-bike rental
[32:38] businesses so that they can use that in
kind of their orientation walk-through
[32:42] when a customer rents a a bike. Um and
then also for staff to hand out on the
[32:48] mop um if there's some some compliance
issues or kind of education issues. Um
[32:54] something that uh a visitor or local
resident can can take home and read and
[32:59] also um follow up with our feedback
mechanism through Talk Tofino.
[33:03] Thank you.
[33:07] » Seeing nothing else from the floor.
>> Thank you, Mr. Recchia. Appreciate it
[33:10] once again.
>> [clears throat]
[33:13] » So, moving on, we now have traffic and
parking regulation bylaw
[33:19] amendments by
Mr. Purton coming up.
[33:38] » Good morning, Mayor and Council and the
Committee of the Whole.
[33:42] Today, I'll provide an overview of
proposed amendments that were
[33:47] presented in my report to Council to the
District of Tofino traffic and parking
[33:53] um regulation bylaw
along with related updates to supporting
[33:57] bylaws.
[34:04] Beach pay parking was introduced in 2021
and downtown parking pay parking
[34:10] followed in 2023.
Since then, there have been a few
[34:14] amendments updating fees. Um however,
all fees will cease to have any
[34:19] increases post 2026.
In January 2026, staff verbally
[34:25] discussed uh potential bylaw amendments
with Council.
[34:29] Uh the committee subsequently directed
staff to return with a detailed report
[34:34] to allow for more time to review
implications and provide informed
[34:39] feedback and direction.
Those discussions raised questions about
[34:43] resident downtown resident passes,
commercial
[34:47] passes, business impacts, and whether
the current bylaw language and fee
[34:51] schedules are as clear as they should
be.
[34:55] As staff worked through the 2026 rule
out, it also became clear that there was
[35:01] opportunities to simplify some of the
rules and optimize the
[35:05] public-facing information.
[35:11] One area staff are recommending changes
to is the commercial vehicle pass
[35:16] system.
Right now, the traffic bylaw refers to a
[35:19] downtown-only commercial pass and a
beach-only pass, each at $120.
[35:25] While the fees and charges bylaw lists
the same fee as applying to both pay
[35:28] parking areas.
Staff are proposing that all pay parking
[35:32] fees be consolidated into the fees and
charges bylaw, so there's one clear and
[35:37] authoritative source for the fee
schedules.
[35:40] Staff are also proposing that the
commercial vehicle pass apply
[35:44] consistently across both areas, similar
to how it's listed in the fees and
[35:48] charges bylaw, currently,
with clear wording on what the pass
[35:52] allows and where restrictions would
remain, such as long-term or overnight
[35:55] parking in certain locations.
[36:01] Another [clears throat] area for
committee consideration is the downtown
[36:05] resident parking pass.
Um as council could recall, a recent uh
[36:12] in 2024 draft parking traffic and
parking control regulation bylaw
[36:16] amendment introduced a phased reduction
in the number of permits allowed per
[36:20] unit, housing residential unit or the
housing unit.
[36:24] The question staff has is whether the
committee would like staff to continue
[36:28] with the 2024 model where the first
permit is free and the second permit is
[36:33] $150
or the 2025 model where each permit is
[36:38] $150 to a maximum of two permits per
unit.
[36:43] In either case, staff are proposing
clearer bylaw language similar to the
[36:47] commercial passes on how these permits
can be used and to which blocks they
[36:53] apply to.
[37:02] At the January 2026 Committee of the
Whole meeting, staff were asked to take
[37:07] a closer look at the hourly rates
options that were presented in light of
[37:12] current economic pressures.
That analysis included a benchmark
[37:17] review of places such as Jasper,
Whistler, and Parks Canada locations
[37:22] along with local parking data
which continues to show that usage is
[37:26] primarily visitors based and the and and
long and long duration parking remains
[37:32] limited.
Based on that review, staff do recommend
[37:37] a fixed 3-year schedule that holds the
current rate throughout 2027
[37:43] and introduces moderate increases in
2008 28 and 2029.
[37:49] In staff's view, this provides stability
while supporting sustainable program
[37:54] revenue over time.
The alternative approach would be a
[37:59] CPI-based model.
While this model would be predictable,
[38:03] it would mean revenue growth follows
inflation
[38:07] rather than actual costs and pressures
associated with operating the paid
[38:11] parking program in the long term.
Uh the revenue it generated under both
[38:16] options and subsequent incomes is is
shared within the report that community
[38:21] impacts.
[38:30] » [clears throat]
>> Staff are also recommending that the
[38:32] downtown pay parking start date shift to
April 1st to reflect early spring
[38:37] visitor demand that we do see.
And more broadly, one of the
[38:42] housekeeping items that I previously
mentioned in the commercial pass slide
[38:47] is to reduce duplication risk across
bylaw framework by placing all fees in
[38:52] the fees and charges bylaw,
keeping the regulatory provisions in the
[38:56] traffic bylaw,
and locating offenses only in the
[39:01] municipal ticketing and notice
adjudication bylaws.
[39:05] Uh the next step, and subject to
committee direction, would be for staff
[39:09] to prepare the necessary bylaw
amendments and bring them forward for
[39:13] council consideration before the 2027
pay parking
[39:17] season commences.
Uh then with that, I'll leave the
[39:21] recommendation on the screen and open up
the floor to questions and discussion.
[39:28] » Thank you, uh Mr. Kirkland. I appreciate
it.
[39:31] Presentation once again. I have a
feeling there's going to be a few
[39:33] questions and comments. I'll look to the
committee
[39:38] to see.
[39:42] No,
go ahead with this with whatever you
[39:44] would like in this department.
>> Um
[39:46] Um I was going to say that I'm in
support of the schedule option one over
[39:52] option two.
Um knowing that option one kept the
[39:57] rate steady for residents
Frank Island and all those things, and
[40:02] the increases are just falling on
the visitor usage. And I think having a
[40:07] more dependable model and clearly
indicated that option two with the CPI
[40:12] wasn't going to meet our needs.
Um for the over the downtown residential
[40:18] permit, um, I would be good with either
the three first permit paying for the
[40:24] second one or
either way adding the second permit back
[40:28] on. I think we heard some people that,
um,
[40:31] not having that second permit was,
um,
[40:34] detrimental to some people's
lifestyles. And then what was the other
[40:39] one?
Yeah. Anyway, overall I thought it was
[40:42] great. Um, I appreciate cleaning up, um,
the things that were confusing for the
[40:47] public and getting things in
[40:52] » Thanks. Councillor Sawyer.
>> Uh, thank you through the chair. I'm
[40:56] also in favor of the 2024 parking permit
model for downtown
[41:02] residents, um, given that we're also
eventually going to see increased
[41:07] density in that area.
Um,
[41:09] it makes sense that more people will be
needing to park on the street.
[41:17] » Different conversation brings us into
uh, so the there was the option of um,
[41:22] the 2024 model and the 2025. So
>> 2024 was one free permit and then one
[41:28] permit at 150. Yes.
>> Yes.
[41:30] » Yes.
>> Thank you.
[41:33] First moment.
>> Um,
[41:36] yeah, I like the
it seems to make sense to consolidate
[41:41] the, um, downtown rates into the
into the fees and parking bylaw. Um,
[41:46] I'll go a little bit against the grain
and I would like to see two permits per
[41:51] per household, but I still would like to
incentivize people to park on their own
[41:55] property.
And you can I think a
[41:58] large parking permit is not unreasonable
for a parking spot. Um,
[42:04] uh,
and I like the three model recommended
[42:08] by staff.
[42:12] Uh, what was the
option one again?
[42:16] And I think that's all.
Oh.
[42:21] Oh, it doesn't matter for the expansion
of the dates.
[42:25] Um
And I I wasn't really in favor of
[42:28] expanding the dates of the pay parking
because I felt that
[42:33] it might put pressure on the downtown
businesses because we don't people who
[42:37] live out of town or the visitors who are
visiting out of town don't have the
[42:41] option to bike into town or they have
less of an option because of the
[42:45] weather.
So, I didn't feel comfortable with that.
[42:49] Um
I also have concerns about that because
[42:52] um
I know my family sometimes bikes into
[42:55] work and
it's really difficult to bike to work in
[42:59] April when the weather can be so bad.
So, I wasn't I wasn't in favor of
[43:02] expanding that.
[43:09] » Fair enough.
>> Yeah, I like uh I like option one.
[43:14] Uh so, I can
compare it with everybody and I'm
[43:19] torn on the
downtown resident passes. I'm going to
[43:23] be neutral, so I'll see.
Let's see what uh
[43:30] » Councillor did you have a
>> Yeah, I like option one. I am
[43:35] quite happy
2024
[43:40] will fulfill the
permits. The
[43:43] first permit is zero and second is 150.
I'm in favor of increasing parking April
[43:50] 1.
[43:56] » Councillor did you
>> Um also option one
[44:02] is my preference.
Um
[44:06] I
[44:09] I haven't really made up my mind. Two
options of paying separately or sticking
[44:16] with the 2024 model.
I I think I think I think if we stick
[44:20] with the 2024 model
the fee should be maybe
[44:26] 150 should
I see it does go up a little bit
[44:32] and it's not significant.
So maybe it could be 175 or 200 with the
[44:38] first option the first parking spot.
Brief. Um
[44:44] I we need some incentive to get people
to build their own parking.
[44:49] Um
because
[44:53] parking
whatever public buying is expensive.
[44:57] This is expensive and it's privately
obtained. So
[45:01] Um
there's
[45:05] I'm assuming these permits though
permit the vehicle to park
[45:11] um anywhere.
And they don't get a designated spot.
[45:16] Um
because I think some people
[45:19] » for the
>> start to sort of claim a spot for them.
[45:23] And I'm really against that.
Should be all spots should be open to
[45:28] everyone.
Including
[45:32] Yeah.
>> Through the chair, I can offer some
[45:35] information if that is a question. Um
the through the the the amendments that
[45:42] we're proposing would contain the spot
to the resident's block. And right now
[45:48] how it reads would be the resident's
street. So it does somewhat contain that
[45:52] a little bit more um and answer the
question too, it it doesn't provide a
[45:57] designated parking spot for folks within
their block.
[46:02] » There should be some turnover in all
spots, and so it's all very doable.
[46:07] Very affordable.
[46:16] » Go ahead.
>> Um I think we've gone through everybody,
[46:20] so I'll uh
and
[46:22] uh just take a quick summary. Seems uh
option one in terms of the fixed
[46:27] schedule uh seems to be the consensus of
of the committee.
[46:30] Um and there's uh
I I'd say somewhat split, but uh
[46:35] certainly uh the two permanent sites um
in the residential parking permit area
[46:42] um with uh questions around possibly
increasing I think the 2024 model, the
[46:47] first one free, the second one um to
to have a fee associated with it, and
[46:53] there was uh Councillor Anderson had
recommended and and I and I would
[46:57] support uh looking for the reasons I
just said uh we want to incentivize
[47:00] people uh to be you know, one free spot,
that's great, and then to to have a
[47:04] second there. Um and then public
property isn't cheap, so uh I I would
[47:09] certainly look to increasing that that
permit fee for the second one. Um
[47:15] 150 is a great deal to have a second uh
space available to you, so
[47:19] uh certainly I would support that. Um
in terms of the start date, we heard
[47:25] from Councillor Sloman with some
concerns around there, um and then
[47:28] Councillor McMaster
I I would be in support of starting in
[47:32] April 1st as well. I think um where um
you know, the potential revenue uh gains
[47:37] from that um
I think are important. My one concern
[47:41] and and question that I did have um
just uh in terms of consultation with
[47:46] Tourism Tofino and the Chamber of
Commerce in terms of um just feedback in
[47:50] terms of what they
anticipated the the impacts might be in
[47:53] terms of tourism. Um I'm I'm certainly
um
[47:57] supportive of raising those revenues,
but I just want to be cautious that you
[48:01] know, it is not a
it's not an inexpensive place to come
[48:04] visit. So, I was just wondering if there
was consultation at all with Tourism
[48:08] Tofino and the chamber regarding those
paid parking fees.
[48:12] » Uh through the chair, not specifically
and directly. There was consultation as
[48:16] we did roll out the paid parking
year for this year.
[48:23] If the committee wishes, staff can
consult
[48:28] with Tourism Tofino and and the chamber
as we continue to move through
[48:33] the bylaw amendments.
>> I think it would be I think it would
[48:35] just be important to keep that that
conversation um
[48:40] you know, council will decide on in the
end, but certainly just to have that
[48:44] input just to help us inform
what the potential impacts might be
[48:48] perceived impacts might be in terms of
that
[48:52] potential increase to those fees.
Um
[48:55] Councilor Anderson, did you did you
think about that second
[48:58] » Yeah, there was I support consolidating
fees and so on.
[49:03] » Yeah, I think that's broad consensus
across the board. Of course, makes
[49:06] sense. And Mayor Law, did you have
anything maybe you want to add in terms
[49:10] of you've heard some of the
pieces from the rest of council to help
[49:16] see what the rest of council was
thinking.
[49:17] » I think I concur with
[49:21] » We'll
have another chance to We'll have
[49:23] another chance to discuss this at the
next regular council, so by then maybe
[49:27] we'll see what staff
[49:32] » Um I think since you mentioned it, I
would be
[49:36] not in favor of moving the year back to
April 1st.
[49:40] Um so, basically keeping it where it is
because uh
[49:47] as one of the goals of Tourism Tofino
and the Chamber of Commerce is to push
[49:51] the off-season tourism. I do recognize
that not having to pay for parking is
[49:57] one of the things that may factor into
people's decisions. And if we're trying
[50:01] to encourage people to come in the
rainier months, them not having to walk
[50:06] this far
may also be an incentive for them.
[50:10] » After sorry, that was certainly one of
the considerations I thought to
[50:13] incentivize that shoulder season and and
that's why the consultation maybe with
[50:17] the chamber and tourism to you know,
that was my one concern. We really would
[50:20] like to see people that coming as much
in or to incentivize that shoulder
[50:25] season. So with increasing the parking
fees in those time frames.
[50:29] I I know many people do travel outside
of the peak periods because they can
[50:33] take advantage of those the lower cost
of these things.
[50:36] » don't have the free shuttle then.
>> And we do not have the free shuttle. We
[50:38] do do have transit though. We do have
paid transit. So
[50:42] um
Great. Well, thank you. I think um
[50:44] um
counselor explain.
[50:46] » Yeah, I want to follow up comments in
regards to that. I was thinking like
[50:50] when we're reviewing this is one of the
reasons we developed the downtown pay
[50:54] parking was
not to to gain funds although we
[50:58] discovered it's really a useful source.
Um was to move traffic. And I think when
[51:04] we're looking at April, that's starting
to look at
[51:07] gaining revenue and not moving traffic
and moving people in the spot.
[51:12] » Yeah, thank you. Good point.
Um
[51:16] Mr. Kirkland, do you do you have enough
information now um or is there anything
[51:19] else that we may have missed in terms of
um feedback on on the regulation?
[51:24] » Uh
through the chair, I think I have enough
[51:28] information to come back to council and
and comments uh readings of of future
[51:34] amendment bylaws and
in for there's work that we can that
[51:39] staff can do to consult
with the chamber and tourism to you
[51:42] know, to do that to help inform the
decisions of
[51:46] expansion of pay parking so on and so
forth.
[51:50] » Good luck.
>> I just wanted to say that I think I'm
[51:52] persuaded by Councillor Sawyer and
Councillor Sloan
[51:55] change the dates.
[52:00] » I think you're probably looking at it
almost a majority of that but certainly
[52:03] maybe some feedback
tourism to see
[52:07] you know if there's a perceived impact
but certainly the points brought up by
[52:10] Councillor Sloan
Sawyer are very relevant.
[52:14] Um
Councillor Manson
[52:16] » Um something that occurred to me in
parking a little while back too was I'm
[52:21] wondering if there's any
uh we're getting any feedback or any
[52:26] interest
in creating EV parking spots.
[52:31] You know, I don't know. It's
this bylaw wants to anticipate that.
[52:40] I think eventually
[52:44] famous EV spots that might have a
different fee schedule.
[52:50] » Lock down Mr. Kirkland is that something
that's uh been contemplated? I didn't
[52:55] see it in the report but um
that's something that's been called I
[52:58] know with the co-op and the number of EV
stations there and out of tourism to
[53:02] Tofino the EV charging stations there of
course here there
[53:05] as as a spot as well as that's something
that's been considered to within the
[53:09] conversation.
>> Um through the chair we
[53:13] there is other spaces that we have
looked at in
[53:16] looking into EV and and
looking into long-term like maintenance
[53:21] and costs that it would be associated
with. There's if that's where where
[53:25] you're where that was one of that as
well.
[53:28] Um but we can certainly
look into it a little bit more into the
[53:32] future and then we can perhaps include
something in a future report that speaks
[53:37] to that question.
>> Okay.
[53:41] » We can look at that at the next meeting.
>> Okay.
[53:44] Um
for the rest of you I don't see anyone
[53:46] with their hands up, so thank you Mr.
Curtlin once again. There's a number of
[53:49] recommendations
um
[53:52] around of us here. Who would like to
take take this one on? Thank you
[53:55] Counselor Wright.
[54:07] » So,
I move that the Committee of the Whole
[54:11] recommends Council that staff be
authorized to prepare amendments to
[54:14] District of Tofino Traffic and Parking
Regulation Bylaw number 1091 2009.
[54:21] » Seconded by Counselor Thomas. All those
in favor?
[54:25] Seeing none opposed, motion carried.
>> I move that the Committee of the Whole
[54:28] recommends Council that staff be
authorized to prepare amendments to
[54:32] District of Tofino Fees and Charges
Bylaw number 1271 2019.
[54:37] » Seconded by Counselor Thomas. All those
in favor?
[54:40] Seeing none opposed, motion carried.
>> I move that the Committee of the Whole
[54:44] recommends to Council that staff be
authorized to prepare amendments to
[54:48] District of Tofino Municipal Ticket
Information System Bylaw number 1088
[54:53] 2009.
>> Seconded by Counselor Thomas. All those
[54:56] in favor? Seeing none opposed, motion
carried.
[54:59] » And I move that the Committee of the
Whole recommends to Council that staff
[55:03] be authorized to prepare amendments to
District of Tofino Notice Adjudication
[55:07] Bylaw number 1107
2010.
[55:11] » Seconded by Counselor Thomas. All those
in favor?
[55:13] Seeing none opposed, motion carried.
That
[55:18] uh I think is there anything else on Oh,
but it looks like you're probably
[55:22] So, you don't have to sit down. Next up
on the agenda, a draft uh water supply
[55:26] policy, a report from infrastructure and
public works.
[55:30] » That's simple water in there.
>> Here, here.
[55:40] » All right. So, the uh next presentation
that I have for the committee is on the
[55:45] district's draft private water supply
policy
[55:49] uh for information, discussion, and
direction.
[55:53] This work builds on earlier updates to
council regarding water system
[55:57] performance in response to the
increasing interest that we are all
[56:01] seeing from applicants in using private
water systems
[56:05] their developments during the summer and
early fall something in those times.
[56:16] In late 2025, staff advised council that
a policy on private water supply would
[56:21] be developed in 2026.
Uh the topic also came up in discussions
[56:26] during the repeal of the limits to
growth policy.
[56:30] Since then, staff have continued to see
growing interest in in private interest
[56:35] and wells, rainwater harvesting, and
treatment-based systems as a way to
[56:40] reduce reliance on the municipal system
during peak demand months.
[56:44] At present, these proposals are reviewed
on a case-by-case basis.
[56:49] This can lead to inconsistent
expectations and variable design
[56:54] standards. A formal policy will provide
clarity for applicants, it will support
[56:59] staff's decision-making, and align with
council's strategic focus on water
[57:04] security.
Implementation will likely require
[57:09] amendments to the water utility bylaw to
ensure the policy is aligned with
[57:13] existing
authorities.
[57:28] The draft policy establishes a
structured approach for proposals that
[57:32] rely on private water systems sources
during the restricted months, which are
[57:37] defined in the draft policies July 1st
to September 30th.
[57:42] The purpose is to support responsible
growth while protecting the watershed
[57:46] and ensuring that development during
peak periods does not exceed the
[57:50] capacity of the municipal system.
The policy also recognizes examples of a
[57:56] range of private sources, as I mentioned
in the last slide, groundwater,
[58:00] rainwater harvesting and treatment based
systems as three examples.
[58:05] Um each of these carry different risks,
design considerations, and reliability
[58:10] expectations.
[58:15] Um
this policy requires applicants to
[58:19] demonstrate that proposed systems are
reliable,
[58:22] include appropriate storage, and are
designed and sealed by qualified
[58:26] professionals.
Storage must be sized
[58:30] to support the level of demand reduction
proposed.
[58:34] Policy doesn't require storage for the
full
[58:37] um amount of usage during the
restriction restricted months in every
[58:42] case, but applicants must show that the
system can reasonably achieve the
[58:46] intended or designed for reduction.
As a general benchmark, the draft policy
[58:52] currently notes that the district may
consider systems sized to provide
[58:56] approximately 50% of the projected
restricted months demand where supported
[59:01] by a qualified professional and rate
reasonable
[59:04] rainfall or refill assumptions.
This is not a requirement, but it is
[59:10] included to give applicants a practical
reference point for the scale of storage
[59:15] needed to meaningfully reduce municipal
demand during
[59:18] the defined restricted months.
Acceptance of a private system does not
[59:24] guarantee the performance by the
district.
[59:26] Responsibility operation and maintenance
requirements required remains with the
[59:31] private property owner.
This will be further reinforced by an
[59:36] section
219 covenant where appropriate.
[59:41] These covenants will ensure that the use
and maintenance of the private water
[59:45] system and the level of demand
uh reduction committed to is maintained
[59:50] during the restricted months.
Policy also reinforces is that
[59:55] unauthorized municipal water use during
peak periods may result in enforcement
[1:00:00] under the water utility bylaw.
[1:00:04] Following committee review, staff will
refine the draft policy, prepare any
[1:00:09] necessary bylaw amendments in
consultation with legal counsel, and
[1:00:13] return to council with the final policy
and related amendments for
[1:00:17] consideration.
[1:00:21] Staff are also seeking committee
direction on whether engagement should
[1:00:25] occur before the policy is finalized.
So, a few options could include
[1:00:30] proceeding directly to a final policy
based on committee feedback.
[1:00:35] Uh targeted engagement with developers,
builders, and larger water users, which
[1:00:39] staff are suggesting.
Or a a general broader engagement
[1:00:44] platforms such as Talk to Fenelon
and social media.
[1:00:48] Um engagement may help along the way of
finalizing the the draft policy. Um it
[1:00:54] may help clarify
reduce future challenges in
[1:00:58] administrating the policy, and ensure
the policy reflects practical
[1:01:01] considerations.
[1:01:04] With that, I will leave the
recommendations on the screen, and
[1:01:09] I'm here to take any questions and any
discussion. Thank you.
[1:01:13] » Thank you again, Mr. Curtin. I know this
is something we've been looking forward
[1:01:16] to. I think the community has been
looking forward to this uh forward. Look
[1:01:19] to
Committee will start uh ask whatever you
[1:01:24] want, or so.
>> Um well, I guess the big question is
[1:01:28] really what are the words on public
engagement
[1:01:32] and I support fairly broad
and targeting public engagement.
[1:01:38] Um
it's in the interest of
[1:01:41] of
showing that we're active on
[1:01:45] water and serious about
water
[1:01:49] usage
and um
[1:01:53] and also to keep keep it on top of mind
the public as well and increase increase
[1:01:59] the opportunities for
education around this.
[1:02:04] All things that I would support. Um
[1:02:09] so that's that's one point. The other
point I had on was
[1:02:14] as we go through this and I guess it
would be a
[1:02:17] more to do with the water
fee schedule might be another
[1:02:24] follow up after this
policy is adopted, but we do bill
[1:02:30] for water and sewage based on metered
water metered water use. So, I think
[1:02:36] that needs to be something
thought of about as as we do allow for
[1:02:42] other uses how are we going to
compensate for that that sewer part for
[1:02:50] the water bill.
Um
[1:02:52] but it doesn't show up on the meters for
now.
[1:02:55] on source.
Thank you.
[1:02:59] » Through the chair, I can provide some
clarity on that. Um
[1:03:02] later this year staff will be working on
a sewer and water utility rate review
[1:03:07] and part of that would be
um making adjustments to the sewer
[1:03:12] utility bylaw where systems rely on or
partially rely on private water systems
[1:03:17] and and looking at how there can be rate
equity that can be achieved. Some
[1:03:23] possible examples could be putting
meters on some properties that that
[1:03:28] would meter how much sewer and or
waste effluent is discharged into the
[1:03:33] district's sanitary collection system.
[1:03:38] I'm sorry.
Maryland and then septic tanks.
[1:03:42] » Thank you. I support public engagement
on this. I feel like it'd be a valuable
[1:03:47] time for us to learn about some
individual scenarios that we might be
[1:03:52] seeing and get staff time to prepare for
the different types of homes and uses of
[1:03:59] private properties. So, we'll be at
flying for this.
[1:04:02] As far as
Counselor Anderson's point about um
[1:04:08] the water entering the wastewater system
in the summer,
[1:04:12] I believe through the chair that this
might be beneficial as low flow can be
[1:04:15] something that can be more difficult to
deal with in the summer if we're having
[1:04:20] people conserve water,
but then it's not moving the waste
[1:04:24] through the system efficiently.
Um having people use their own water
[1:04:30] sources could in fact benefit us.
I'm not sure if that's accurate. So,
[1:04:36] maybe observation you know.
>> Mr. Kerpen.
[1:04:40] » I mean
any thoughts on the potential for in
[1:04:43] terms of that potential reduction in
volume that we as we ask for people to
[1:04:47] conserve the water, but we also have a
lot more people using the system. So,
[1:04:50] I'm wondering if there's a balance there
and if that's not somehow affects our
[1:04:53] system.
>> If it's a through the chair, it's a a
[1:04:56] great point and question. I I think
initially when I
[1:05:01] think about that is
the the magnitude and the scale that you
[1:05:05] would have to see to have impact at the
actual wastewater treatment plant would
[1:05:09] have to be very great. So, there may be
some impact, but it it also may not be
[1:05:15] noticeable from an operational lens as
well, but it's definitely something to
[1:05:20] note and
as time goes on we can monitor that.
[1:05:25] » I agree.
[1:05:27] » Yeah, just a comment. I have actually
going to talk I'll just have a comment
[1:05:30] on that.
And then I get a question. Actually the
[1:05:33] one is
just considering the sewer, you know,
[1:05:36] not using the water by potentially 50%
and then you try and make the difference
[1:05:41] because of the sewer use. I think the
idea is that we're incentivizing or
[1:05:44] we're trying to incentivize even with
grants
[1:05:47] uh to or people to find novel ways to do
this thing. So, I think maybe the the
[1:05:53] idea of finding a way to up the sewer
charge is a bit counterproductive.
[1:05:58] We're going to incentivize it, we might
as well incentivize it and say
[1:06:02] and that that may be one of the easiest
ways to do it is just say
[1:06:08] pay for sewer
as much, but uh that's my comment on
[1:06:12] that. But uh question I have is we're
we're looking at engagement with
[1:06:16] builders, which I think is great idea
right off the bat.
[1:06:20] Um the community, which I think is also
a good idea. What about with other
[1:06:23] communities that have
policies? I know many communities on
[1:06:28] Vancouver Island have own source water
uh
[1:06:32] policies already and and people buy
their water or supplement their water
[1:06:36] with rain. So, is is there a way to to
And uh maybe it's already happened,
[1:06:41] that's my question. Is has that already
happened where
[1:06:44] uh those uh existing policies in other
communities have been
[1:06:47] looked at and other, you know,
structured crews have been asked for
[1:06:51] their
their advice for our situation?
[1:06:54] » Um
it's a good question. Through the chair,
[1:06:57] we haven't had any direct staff-to-staff
engagement with other communities. I
[1:07:01] have
through developing this researched a
[1:07:04] little bit about what other communities
are doing and there's not a lot of
[1:07:09] direct private water supply policies and
there are
[1:07:14] different unique challenges that
different communities face and very
[1:07:18] similar systems that are in place. Uh
So, yeah, to answer the question, we
[1:07:23] haven't done a lot of
outreach to to to speak with other staff
[1:07:28] at other communities.
[1:07:31] » Yeah, through the chair, just I just
have one more follow-up comment that I I
[1:07:34] know
other communities [clears throat]
[1:07:37] and people who do
supply their own water and and the
[1:07:40] beauty of this I think one of the
reasons even if the water rain catchment
[1:07:44] or home source water is insufficient,
uh people can bulk purchase water.
[1:07:51] Top it up and and meet their
if you do go down the road of
[1:07:57] of a covenant, they can still meet their
covenant obligations to supply their own
[1:08:01] water even if the rain capture didn't
work. They can
[1:08:05] simply purchase water.
So, I I think it's great.
[1:08:10] » Councillor Thomas.
>> Thank you. I I'm in favor of
[1:08:15] um
consultation with as as broad a group as
[1:08:19] possible. And I think maybe the really
direct stuff with the builders and that
[1:08:22] will be useful if there's any feedback
on the policy itself and maybe the
[1:08:25] broader community would be more
informational.
[1:08:28] Um
Cuz there might be people who it doesn't
[1:08:30] directly apply to, but they're very
interested to hear what the solutions we
[1:08:33] are coming forward with for the water
and then the other comment was just um
[1:08:37] thank you for including item 4.5 in the
policy. Uh speaks to Councillor
[1:08:42] Solomon's motion from a couple of years
ago about granting
[1:08:45] rain water catchment.
So, it was really um
[1:08:48] it was really nice to see that included
in this policy.
[1:08:54] » Thank you.
Councillor Master.
[1:08:56] » Yeah, I mean, I'll I'd like to read
I think it's going to spell would be uh
[1:09:02] uh cross-contamination between our water
and their water, but you know, I'm sure
[1:09:07] the safeguards will be in place. I'm
just hoping it will be.
[1:09:11] Um
I don't like the idea of mentioning the
[1:09:15] desalination.
Cuz unless, you know, what's going to
[1:09:19] happen with the salt?
Is that that's a big environmental
[1:09:23] problem as well.
Uh the way it's written at the moment, I
[1:09:27] wouldn't be in support of that
until I have further details.
[1:09:31] Um
If people are going to drill wells, I
[1:09:36] want uh
specific tests
[1:09:39] to be added to the existing database as
to what aquifer we're tapping into and
[1:09:44] what depth. And I think that would help
in the future.
[1:09:47] So, it would have to be stipulated in
the
[1:09:50] I mean, it's a good start.
[1:09:56] » Thank you.
>> Okay, I just want to make sure.
[1:09:58] » I would I'm just saying I think the
draft policy is
[1:10:03] is straightforward and complicated and I
like that. I wouldn't
[1:10:07] heap too many layers of complexity onto
it.
[1:10:11] I think
um
[1:10:13] Yeah, correct. I think there's general
consensus around the engagement,
[1:10:16] certainly directed and broad and
[1:10:21] from the committee. Um and I wanted to
echo Councillor Thomas's uh
[1:10:25] and I I had just a a personal question
in terms of the the grant funding for
[1:10:30] the rain catchment systems. Thank you so
much. I think uh once again, building on
[1:10:33] the work of Councillor Zwolman's uh
motion. Um it
[1:10:38] uh there was a just just a quick
question. Um
[1:10:41] There's through the budget process we'll
allocate um
[1:10:45] you know, what we we see as appropriate.
And I I did a quick bit of research in
[1:10:48] terms of some of those storage tank
units and and the hardware associated
[1:10:52] with that. Um and
I I had had staff put any thought as to
[1:10:58] in terms of the incentivization and what
may be the uptake. Was there any number
[1:11:02] that that jumped out
in terms of what might be an appropriate
[1:11:07] grant amount through the budget process?
Just something to consider when when I
[1:11:10] looked at like a you know, a 330 gallon
IBC tank, you know, it's is almost $900
[1:11:16] before taxes and hardware and
installation and all that. Was there Was
[1:11:20] there any thought as to what might be an
appropriate amount?
[1:11:24] » Uh through the chair, nothing specific
within like for a overall program-wide
[1:11:29] amount.
Um we have done through the policy
[1:11:34] identified like what
um components of the private of the
[1:11:38] system would be qualified under the
grant and have left it at the supply of
[1:11:42] the tank at this time for those very
reasons cuz there's
[1:11:45] the bill of materials could grow pretty
long and and and how much that would be
[1:11:50] and
uh I think
[1:11:52] keeping all of the budgetary information
outside of the policy and bringing that
[1:11:56] into the financial planning process is
was what our our intent was. So, we
[1:12:00] haven't
looked at grouping that like what our
[1:12:03] overall estimate of how many
people may or may not be applying for
[1:12:07] the grant would be. So, we haven't
done a full estimate on it yet.
[1:12:11] » I I do understand. Yeah, I was just
wondering if you had any thought on the
[1:12:14] cost. Um I appreciate the work and sir,
look to the committee see if there's any
[1:12:19] other comments or questions.
>> I have one comment. It's a bit random,
[1:12:23] but I I've just come back from Edmonton
and then there was a an announcement of
[1:12:26] some changes in the build Canada homes
uh
[1:12:32] funding stream. There is a new
billion-dollar per community fund for
[1:12:38] infrastructure directly related to
housing.
[1:12:42] So, [clears throat] you know, I'm not
sure where the
[1:12:46] the the grant money is coming from, but
it might be an interesting
[1:12:50] something to look at. That's all. I'm
just throwing it out there that might be
[1:12:54] an option to pitch
to build the new build in Canada homes.
[1:13:04] » So, I see we do have a couple of
recommendations on there. Which
[1:13:07] counselor would like to step up and
apply this time?
[1:13:12] Thank you, Counselor Lewis.
>> I move that Committee of the Whole
[1:13:16] I move that private water supply policy
attached as amendments 1 through 7 for
[1:13:20] draft private water supply dated June
9th, 2026 and provide comments and
[1:13:24] direction to staff.
>> Seconded.
[1:13:26] Seconded by Counselor McMaster. All
those in favor? Seeing none opposed,
[1:13:29] motion carried.
>> I move that the Committee of the Whole
[1:13:33] recommends to Council that staff be
authorized to prepare an amendment to
[1:13:36] District of Tofino Water Utility Bylaw
number 1346-2024
[1:13:41] to align with the private water supply
policy as approved.
[1:13:44] » Seconded. Seconded by Counselor
McMaster. All those in favor? Seeing
[1:13:47] none opposed, motion carried.
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Thank you.
[1:13:52] Next up on the agenda, we have public
property use regulation bylaw. We have a
[1:13:56] referral report from Community Services
and Mr. McMaster. Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
[1:14:02] Yes, uh just to we'll call a 2-minute
point of privilege here.
[1:18:19] » There we go.
Now I will reconvene our meeting and if
[1:18:24] we get out of council learning
Sorry, if we have Mr. McColl.
[1:18:28] » [laughter]
[1:18:31] » Thank you Katie. I'm back again
uh this time to review the public
[1:18:35] property use regulation bylaw.
[1:18:42] So, a bit of the agenda today. I'll go
through the legislative background
[1:18:46] and then a few discussion points around
complaints, construction permits,
[1:18:49] decibel readers, a jurisdictional scan,
potential amendments, and communication.
[1:18:56] So, a bit of background here in 2025,
Council received correspondence from the
[1:19:00] public regarding noise nuisance. And the
correspondence included a few items
[1:19:05] including construction noise, limited
hours, building permit expiration
[1:19:09] concerns, a suggestion for the use of
decibel readers, and it was included
[1:19:15] with a petition of 405 signatures
supporting restricted hours for
[1:19:20] constructive construction activity
related noise.
[1:19:25] Uh at that meeting, Council discussed
the correspondence and then passed a
[1:19:29] resolution that the correspondence be
referred.
[1:19:34] So, a bit of legislative background in
noise nuisance, uh section 64 of the
[1:19:39] Community Charter provides the authority
uh for municipal councils to regulate,
[1:19:43] prohibit, and avoid those requirements
in relation to nuisances.
[1:19:48] And section 7 of our bylaw, the District
of Ucluelet public property use
[1:19:52] regulation bylaw 1098, 2009,
uh
[1:19:56] there's a few provisions in there uh
that regulates noise um and prohibits it
[1:20:01] between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Uh and fines are escalating from $50 to
[1:20:06] $200.
After hours, um when staff aren't able
[1:20:10] to respond, our RCMP are able to enforce
um
[1:20:14] uh these matters under the Criminal Code
of Canada under a few provisions on that
[1:20:19] fact.
So, um staff respond to both formal and
[1:20:23] immediate complaints from residents
regarding noise. And over the past 4
[1:20:27] years, about a third of those complaints
resulted from bar or restaurant noise,
[1:20:32] about a third from residential noise,
15% from short-term rentals, 10% from
[1:20:37] hotels and resorts, and the remain-
remainder being miscellaneous.
[1:20:45] Uh in the letter uh they also mentioned
lengthy construction projects that
[1:20:49] sometimes go beyond the regulatory time
limit and uh that create noise nuisance.
[1:20:55] And the district's building bylaw uh
stipulates that a building permit should
[1:20:59] expire if no substantial construction
has commenced for a period of 2 years.
[1:21:04] Um the building bylaw also provides
extensions to adjust these delays longer
[1:21:09] than 2 years.
Planning and building staff consider
[1:21:12] extending these applications based on
several factors, including noise
[1:21:17] complaints, personal financial hardship,
hardship based on the availability of
[1:21:21] goods and materials due to supply chain
disruptions, and hardships based on
[1:21:26] housing construction staff and skilled
labor.
[1:21:29] In staff's experience, it is more likely
for a development to exceed the 2-year
[1:21:33] period than for a building permit to be
canceled.
[1:21:39] The letter to council also referenced
decibel readers as a potential tool for
[1:21:43] bylaw enforcement staff.
So, decibel readers is a device that
[1:21:47] measures the intensity of sound in the
environment in decibels. And these
[1:21:51] devices are often used in large cities
with a complex set of sound emitters.
[1:21:57] To use these devices the devices for
effectiveness and procedural fairness, a
[1:22:02] sound mapping exercise is typically done
to distinguish between base levels of
[1:22:07] existing or environmental noise and new
construction noise.
[1:22:11] Sound mapping includes installing noise
meters in different neighborhoods over a
[1:22:15] period of time in each season as rain,
wind, and storm activity can produce
[1:22:20] measurable sound that is registered by
decibel meter.
[1:22:25] These devices range up to $800 per unit
with calibration ancillary devices.
[1:22:31] And during a scan of other communities,
staff found that these devices are
[1:22:35] uncommon in resort municipalities and
similar sized towns.
[1:22:41] So,
staff also conducted a jurisdictional
[1:22:44] scan of other resort municipalities and
similar sized communities.
[1:22:48] So, in Whistler, um
the prohibitions are actually more
[1:22:52] restrictive than Tofino with weekday and
holiday morning prohibitions for
[1:22:56] construction noise and sound. In
Ucluelet, uh apparently there their
[1:23:01] noise noise bylaw is very similar to
Tofino. Revelstoke is less restrictive
[1:23:06] than Tofino. And Bowen has passed uh has
specific prohibitions on construction
[1:23:12] noise, including weeknights and Sunday
mornings. And Cumberland has
[1:23:16] prohibitions on construction noise on
weeknights, Sunday mornings, and holiday
[1:23:21] mornings.
So, a few potential amendments uh that
[1:23:26] council may choose to consider um and
mainly to align with other communities
[1:23:32] and also to balance the development and
development priorities for the community
[1:23:37] and the community well-being. Staff has
have offered some paths to potential
[1:23:41] amendments. So, um uh if council
chooses, council could proceed with a
[1:23:46] prohibition for construction noise like
the other municipalities I mentioned on
[1:23:49] the previous slide. Uh could add a new
definition for construction noise. Um
[1:23:55] and they may choose to permit
uh construction noise on weekends and
[1:23:59] statutory holidays. However, with
perhaps a delayed start time um or an
[1:24:05] earlier ending and earlier ending
days. Um but essentially opening this up
[1:24:11] for a council discussion and and uh
and consultation.
[1:24:17] Finally, uh no public consultation has
been conducted to date uh for any of
[1:24:21] these amendments, or
any pathways here.
[1:24:25] But if council chooses to direct staff
to draft amendments tonight,
[1:24:30] a talk to FINA we're to we're suggesting
a talk to FINA page be launched after
[1:24:34] first reading.
Um
[1:24:36] We'll choose to proceed.
With that, happy to open up questions or
[1:24:42] » Yeah, thank you, Mr. McColl.
Uh Mayor London
[1:24:46] Looking all around. Uh Counselor Thomas,
start and then
[1:24:50] » Good question on that.
Um it was about the
[1:24:54] um two-year building permit for the
construction as long as construction has
[1:24:59] reasonably um started. And I think when
the letter writer who brought up the
[1:25:04] specifics um
one year testimony,
[1:25:07] uh her concern was that the construction
was ongoing, but there wasn't an end
[1:25:11] date to you've started the project, you
have to finish the project. And I was
[1:25:15] wondering if there was um any way you
could respond to that concern.
[1:25:22] » Yeah, thank you for the question.
>> It's probably like this year, I think.
[1:25:25] » Yeah. Yeah, and happy to refer to
director here. Um
[1:25:29] uh that
that building bylaw is mostly managed by
[1:25:33] the building inspector. Um so, hesitant
to to to comment too much there, but in
[1:25:38] my consultations with building
inspector,
[1:25:40] um
uh usually there is leeway given to
[1:25:44] uh construction that um lasts longer uh
for that for the hardships that I
[1:25:50] mentioned in those extension
considerations. Um
[1:25:53] but we are aware of a few building
permits that have been canceled um that
[1:25:57] have exceeded. So, um staff use their
discretion, but happy to if if you
[1:26:02] choose to expand it further on.
>> Yeah, thank you, Anthony Shera.
[1:26:06] Counselor Thomas, um
I can't have a conversation with the
[1:26:10] building inspector. It's it it it's it's
it's um
[1:26:14] often we're extending. The question I
think in this case particularly is how
[1:26:18] long it's extended and how far along are
they extended till they get they can
[1:26:22] cancel building permit and the
building's three quarters of the way
[1:26:25] and it's
it's a it's a quite a financial hardship
[1:26:28] in the millions of dollars.
And so this is not I think it's
[1:26:31] definitely an unfortunate situation.
That's something I can raise with the
[1:26:35] building inspector to have a
conversation about
[1:26:38] what that may look like in the future.
I I do take your point that probably
[1:26:42] this one was
it wasn't really started and it just
[1:26:45] took him so long.
[1:26:52] » Yeah, I just want to echo what
Councillor Thomas says, you know, that
[1:26:56] the the complaints around building
really is about the time
[1:27:02] of years that there's excessive noise
like in building.
[1:27:06] Construction can be very [clears throat]
very So I think
[1:27:09] to balance it, I think it's reasonable
to perhaps
[1:27:15] put some kind of weekend limits like
Cumberland did on on building because it
[1:27:20] starts to impact, you know, people's
lives without in you know, impeding
[1:27:25] building because we don't want to impede
building. We don't want to make it
[1:27:29] longer by restricting building.
I think there might be some
[1:27:34] some leeway to look at weekend
restrictions start and end times for for
[1:27:39] construction noise. So maybe that's
probably reasonable.
[1:27:44] » Excuse me.
>> Yeah, I
[1:27:46] I think my concerns echo with you that
have spoken before me. Um
[1:27:52] I think I'm
I spend a lot of time outside of where I
[1:27:55] live and I'm giving company that makes a
lot of noise and I don't think it's
[1:27:59] unreasonable to have shorter work hours
that noise is permitted because I also
[1:28:05] really value
quiet time outside. So I think like
[1:28:08] having some restrictions on
Uh I think what was the more
[1:28:13] more strict community um
I'm going to hold.
[1:28:18] Like I don't think it's unreasonable to
ask them to stop building at 5:00. I
[1:28:21] think what I'm I have concerns cuz I
also heard it from one the Headwaters
[1:28:26] complex
building was built was um
[1:28:30] they went quite late in the evening cuz
the crews come up here so they're
[1:28:33] maximizing their their work were remote
communities so they extend from like a
[1:28:37] work from the the allowable hours and I
think that's really difficult when you
[1:28:41] can't plan your life around it.
So I feel like
[1:28:45] » [clears throat]
>> limiting some hours um
[1:28:48] I I feel like having some sort
You can always gauge
[1:28:54] the sound mapping was it called? Yeah. I
I think that's reasonable as well. Um
[1:28:59] you wouldn't want to live next to
something really loud all the time.
[1:29:03] Um
And then what was the other one?
[1:29:07] Yeah, um I I feel like I understand the
situation
[1:29:11] you have a permit for 2 years. You've
done a lot of work like the letter
[1:29:15] writer has said that work has been going
on so it would automatically apply for
[1:29:21] having work done. But I I feel like in
this situation the work has been going
[1:29:25] on for so long
if hindsight couldn't have given us the
[1:29:30] opportunity to to pressure the builder
to do it in a faster period and
[1:29:35] and
then we wouldn't be in this situation so
[1:29:38] I think going forward maybe it would be
valuable to have some sort of
[1:29:43] situation that we could
encourage people to have their
[1:29:47] construction done in a short amount.
[1:29:55] » Eric, is there anyone else in the
Councillor Slater Councillor Wrightson
[1:29:59] with that to my left?
>> I'm now looking at the big picture here.
[1:30:03] The more numerous complaints were from
restaurants and for entertainment noise.
[1:30:10] So, I do see the value in installing
decibel meters there.
[1:30:14] So, it does feel like we're talking
about two things here. We're talking
[1:30:17] about the
you know, personal impact
[1:30:21] of construction noise when people tend
to live around a construction site and
[1:30:25] we're talking about general noise
created by businesses that is ongoing
[1:30:29] and not contained to years.
So,
[1:30:33] um wherever we land on the
day or week
[1:30:37] or time restrictions for construction
specific noise, I definitely support
[1:30:41] decibel meters to make sure that we're
monitoring what the same way we monitor
[1:30:47] like pollution and
you know, um
[1:30:50] form [clears throat]
and character
[1:30:53] um that we're maintaining our character.
>> So, for clarification for me, when you
[1:30:59] say I use support decibel meters, like
the purchase of a a district?
[1:31:04] » Yeah, like the um sound through the
drain that Mr. McCauley was speaking
[1:31:08] about where you would install it in
around a neighborhood and you would
[1:31:11] measure the flow of sound throughout the
year and be able to set that baseline.
[1:31:19] » Uh
you know, I wrote down Counselor
[1:31:21] Anderson and then Mayor McCauley.
>> Yeah, there
[1:31:24] there's
two different
[1:31:27] kind of two two things as well. There's
there's noise levels that
[1:31:32] come from other activities other than
construction and then
[1:31:37] the construction noise
is a different kind of noise
[1:31:42] than loud music or or loud
very loud loud people or something like
[1:31:47] that.
So, both can cause disturbances, but
[1:31:52] construction
I see more as as an activity that you're
[1:31:58] kind of limiting the time frame of
rather than noise.
[1:32:03] So, I'm
[1:32:07] I'm I'm just wondering if if
the communities that did limit the
[1:32:14] the have have limits on noise,
what was it Were any of them limiting
[1:32:20] the activity where you could have
construction, or was it all just about
[1:32:24] noise?
And
[1:32:28] construction disturbing fluid. Exactly.
>> Yeah, exactly. Thank you for the
[1:32:34] question. That's very interesting. Um
yeah, in in several of the municipal
[1:32:38] municipalities, they define construction
noise, and they have additional
[1:32:41] provisions or restrictions specifically
to construction noise. Um so, noise that
[1:32:46] has its regular permitted hours, and
then construction noise is often further
[1:32:51] restricted um for uh weekends, statutory
holidays, and earlier weeknights. I
[1:32:58] don't know if that makes sense.
[1:33:02] » I just a question through the chair
about the well, decibel meter. Now,
[1:33:06] there's I know there's official Center
for Disease Control apps that can go on
[1:33:11] your iPhone and they give you uh
an official sound uh decibel
[1:33:17] reading.
Are you For the $3,000 to $8,000, are
[1:33:20] you you talking about uh permanent
or movable
[1:33:25] piece of hardware?
>> Yeah, no, these would be mobile devices
[1:33:29] that officers would use to enforce
against the the noise bylaw. Um and they
[1:33:34] come with uh further calibration
devices. That's why the cost is quite
[1:33:39] high. Um they start at a much lower, but
they can be up to $8,000 per device. And
[1:33:45] then the the sound mapping exercise is
kind of like to have established the the
[1:33:50] baseline. Um
so, that they can use that understanding
[1:33:53] when seeing the the bylaw in different
particular neighborhoods.
[1:34:02] » Um
one thing I was thinking about is like
[1:34:05] when we we discuss all this, there is
the provision in there for the for
[1:34:08] anyone who feels that they can't work
within the new parameters that are set
[1:34:12] going forward, they can come to council
still and they can
[1:34:16] we can give them permission to
do whatever they need to do.
[1:34:21] But it just limits the ongoing
noise or
[1:34:31] » Go ahead.
>> Uh decibel meters are
[1:34:36] » [laughter]
>> a real problem separating the ambient
[1:34:38] noise from the actual issue.
>> If you like that
[1:34:43] » you'd be spending a lot of money for
nothing positive. Plus often
[1:34:48] [clears throat] the noise complaint can
be
[1:34:51] you know,
at that particular time rather than
[1:34:54] ongoing. So unless the by-law officer
happens to be right there when that uh
[1:34:59] saw fires up or something like that, you
know, something like that.
[1:35:03] It's not worth the effort.
So um
[1:35:08] I think a lot of construction noise
mostly complaints tend to be early
[1:35:11] morning.
Um
[1:35:13] not at 5:00. I think people get upset
when they hear something fires up at say
[1:35:18] 7:30 or 8:00 or something like that.
I agree. I think it would be good to see
[1:35:23] some restrictions on the noise at the
weekend. People deserve that.
[1:35:29] Um I think we also have to figure that
the more we make it difficult to build,
[1:35:34] the more expensive it's going to be
to buy a house.
[1:35:38] Or affordable housing and so
it's a very fine line, but I certainly
[1:35:42] wouldn't support decibel meters.
[1:35:46] I mean, after using it at the legion um
to no success.
[1:35:54] » Perfect.
>> Yeah.
[1:35:54] » Um I just had a question around
through the chair
[1:35:59] around the building permit.
So,
[1:36:03] they expire if you haven't started
significant construction, but once
[1:36:08] you've started
significant construction, do they never
[1:36:13] expire? Do they Are they finished at
point of occupancy?
[1:36:18] If you read part of your house
unfinished,
[1:36:22] but have occupancy, does the building
permit continue indefinitely?
[1:36:29] Just because I remember that
the original letters
[1:36:33] referenced some municipalities where the
building
[1:36:38] permit
is sort of contains the construction
[1:36:42] period. So,
and I don't I don't see anything
[1:36:47] or hear anything about it.
About that.
[1:36:51] » Probably outside of your
knowledge base, but I can Mr. Rogers.
[1:36:56] » Uh thank you and to the chair. I can
speak to a high level. I don't have the
[1:36:59] bottom in front of me.
A couple years is what I made in it, but
[1:37:02] from what I understand,
uh they don't expire once they're issued
[1:37:06] unless there's an extended time.
That's kind of a consideration that the
[1:37:10] building inspector has to make like how
many how much What is that extended
[1:37:13] time? There's some gray area in those
things because we've all talked about,
[1:37:18] you know, not everybody can build a
house in 6 months. It takes 2 years to
[1:37:21] build a house. Financial problems.
There's a million different reasons why
[1:37:23] things don't finish on time. And
what you know, where we've kind of aired
[1:37:28] on, you know, up to now has been trying
to get people to get their houses built
[1:37:33] without causing them financial hardship.
In this case, again, I you know, this is
[1:37:39] an egregious case.
How long it's taken and how noisy it's
[1:37:43] been.
Um but it's really the only one that
[1:37:46] I've that I know in my 18 years here
that we've had this significant issues.
[1:37:51] I think the you know, as you're McCall
put up on this the slide at how many
[1:37:55] complaints we have, none of them are
related to construction noise except
[1:37:58] So I don't So I don't I don't think I
think we have to be careful about making
[1:38:01] policy
that it you know it it's it's responding
[1:38:05] to one specific instance versus what
it's going to benefit the community. And
[1:38:09] I say that with full empathy for the
what this neighbor has had to go through
[1:38:13] and and and wouldn't wish it on anybody,
but um
[1:38:16] you know, as we make decisions the
decisions about potentially changing
[1:38:20] weekend construction seems like the the
wisest choice of action probably the
[1:38:24] best place for us to be.
>> Yeah, I just wanted to understand how it
[1:38:29] worked and and because the letter did
have
[1:38:33] that
[1:38:37] Yeah. Sure, I just never thought about
the decibel meter and I realized, you
[1:38:41] know, I've got a noise n o i n o
and I o s h meter on there, but I
[1:38:46] realize you can't you there's no way you
could use that uh to to for bylaw or
[1:38:51] work safety C or anything.
Uh which made me think uh you know,
[1:38:56] councillor Masters points that uh
there'll have to be a professional
[1:39:00] decibel meter, you know, registered if
anybody was to use that for enforcement
[1:39:06] uh and then you know, a baseline
enforcement as Mr. Councillor Masters
[1:39:10] says there's going to be issues with the
ambient noise. So I just after all that
[1:39:13] just thinking about that and listening
to I think you know,
[1:39:16] it simply
a start and end date on a weekend for
[1:39:20] construction or something like that
would would
[1:39:23] suffice. Uh then it would we could avoid
all of that uh
[1:39:28] issues that that would
thoughts on.
[1:39:33] » Yep. Um my comments were just going to
be I'm in favor of limiting the hours
[1:39:38] just on weekends and statutory holidays
knowing that weekdays I know Saturday
[1:39:42] and Sunday are really long time with
something with benefit And think about
[1:39:46] construction maybe outside of building
homes when we think about work on the
[1:39:49] back lawn or things like that where it's
nice to be able to go and get that done
[1:39:53] maybe before there's a lot of activity
out.
[1:39:56] Um so, leaving the weekdays alone. And
now, with the decimal reader, I
[1:40:00] don't think it's a good use of
district funds. Um noting that we don't
[1:40:06] have bylaw staff to respond to things
after hours. The RCMP will be able to
[1:40:10] respond to things. The limited amount of
noise complaints that have come through.
[1:40:14] It just seems like a really big chunk of
money and a large amount of staff time
[1:40:18] to go out and map these areas and do all
those things when I think we have so
[1:40:21] much
higher priorities from bylaw enforcement
[1:40:25] when we look at short-term rentals or
some of the other things that we've
[1:40:29] we've talked about as priorities around
the table.
[1:40:35] » So, if to in summary, and I I don't
think I know you've been listening, but
[1:40:39] just in summary, it seems that there's
not a lot of support for the purchase of
[1:40:42] of that decimal
reader.
[1:40:45] Um and it looks like in terms of And I
think the the point being brought up in
[1:40:48] terms of the I mean, it's been
identified there's two issues really
[1:40:52] that that have been identified. The
letter
[1:40:54] writer had said they
had endured an egregious situation that
[1:40:59] brought this to our attention, and that
is to be recognized. And but then, when
[1:41:05] we look at the actual stats and the data
that you presented to us, it does
[1:41:09] indicate that the vast majority are
outside of that particular construction
[1:41:13] area. So, the
the idea, and I think it's a generally a
[1:41:18] good idea is is to look at community
well-being in terms of those
[1:41:22] restrictions around timing and when that
might be. And it seems there's a
[1:41:26] broad consensus around weekends
limiting those times to
[1:41:31] Well, wait to see what they
You've heard some of the recommendations
[1:41:35] here. So, I think as a general, you have
enough information to help you to move
[1:41:39] forward from what you heard from the
council tonight.
[1:41:41] » Absolutely. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. McColl. Not counselor.
[1:41:48] » Sorry, just a final comment.
Did Did we discuss opening this up to
[1:41:52] the community for feedback? We can. So,
I think that I mean it might come back
[1:41:56] that
community may say, "Well, you know what?
[1:41:58] We really want
to be able to
[1:42:02] build houses on Saturday." Something.
So,
[1:42:06] » [laughter]
>> Yeah, [clears throat] I'll I'll add two
[1:42:08] things. Yeah, so I'll need a formal
recommendation from council to uh I'll
[1:42:12] be authorized to draft those amendments
for um the bylaw and then uh the
[1:42:17] communication plan
uh suggested after first reading. Um the
[1:42:22] bylaw go to talk to the community public
consultation for feedback on.
[1:42:26] » Uh
[1:42:29] So nice when I see those
recommendations. I think that I don't
[1:42:32] have to do that.
Um did any of the councilors want to
[1:42:36] make that uh
what can I If If you want to just
[1:42:39] repeat, I can you know from the from the
chair I can
[1:42:43] » Yeah, I've got a recommendation here
that staff be authorized to draft
[1:42:47] amendments to the public property
certain activities bylaw pertaining to
[1:42:51] restricting construction hours on
weekends.
[1:42:55] » I'll make that motion from the chair.
>> [clears throat]
[1:42:59] » Committee recommends.
>> Thank you. Uh yes.
[1:43:03] Uh I'll make that motion from the chair.
All those
[1:43:06] I'm looking at any Counselor Thomas.
Anything to comment?
[1:43:10] » Before we vote on it, I just have a
comment. Um
[1:43:13] just for clarity. So, within the noise
bylaw there is
[1:43:17] breakdowns in the subsections of what
type of noise and there is a subsection
[1:43:21] that directly references construction
noise. Are we just going to be altering
[1:43:26] the
or getting feedback on that subsection
[1:43:30] for limitation or are we going to be
making another bylaw and calling it
[1:43:35] construction noise
as was referenced. Because um that was a
[1:43:39] point made that some municipalities have
their own construction noise bylaw.
[1:43:44] Whereas our
noise bylaw currently this is a small
[1:43:47] section that defines it.
>> Mr. McCall for comment. Thank you for
[1:43:52] your question, Councillor Sawyer. Um
yeah, the the direction here is just to
[1:43:57] amend the current bylaw to add those
provisions to restrict that the noise
[1:44:02] that construction noise will begin. Um
but staff aren't at this point
[1:44:06] recommending a whole new bylaw, just
amending the current bylaw is fine.
[1:44:11] » 728
[1:44:15] » Uh with that any further comments?
Well, then I'll call the question. All
[1:44:20] those in favor.
And the motion carried. Was there a
[1:44:24] second one there? Mr. McCall, no, that
was it. Excellent. Okay, great.
[1:44:27] » [laughter]
>> Thank you.
[1:44:29] » All right. Well, looks like we've
a good part of the agenda finished. Uh
[1:44:33] there is no unfinished business and I'll
look up to Mr. Planner if there are any
[1:44:37] questions
there well, maybe in the gallery as well
[1:44:41] as potentially online.
>> Thank you, Councillor Steer. I will now
[1:44:44] make an open call for questions from
those present in the gallery and those
[1:44:48] participating online. For those in the
gallery who wish to speak, please raise
[1:44:52] your hand. If there is anyone attending
online via Zoom who would like to ask a
[1:44:56] question, please do so now using the Q&A
function.
[1:45:00] Before asking a question, you will need
to state your name, your address, and
[1:45:03] the agenda item you're asking to.
I will now do a poll.
[1:45:07] Calling once.
Calling twice.
[1:45:11] Calling three times. There are no
comments at this time, Councillor Steer.
[1:45:15] » Great. Thank you.
Um I'll move from the chair then to move
[1:45:18] us into closed uh that the meeting be
closed
[1:45:21] to the public pursuant to sections 92 B1
and 92 B3 of the community charter to
[1:45:27] discuss matters relating to 92 B the
consideration of information received
[1:45:32] and held in confidence relating to
negotiations
[1:45:35] between the municipality and a
provincial government or the federal
[1:45:38] government or both or between a
provincial government or the federal
[1:45:41] government or both and a third party
three between the municipality and a
[1:45:46] first nation or prescribed indigenous
entity or between a first nation or
[1:45:51] prescribed indigenous entity and a third
party.
[1:45:54] Seconded by
All those in favor
[1:45:58] Anyone not opposed? Motion carried.
We'll take uh uh
[1:46:01] a minute, 5 minutes, whatever it takes
to
[1:46:04] close
Thank you. All right.