[0:00] 2026 regular meeting be held

[0:02] electronically via Zoom live broadcast

[0:04] on the district of channel that the

[0:07] facility provided for the public to

[0:08] watch and hear the meeting be located at

[0:10] Sound Theater 380 Camp Street Cece

[0:15] carried. I do have a motion to amend the

[0:18] agenda to include correspondents.

[0:24] RP GS

[0:28] from the chair that June 16, 2026

[0:30] regular council agenda be amended to

[0:32] include correspondence from Mr. John's

[0:34] and Courtney over regarding DC funding

[0:37] at item 9.3

[0:40] the agenda be adopted as

[0:44] second by counc

[0:48] » or sorry

[0:51] all in favor I missed that part

[0:56] uh the consent agenda I do have just a

[1:00] little clarical correction uh down on

[1:05] um items 4.3

[1:09] is second to last recommendation.

[1:12] The

[1:14] housekeeping

[1:16] clerical omission that the beginning of

[1:18] that recommendation is that the

[1:21] committee of the whole recommends to

[1:22] council that staff be authorized to

[1:24] draft amendments to public properties.

[1:31] the note

[1:33] that does not require

[1:40] so through actually I'm going to I'm

[1:42] going to uh move from the chair that

[1:44] it.1 to 4.3 of the consent agenda on the

[1:47] regular council meeting of June 16 206

[1:50] be approved and received second Thomas

[1:54] any comments all in favor none opposed

[1:58] mot

[2:00] uh Mayor's report.

[2:03] I was uh able to go to the Federation of

[2:06] Canadian Municipalities in Edmonton this

[2:08] year. Uh it was excellent opportunity.

[2:11] The themes were infrastructure, housing,

[2:14] and AI was also a prominent topic for many of the

[2:18] seminars. Excellent information. Uh, I

[2:21] was able to be there for uh, Minister

[2:24] Gregor Robertson's

[2:26] announcement of the new Build Canada

[2:29] Homes

[2:31] consolidated funding under one ministry.

[2:34] Pretty exciting. And I was able to

[2:35] follow it up uh, by meeting with senior

[2:38] build homes uh, staff uh, and that

[2:42] turned into a

[2:45] prepping and getting together operation.

[2:49] So that's moving on very quickly. We're

[2:52] very pleased to see the government

[2:55] is is willing to work with us so

[2:57] quickly.

[3:00] I was also I was very very pleased to uh

[3:03] to be able to thank Minister Dominic

[3:06] Blanc personally for his uh efforts and

[3:11] his support for our wastewater treatment

[3:13] plant. And I was also very pleased to

[3:15] know that Mr.

[3:18] is is uh continues to be aware and

[3:22] supportive of our current infrastructure

[3:24] needs in

[3:27] fortuitous.

[3:33] I was also able to meet with uh gosh

[3:36] hundreds of mayors and other elected

[3:38] officials from across the country and

[3:40] share some of our challenges which are

[3:43] very very similar municipalities

[3:45] struggling with infrastructure, water,

[3:47] sewer, the cost of roads. It's all going

[3:51] up, but we are also to share some wins

[3:56] and it was just a great opportunity to

[3:59] see how the communities are doing and

[4:02] how they're they're meeting the

[4:04] challenges that we have as well. Uh, and

[4:06] I invited them all to Tino and I think

[4:08] they're all coming. So, that's great.

[4:10] It's about 3,000 people.

[4:15] We were uh we were able to post

[4:19] chief boots

[4:26] from

[4:28] they came out to to share their

[4:35] some of their opinions on water in the

[4:37] region

[4:39] wealth at the time

[4:41] and I was just so pleased uh to be part

[4:44] of a region of communities

[4:47] uh that are so supportive of each other

[4:55] all the way up to

[4:58] it's just you know

[5:00] it's great to be on on the west coast

[5:04] that we're all west coast communities

[5:07] each other

[5:11] that's my mayor's report

[5:19] public comment on agenda items. Larson,

[5:24] >> thank you. May law, we do currently have

[5:26] one member of the public who has signed

[5:28] up to make a comment via Zoom. So that's

[5:31] Mr. John Buret. So

[5:35] Mr. set before you before I unmute you

[5:39] and and you have an opportunity to

[5:40] speak. I'm just going to do a call for

[5:42] anyone else that's in attendance that

[5:43] would like to sign up for public

[5:45] comment.

[5:46] You are in attendance online via Zoom.

[5:48] You can do so now using the Q&A

[5:50] function. Before you comment, you'll

[5:52] need to add your name, the agenda item

[5:55] you'd like to speak to, and your

[5:56] residential address. So, I will now do a

[5:59] call. Calling once,

[6:03] calling twice.

[6:06] calling three times.

[6:08] So, just the one comment from Mr. John

[6:11] Gorsette. I'm going to unmute you and

[6:14] you'll have access to your audio or your

[6:16] mic for up to two minutes.

[6:31] » Mr. Barcet, did you get that? Uh just

[6:34] want to check that that works. Everyone

[6:36] can hear me.

[6:37] >> Perfect. We can hear you. You've got two

[6:38] minutes.

[6:39] >> Great. Good evening, mayor and council.

[6:41] Uh my name is John Borsay and I'm

[6:43] speaking on behalf of Woodsmere Holdings

[6:44] Corp regarding item 10.4 on tonight's

[6:47] agenda, which is our zoning amendment

[6:50] application for the proposed project at

[6:52] 825 Campbell Street in Tofino.

[6:55] We appreciate the opportunity to bring

[6:57] this application forward and look

[6:58] forward to working constructively with

[7:00] district staff as the review process

[7:03] continues. Our goal is to deliver a

[7:05] thoughtful project that responds to

[7:07] local housing needs, respects to Feno's

[7:09] unique character, and contributes

[7:11] positively to the community. We

[7:13] recognize that zoning amendment

[7:15] applications require careful technical

[7:16] review, including consideration of

[7:18] infrastructure, neighborhood fit,

[7:20] environmental context, and long-term

[7:22] community objectives. We respect the

[7:24] role that staff play in that process and

[7:26] are committed to working

[7:27] collaboratively, transparently, and in

[7:29] good faith to address any issues as they

[7:31] arise. Housing delivery in coastal

[7:33] communities like Tofino is challenging

[7:35] and a successful project requires

[7:36] partnership between local government and

[7:38] development community. We believe this

[7:40] application represents an opportunity to

[7:42] add muchneeded housing while supporting

[7:44] the broader goals of the district and we

[7:46] look forward to continuing the

[7:47] conversation and appreciate your

[7:49] consideration of item 10.4. Thank you

[7:52] for your time and uh best this evening.

[7:55] >> Thank you, Mr.

[8:04] No other uh

[8:07] comment. Move on to delegations. We have

[8:10] a delegation from Mr. Bob Hansen

[8:15] and

[8:53] Mr. Reed, can you uh hear me? I'm just

[8:56] we're just working through some uh some

[8:58] video uh setup here.

[9:00] >> Yeah. Can you hear me and see me?

[9:03] >> We can now.

[9:05] >> Yeah, Bob is still in the waiting room,

[9:07] I believe. I think he needs to be

[9:09] permitted in. Um

[9:12] and he just texted me, so hopefully we

[9:14] can get him in. Uh he had six minutes of

[9:18] this of a delegation spiel and then I

[9:20] had the last four.

[9:21] >> Sure. Well, we'll just take our time and

[9:23] make sure that

[9:24] >> Yeah.

[9:25] >> We don't have a waiting room enabled by

[9:27] the Zoom. So, he should just be able to

[9:29] enter automatically when he clicks

[9:31] through the registration link.

[9:33] >> Okay.

[9:35] Maybe we'll just give you a couple

[9:36] seconds to to reach out to Bahal and

[9:38] make sure he's making his way into the

[9:41] Zoom room.

[10:01] Thank you for your patience.

[10:05] » No worries.

[10:16] He did send me his uh

[10:20] what's he got here? He did send me his

[10:22] notes if need be.

[10:33] Maybe you could just reach out to him

[10:35] and see if he can uh re-enter.

[10:42] » Yeah, I sent him an email with the

[10:44] updated link.

[11:10] think he may be trying to join. So, I'll

[11:12] just give it one minute here. I see

[11:13] someone entering the second. Chris Reed,

[11:15] who I'm thinking is probably off.

[11:17] >> Unless there's two of you.

[11:19] >> There is not two of me. There he is.

[11:21] >> Perfect. Okay.

[11:29] I had to send him my link, so that's why

[11:31] he has my name.

[11:34] >> We We know who he is.

[11:37] >> Uh, if we could get him unmuted, please.

[11:49] Bob, you're still muted.

[11:59] How's that?

[12:00] >> There you go.

[12:04] » Okay.

[12:07] » Excellent.

[12:10] » All right. So, I should begin then.

[12:13] >> Sure. Take it away. You guys got it.

[12:15] >> Okay.

[12:16] So action plan update year two

[12:20] compliance enforcement emphasis and

[12:22] other actions.

[12:25] Thank you your worship and council for

[12:27] the opportunity to present today. My

[12:30] name is Bob Hansen, Wild Safe BC project

[12:33] lead on the action plan to enhance the

[12:36] bear resistant of the waste management

[12:39] system.

[12:41] I'm here with Chris Reed, the Wild Safe

[12:44] BC Pacific Rim community coordinator.

[12:47] I'd like to provide some context for our

[12:51] delegation.

[12:53] Recent BNTG surveys show an increase in

[12:57] residents putting carts out the night

[12:59] before.

[13:01] Damaged cart surveys have revealed that

[13:04] many residents

[13:06] have damaged carts that can no longer be

[13:08] secured against bears.

[13:11] Many, if not most, residents have not

[13:14] secured their carts against bears

[13:17] accessing them or dragging them away.

[13:20] It has also been observed that many

[13:22] businesses with lift bar commercial

[13:26] garbage bins and commercial grease bins

[13:29] persist in leaving their bins unsecured,

[13:32] making them easily accessible to bears.

[13:37] These situations, contrary to the Tofino

[13:40] wildlife attractant management bylaw and

[13:43] the BC Wildlife Act, create the

[13:46] conditions for a return to the cycle of

[13:49] human bear conflicts and bear

[13:52] destructions.

[13:54] Wild Safe BC Pacific Rim, the ACRD

[13:58] district staff and other community

[14:00] partners have been engaged in continuous

[14:03] education and outreach around bearer

[14:06] resistant cart management for the past

[14:08] three years.

[14:10] Similar efforts around preventing human

[14:13] bear conflicts involving commercial bins

[14:16] has been ongoing since 2018.

[14:20] The year 2 strategy of the action plan

[14:23] identifies the need to create awareness

[14:27] that following best practices for

[14:29] managing residential carts and

[14:32] commercial waste bins is mandatory

[14:35] rather than optional.

[14:38] The most common reason heard from

[14:40] residents and businesses for not

[14:43] following required best practices is

[14:46] that we've never had a problem with

[14:49] bears.

[14:51] The reality is that by waiting for

[14:54] something to happen, the cycle of human

[14:56] bear conflict is perpetuated.

[15:00] A bear that gets a food reward is very

[15:03] likely on a one-way road to food

[15:05] conditioning, conflict, and an untimely

[15:08] end. The only way to break the cycle is

[15:12] not through reacting to conflict, but

[15:14] rather through prevention of conflict.

[15:18] The acknowledged bears smart community

[15:20] goal is to be in a place where following

[15:23] best practices for human bear conflict

[15:25] prevention is the community norm

[15:29] routine.

[15:31] We've submitted several documents for

[15:33] your consideration and information.

[15:36] One, a progress report on the activities

[15:39] of the action plan.

[15:42] Two, a specific request and proposal for

[15:46] the amendment to the Tofino wildlife

[15:49] attractant management bylaw to specify

[15:52] the requirements for secure securing

[15:55] commercial lift bar garbage bins and

[15:58] commercial grease bins.

[16:01] and a draft commercial lift bar bin

[16:04] decal to raise business awareness of the

[16:08] legal requirements.

[16:11] We'd like to express our commitment to

[16:13] support in any way we can the increased

[16:16] efforts of Tofino bylaw services for

[16:19] compliance and enforcement around the

[16:22] prohibition of putting carts out the

[16:24] night before pickup. The requirement to

[16:27] seek repairs to damaged carts as soon as

[16:30] possible. The anchoring of carts to

[16:33] prevent being knocked over and dragged

[16:35] away. the best practices for secure

[16:39] securing commercial garbage and grease

[16:41] bins and other provisions of the

[16:43] wildlife attractant management bylaw.

[16:48] Looking beyond 2026,

[16:50] we'd also like to request that mayor and

[16:53] council consider participating along

[16:56] with the district of Uklid and other

[16:58] regional partners in funding of BC

[17:02] conservation officer service wildlife

[17:05] safety response officer residing on the

[17:08] west coast.

[17:10] Lastly, conflict prevention outreach and

[17:13] training continues to be delivered by

[17:16] Wild Safe BC Pacific Rim. And I'm going

[17:19] to pass on to Chris now to describe a

[17:22] new initiative in this regard.

[17:26] » Thanks. Thanks, Bob. Thanks, Mayor and

[17:28] Council. Uh, yeah, as you all know, we

[17:32] do all the same old uh Wild Safe BC

[17:35] public education and outreach. So that's

[17:39] all ongoing with businesses, with

[17:42] residents, with visitors.

[17:44] Um, a new initiative is the

[17:49] bear or sorry, the neighborhood champion

[17:51] program.

[17:53] So we have residents in our communities

[17:56] who are con continuing to promote the

[17:59] conversation between you know

[18:02] governments and the community about

[18:04] wildlife and how to keep them safe and

[18:06] how to keep ourselves safe. So these

[18:09] passionate folks that are in the

[18:10] communities they have an understanding

[18:12] and they've seen the negative impacts

[18:14] that humans have had on wildlife um and

[18:18] they are driven to help our community.

[18:21] So, this neighborhood champion program

[18:23] helps those individuals feel more

[18:25] equipped to help and offer solutions to

[18:28] their neighbors. I know if I was in the

[18:31] position of just being a neighbor, I

[18:35] don't know how confident I would feel in

[18:37] just trying to spread Wild Safe BC's

[18:39] messaging if I didn't know them

[18:41] personally or didn't have good

[18:43] communications. So, this is me opening

[18:45] up and telling people what we're trying

[18:48] to get out there and giving them the

[18:51] permission to do so and some of the

[18:53] resources. So, I'm offering Champions

[18:57] resources such as a ch an at-home

[19:00] checklist, super simple list of

[19:02] attractants for people at home to go

[19:05] through in their yard. uh access to our

[19:09] resources that we give out. So,

[19:11] stainless steel carabiners and anchoring

[19:13] methods um and obviously our educational

[19:17] material. We'll also be familiarizing

[19:20] these champions with the bylaws that are

[19:23] in place and may be enforced. Hopefully,

[19:26] this helps with getting neighborhoods

[19:30] in check and hopefully getting

[19:32] attractants down to a minimum.

[19:36] Um, the final step of the Champion

[19:39] program could be me assessing homeowners

[19:42] that are willing uh for me to come onto

[19:45] their property and just assess their

[19:47] yard. It wouldn't take any longer than

[19:49] 10 minutes. Um, I I do these assessments

[19:53] for businesses and for campgrounds. So

[19:56] if that was uh you know willing and

[19:59] optional for certain streets um then

[20:02] it'd be really nice to have certain

[20:04] sections of the community and the

[20:06] neighborhood uh you know known secure uh regions of the neighborhood.

[20:13] Um, as of right now, the incentive is

[20:16] just recognition by Wildsafe, myself,

[20:19] and I'm hoping the district council can

[20:22] also um recognize these champions as

[20:26] important um people within the community

[20:30] helping to preserve our wildlife.

[20:34] Um Bob kind of hit the nail on the head

[20:36] with what uh what what's asked of you

[20:39] guys, but I'll just re uh reiterate that

[20:43] we thank you council for having you know

[20:47] ears and listening to the community and

[20:49] asking all the right questions. That's

[20:52] very important. Um

[20:55] and we have had a human wildlife

[21:00] um assessment of Tofino outlines major

[21:05] wildlife corridors and just promoting

[21:08] the protection of natural spaces even

[21:11] within very close proximity to urban

[21:14] areas. They help save wildlife lives.

[21:18] um helping number two to help enforce

[21:22] wildlife attractant bylaws. So just

[21:24] making sure that these amendments are

[21:26] being passed. Um it's it's crucial for

[21:30] um you know enforcement to have action

[21:35] um to take action in the communities.

[21:39] And then just reiterating that there's

[21:41] public awareness and education um along

[21:44] with these and that there's lots of

[21:46] people hoping to to help.

[21:50] Um thank you. That's that's all I have.

[21:56] » Thank you very much. Thanks. Um,

[22:01] it's a it's a badge of honor not to have had zero

[22:06] bears destroyed over the last couple

[22:09] years in the municipality itself. It's

[22:15] uh sad to see that maybe non-compliance

[22:18] with securing

[22:21] latching uh bins residential and

[22:23] commercial could put that at risk. So,

[22:25] thank you very much for bringing that to

[22:26] our attention. I'm going to open it up

[22:28] to council for questions and comments.

[22:32] Steer.

[22:32] >> Thank you through the chair. Thank you

[22:34] Chris. Nice to meet you and and Bob once

[22:36] again. Um just a couple of comments.

[22:38] Certainly Chris in your last

[22:39] presentation here or the last bit around

[22:42] uh promoting community champions and

[22:43] maybe there's a way we can uh the

[22:45] district can help in formalizing that a

[22:47] bit more. Uh you had some some great

[22:49] ideas around that. Um and then uh Bob,

[22:52] this was uh in regards to uh I I think

[22:55] there was one of the uh potential

[22:56] amendments to the bylaw and very much

[22:58] supportive of that and certainly working

[23:00] with staff to be able to uh make that

[23:02] official. Um and then the one uh you had

[23:05] mentioned I know you cluded had brought

[23:06] forward a funding request uh very late

[23:09] in the budget season around the uh

[23:11] addition of a CO officer and I'm just

[23:13] wondering Bob as maybe the the more

[23:15] appropriate area as a regional uh

[23:18] initiative is to be looking I I

[23:20] certainly think there would be support

[23:22] on council but certainly uh through the

[23:25] uh and it may be that it has to the

[23:27] creation of of a service or maybe a much

[23:30] more regional approach and then we can

[23:31] encompass all those communities. ities

[23:33] on the west coast uh through the ACRD.

[23:35] It may be the best place uh to put that

[23:38] rather than the individual uh

[23:40] municipalities. So it certainly might be

[23:42] this presentation might be great uh at

[23:44] ACRD as well uh to be able to bring that

[23:46] forward and to be able to support uh

[23:49] potentially a regional service for that

[23:50] co position.

[23:53] >> Yes, thank you. Uh we will be putting

[23:56] forward a request to give a delegation

[23:59] to the West Coast Committee.

[24:01] >> Right. Perfect. talk about.

[24:04] >> Oh, it's from councilors. I do have a

[24:08] potential motion if council would like

[24:10] to support the request

[24:13] wild BC to to have the report and the

[24:17] proposed WM

[24:24] referred to staff for review and

[24:28] council.

[24:30] >> Yeah. Council. Yes. Thumbs up. Okay.

[24:34] Then we'll move from the chair that the

[24:36] wild safety report and proposed wildlife

[24:40] attractant and management bylaw

[24:42] amendments

[24:44] uh be referred to staff for review

[24:47] and report back to council. Second by

[24:50] councelor steer. Hear the comments. All

[24:54] in favor

[24:56] motion carried. And I just want a quick

[24:59] a question from staff. Uh clarif

[25:03] discuss I believe referring

[25:08] co position funding to 2027 financial

[25:12] planning process. So that is that that's

[25:14] did we do that?

[25:16] >> Uh thank you mayor law. I don't know if

[25:18] council made a formal motion but that was on staff's radar to consider in

[25:23] the 2027 financial plan process. So, as

[25:26] part of referring these requests to

[25:28] staff, we'll likely in our report

[25:30] indicate that.

[25:32] >> Super.

[25:32] >> Great. We'll leave it. Leave it. That is

[25:34] uh and

[25:36] just a question for the champion

[25:41] program.

[25:43] I'm not sure what uh what council can do

[25:45] for that besides expressing our our

[25:48] support at this time, but I can look to

[25:52] council for

[25:54] >> Yeah. No, I was just thinking um just I

[25:56] was listening and there was a few pieces

[25:58] of that puzzle and maybe it might be

[26:00] some consultation uh with Chris uh in

[26:03] terms of what he or maybe we've got him

[26:05] right there maybe to ask what he thought

[26:07] possibly the district support could be

[26:09] uh in that community champion. Uh I I

[26:11] think you mentioned about some f uh some

[26:13] type of formal recognition uh which

[26:15] would require you probably bringing

[26:17] those names to us uh in the support uh

[26:20] that you'd be looking for. Is that

[26:21] something that uh that would be what

[26:24] you're thinking of?

[26:25] >> Yes. As of right now, that's that's

[26:28] where I've gotten that's what I I think

[26:30] would be very valuable.

[26:36] » Yeah. And maybe if I may through the

[26:39] Yeah. And if when that time comes, maybe

[26:41] when uh a little formalized more, you

[26:44] can maybe bring that back to uh back to

[26:46] council either in a committee of the

[26:48] whole to see what that might look like

[26:49] in terms of a way that we could

[26:51] recognize form. It may be that we need

[26:52] to consult with staff as to uh best uh

[26:56] way forward for to do some find some

[26:58] form of formal recognition.

[27:01] >> Absolutely. Thank you, councelor Steer.

[27:04] Super.

[27:05] >> Thank you. You two great glad you're on.

[27:16] Okay, we're going to move on to

[27:17] correspondence. Uh, we've got

[27:19] correspondence from Mr. regarding

[27:22] visitor impact B.

[27:24] You have some comments on this, but I

[27:27] maybe I'll move my comments first.

[27:32] Open up to council for comments or

[27:35] discussion after.

[27:37] Uh I do want to first of all note

[27:41] that Tofino like many many resort

[27:43] communities all the resort communities

[27:45] in BC uh are dealing with pressures on

[27:48] services and infrastructure

[27:51] pressures on taxation

[27:53] uh and we have you know responded over

[27:56] the past few years

[27:58] uh with some pretty incredible

[28:02] strides forward in in nonprofit tax

[28:05] funding. got $400,000 from the R&D. It

[28:09] goes to our Whistler King plant.

[28:13] It's covers a large portion of that

[28:16] debt. We have pay parking which is

[28:19] visitor funded which goes to reserves,

[28:22] goes to ball field and many other

[28:25] projects. Uh those total over a million

[28:28] dollars nonpropy tax funding. That is

[28:32] incredible win. But we do recognize that more needs to be done and we're

[28:37] certainly putting pressure on uh on

[28:39] provincial government and in that regard

[28:43] we are part of the resort community

[28:47] collaborative. I sit on that. Satiana

[28:51] also sits on that. And

[28:54] the province has established a resort

[28:56] municipality initiative, RMI advisory

[28:58] committee as well to bring together RMI

[29:01] communities and key government

[29:03] ministries, tourism, arts, culture,

[29:04] sport, finance and housing and musical

[29:06] affairs to uh to really examine cost

[29:10] pressures faced by tourism dependent

[29:12] communities. We know that a town of 200

[29:15] people uh cannot support with property

[29:19] taxation alone the infrastructure

[29:21] required to handle tens of thousands of

[29:24] people and neither can any community

[29:27] that has that kind of influx of

[29:29] visitation and economy that that depends

[29:32] on on such a a large increase in

[29:38] uh these communities we support a high

[29:40] volume of tourists rel resident relative

[29:42] to to our resident population. I believe

[29:43] to this is about 300 somewhere around.

[29:47] Um and so this committee will

[29:49] collaboratively explore options and

[29:51] possible mechanisms to support

[29:53] sustainable tourism, regenerative

[29:55] tourism, municipal resilience and

[29:57] community well-being uh with

[29:59] representation from resort communities

[30:01] like Tofino, Wistler, Veil Mount. Uh

[30:04] this init initiative marks a coordinated

[30:06] effort to identify in innovative policy

[30:09] solutions for BC's tourism

[30:12] municipalities and we know the British

[30:14] Columbia government has recently

[30:16] released looked west and we know that

[30:19] their goal is to increase tourism significantly and

[30:25] in order to do that they will have to

[30:27] address disparity in infrastructure and

[30:31] services costs for residents.

[30:34] Uh it's also in our strategic plan. Uh

[30:37] one of our priorities is to develop

[30:38] effective relationships to have a strong

[30:40] seat at the table with provincial and

[30:41] federal governments so that we are

[30:43] better positioned to advocate for our

[30:44] critical priority priorities. Uh this

[30:47] includes ad advocating for um funding to

[30:50] support our community's critical needs.

[30:52] And you know again was just in Edmonton

[30:55] uh and and was able to to meet directly

[30:59] federal counterparts

[31:03] And uh and so we're working very hard on

[31:05] this front. This is not lost on any of

[31:07] us. Staff, council,

[31:11] anybody in the community knows this is a

[31:13] priority. We're working very hard to

[31:14] address it. So um that's my that's my

[31:18] spiel. I'm going to open it up to

[31:19] council comments in response. So

[31:26] Anderson.

[31:27] >> Um yeah, just my only comment to add to

[31:30] that. Um and and that would form I think

[31:33] a good response to for Mr. Dau should we

[31:37] want to write a letter. Um what whatever fees or implementation of these types of charges

[31:51] um which have been proposed

[31:53] and even contemplated by the Ministry of

[31:56] Finance to some extent at the staff

[31:58] level. Um,

[32:01] of course it takes support for your

[32:03] province because municipalities operate

[32:05] under the provincial legislation

[32:10] of what what our powers are. So

[32:14] anything that the province would allow

[32:19] municipalities has to work throughout

[32:21] the province.

[32:23] So while Tofino

[32:25] often has proposed different sources of

[32:28] funding,

[32:30] uh until several municipalities

[32:34] get together and support something, the

[32:37] province is a bit at at

[32:41] odds with what what exactly to

[32:44] implement.

[32:46] So um

[32:48] thank Mr. Silverford's letter and it's not first time this this has been

[32:55] proposed and I think it would be

[32:58] a great uh help to municipalities that

[33:01] face the pressures of large visiation.

[33:04] So

[33:06] yeah that's my only comment is the

[33:09] difficulty for the provincial land is

[33:12] finding some bits throughout the

[33:14] province.

[33:17] Super mastered.

[33:20] >> Yeah, I think uh this argument has been

[33:22] going on for even before I fell on

[33:25] council 15 years ago that uh as and it's

[33:30] not just resort municipalities. People

[33:32] want municipalities want to have more

[33:34] control over the funds we raise. That's

[33:37] the way where it goes. And whether it's

[33:40] MRDT or visitor

[33:42] fees, they'd like to have a say. And uh

[33:45] so

[33:47] and I don't see that changing. I think

[33:50] uh the BC government is trying to raise

[33:52] every penny it can get

[33:56] that free things up when trying to raise

[33:58] money themselves.

[34:03] » Okay. Well, I think a letter back to Mr.

[34:06] Dau is is warranted. I think it'd be

[34:08] good to get this out there. Uh perhaps

[34:11] um

[34:12] we've got two options. We can have

[34:15] corporate officer respond all that

[34:18] information or we can have council

[34:19] respond.

[34:21] What would council like? What do you

[34:22] think?

[34:23] >> Suggestions. Councelor Anders.

[34:25] >> Well, address to council. So I for the

[34:29] council response

[34:31] perhaps a motion to authorize the mayor

[34:34] to respond to Mr. letter based on

[34:39] session.

[34:41] >> Okay. Second. Second further comment.

[34:46] All in favor? None opposed? Motions

[34:48] carried. Uh Miss Washington, did you get

[34:51] that? Okay. Thank you.

[34:55] >> Okay. Item 9.2. Uh Mic regarding draft

[34:58] recreation parks master plan survey

[35:01] feedback.

[35:04] It's up to council for comments.

[35:09] Councelor Steer.

[35:11] >> Yeah. Thank you through the chair. I'd

[35:12] like to thank the uh letter writer first

[35:14] and foremost for uh their engagement in

[35:17] the process. They have a long history of

[35:19] uh engagement in the recreation of this

[35:21] community. Uh very much uh appreciate

[35:25] those comments and feedback. Um, in the context of of the draft uh

[35:30] recreation master plan, there's still I

[35:33] think there were some uh conversations

[35:35] within the letter uh addressing some of

[35:37] the strategic actions and specifically

[35:39] around aquatics and the related issues

[35:41] around there that have long uh been an

[35:43] issue within our community. And uh you

[35:46] know there were some uh comments

[35:48] regarding the draft plan and and I think

[35:50] the um the engagement process was was very wholesome and and and I think

[35:56] some of the letter writers issues were

[35:59] not feeling that they were heard or that

[36:00] the the interpretation of of that

[36:03] information uh didn't represent what the

[36:05] community was saying and and that's

[36:07] important feedback uh to have. Once

[36:09] again, we are I in the final stages of

[36:12] that plan. And I think it would be good

[36:14] um to I would also like to refer this uh

[36:18] if possible this letter to the the

[36:20] recreation advisory committee of which

[36:22] councilman chairs to to provide feedback

[36:25] um once again from from the advisory

[36:27] committee on this important uh document

[36:29] that will help guide the uh the

[36:32] recreation and and recreation not just

[36:34] in the in the we often think of it in

[36:37] that strict sporting type arena but the

[36:39] much broader sense of recreation. And

[36:42] so, um, want to once again thank the

[36:44] letter writer for for the comments, uh,

[36:47] there and to look to, uh, maybe having

[36:50] the the letter referred to the

[36:52] recreation advisory committee, uh, to

[36:54] have further comments from them in terms

[36:57] of the the draft plan itself and some of

[36:59] the comments that have been received

[37:00] from the public.

[37:04] » Dr. else.

[37:05] >> Um,

[37:07] uh, on that note, I'm just wondering who

[37:09] is getting the feedback survey. It might

[37:11] be unnecessary to refer this to the

[37:14] recreation committee if the survey is

[37:16] already going to through a channel for

[37:18] feedback.

[37:21] » I'll I'll look to the chair of the

[37:23] committee. I I do know that u they have

[37:25] been able to review the the document but

[37:27] um in terms of the survey results um

[37:31] not 100% sure if that has

[37:33] >> maybe that's a question for staff about

[37:34] where the survey results are going

[37:37] >> um

[37:40] because if it's already being captured

[37:42] through this particular channel I don't

[37:45] know we need to refer it individually

[37:47] outside of the rest of the survey

[37:49] >> I

[37:49] Yeah.

[37:54] » Yeah. So maybe what I'll do for council,

[37:56] I'll just have Mr. Rogers explain what

[37:58] will happen with the feedback. The um I

[38:01] think the period the period for feedback

[38:03] on talk to closed on June 6th for my

[38:05] understanding and what happens from this

[38:07] point forward. It might be helpful for

[38:12] the chair. Uh so all the feedback we

[38:15] receive will go back into updating this

[38:18] final draft which in in front of council

[38:20] in the coming month or or two. Um how

[38:23] exactly it'll get worked in will depend

[38:24] on subject matter or what was responded

[38:27] to and and what we can do at this fairly

[38:30] stage but we will review it in terms of

[38:32] the overall plan. Again not necessarily

[38:36] able to address one person or one one

[38:38] comment but we'll take a look at it and

[38:40] see what that point may be addressed.

[38:45] Yeah, and maybe I'll make a comment on

[38:47] aquatics because it's been close to my

[38:49] heart for many many years, decades here

[38:51] in Torino and you know I do acknowledge

[38:55] the thick points you know we don't have

[38:58] to rule. we are an extreme outlier in

[38:59] the province in that regard. uh council

[39:02] has taken some steps to to look into

[39:06] that

[39:08] and uh and you know we even recently uh

[39:12] discussed when we're discussing

[39:17] school

[39:19] uh potential potential helping out rings

[39:22] at the school basketball

[39:29] and that came upation I

[39:32] Uh so it's not far from everybody's

[39:34] minds. Uh the cost

[39:37] and the um the logistics of it are also

[39:41] top of mind.

[39:43] Um

[39:45] but I think with some creative uh

[39:47] creative thinking you know keeping at

[39:49] and perhaps noting the it's been ongoing

[39:52] discussion for decades and really not

[39:55] getting much much forward momentum.

[39:57] it might be a good idea to to broaden

[40:00] our uh potential players, you know, and I just want to say because I know

[40:06] that councelor Sloan also has

[40:10] emotion coming later on like bring up

[40:12] regarding aquatic aquatics and training,

[40:14] but you know, when I was in Edmonton and

[40:16] I've been going to FCM for I believe

[40:19] five years

[40:21] and I was able to meet owner Western

[40:24] Recreation, they uh they're a company

[40:26] that built builds outdoor water

[40:28] facilities, hundreds of them across

[40:30] Western.

[40:32] And they do routinely come in a full uh

[40:35] full 25 meter pool outside with beach

[40:38] entry, water slides,

[40:41] uh change rooms, bathrooms, everything

[40:44] under 2 million. And um and I think that uh you know it's potentially time

[40:51] for for this conversation to to go

[40:55] beyond the district of of Japan us not

[40:58] the district itself but uh but but

[41:00] council and staff and maybe there's

[41:02] potential people you know potential uh

[41:07] businesses or community members that

[41:10] start taking an active role this side of

[41:14] this outside of this as well.

[41:17] It's a big need. I'd like to see kids

[41:19] turn houseworms.

[41:27] » I don't want to get too far into the

[41:29] debate about the merits of the poll. I

[41:31] think we all agree that aquatics would

[41:32] be important. Um we would be remiss to

[41:34] have this discussion or even touch on

[41:36] the discussion without speaking about

[41:37] our water issues and the fact that we

[41:39] are telling people you know this

[41:41] particular letter writer also went

[41:43] through issues with um securing water

[41:45] for um an unbuilt house and um this is

[41:50] something that needs to be kept in mind

[41:51] as people continue to bring this subject

[41:54] up. It does need to be balanced with the

[41:56] fact that we are looking at restricting

[41:58] um some housing being built. we're

[41:59] restricting the types of businesses that

[42:01] can open. Um, and water is an ongoing

[42:05] issue. So, before we get too excited

[42:08] about an expenses pool, we need to keep

[42:10] in mind that we are dealing with very

[42:12] water restrictions.

[42:17] Uh, counc was there a hand over there

[42:21] and then counc um

[42:23] >> yeah I'd just like to say that there's

[42:26] actually quite a few different ideas

[42:29] around providing

[42:32] aquatic recreation including traveling

[42:35] out of town bringing in popup pools and

[42:40] an outdoor pool an indoor pool

[42:43] use facility

[42:45] Um and I I think there's different

[42:49] levels of support and different levels

[42:52] of feasibility with all these ideas that

[42:56] needs to be assessed

[42:59] sort of a large employment

[43:02] where we could

[43:05] I think you were inferring that maybe

[43:07] the private sector could become

[43:09] involved. Um you know that hasn't been

[43:12] brought into the conversation. So it's not uncommon for groups or

[43:18] individuals to get behind sort of one

[43:21] idea and try to go for that. We all we

[43:25] all fall in love with something. I use

[43:27] the aquatic center in Nimo

[43:30] very often like weekly and I really like

[43:33] that facility but it's way out of reach

[43:36] for our area. I think it's a, you know,

[43:40] it's a 50 m pool plus a recreational

[43:43] pool and several

[43:46] um other facilities including water

[43:48] slide and everything. If any nobody's

[43:51] seen it already. Um that would be

[43:54] lovely, but they have a a population of

[43:59] 100,000 people to support it.

[44:01] Um

[44:03] so anyways there's all all different

[44:05] levels all different ideas and we

[44:08] somehow have to bring it into a forum

[44:11] where we can evaluate

[44:14] um the real needs and then

[44:18] how best to deliver that and maybe over

[44:20] time maybe start with

[44:23] one program and move to another and and

[44:25] phase phase in a larger facility at some

[44:29] point in the future.

[44:31] A lot of the

[44:34] uh

[44:36] the hopes have been pinned to the

[44:38] multi-lex

[44:40] facility with the ring and pool notion

[44:44] and

[44:46] that still exists as well as as an idea

[44:51] but it's been

[44:53] unattainable for quite a long time. So

[44:56] anyways, I don't know how we're going to

[44:58] get there, but I as as much appreciate the letter

[45:04] writer, I can't say that any of the

[45:06] ideas proposed

[45:08] are something grab on to and run without

[45:13] Morris a larger discussion.

[45:17] Mr. Ste and I'll just quickly add um I I

[45:21] think once again this is this was one

[45:23] component of an overall recreation

[45:25] master plan which had a number of

[45:27] actions uh and strategies and goals and

[45:29] I and I know the letter writer had some

[45:30] issues surrounding that but this is a

[45:33] much broader uh document that will help

[45:35] us guide our discussions uh throughout

[45:38] the next decade. Uh it is a living

[45:40] document as well um and one that we

[45:43] should be looking at once we see the

[45:45] final draft. um uh to help us in making

[45:48] those decisions that are often centered

[45:50] around budget conversations and

[45:51] assessing what the needs and the

[45:52] priorities uh within the community that

[45:55] have been identified. So, I'll leave it

[45:57] at that and just I'm looking forward

[45:59] once again to that recreation uh master

[46:01] plan to help us in making these types of

[46:03] important decisions.

[46:06] >> Okay. Uh move on. We do have 9 there's

[46:10] another comment.

[46:13] >> Okay.

[46:15] Uh we do have uh 9.3 edition that is

[46:21] John's

[46:23] letter uh requesting our support

[46:27] to uh to make a motion to support his

[46:31] motion. That's what it was. Now um

[46:38] comments from council. Will I open

[46:39] reopen my computer?

[46:44] state.

[46:48] » Sure. Go ahead. I'm just pulling up. I

[46:50] have Mr. Larson sent me a potential.

[46:52] >> Did you want to go first? Nope.

[46:54] >> Um yeah, I just I I would like to

[46:56] support

[46:59] >> um or John's. Um, I I feel like fairies

[47:04] impact all of us and they're creeping up

[47:06] year after year or maybe not year after

[47:08] year, but over and over again they seem

[47:10] to increase and I think it affects

[47:13] almost every aspect of our day-to-day

[47:15] living.

[47:20] I mean the the the the fees that uh that

[47:24] MP John's is is suggesting are coming

[47:28] that increases are are astronomical

[47:32] letter and that would impact our

[47:35] community. It would impact our economy.

[47:36] It would impact everybody coming home to the island

[47:41] impact food prices. Anything that comes

[47:43] over by ferry. So I I think this is an

[47:45] urgent enough

[47:48] situation, urgent enough request that

[47:50] I'd like.

[47:58] Yeah, just to echo councelor Sman's

[48:01] comments,

[48:03] I think that looking forward, we need to

[48:05] recognize that the cost of travel is

[48:08] going up and very even though they're

[48:12] very expensive are still mostly the most

[48:15] affordable option for people to get

[48:17] across and we need to protect that. And

[48:21] even though highway infrastructure

[48:23] normally falls um under provincial

[48:25] regulation, um anytime highways pass

[48:29] through federally re regulated areas,

[48:31] they fall under a federal regulation.

[48:34] And so I think that

[48:37] the federal government can look at our

[48:39] waterways as uh you know that's a little

[48:42] bit of an overlap.

[48:45] >> Superman.

[48:48] Um I just also had a comment I I thought

[48:51] um you know time and time again

[48:56] from other tourism

[48:58] um hotels and stuff I've heard that

[49:02] tourists coming to Tofino are finding it

[49:04] more and more expensive to get here and

[49:07] it's often becoming cheaper to fly

[49:09] elsewhere in the offse whereas many

[49:12] places on the island need tourists in

[49:14] the offse and the ferry the increased

[49:17] fairy

[49:18] prices are going to be detrimental to

[49:21] affordability to visit our our island.

[49:25] >> And I think Yeah. And I think just to be

[49:26] clear, G uh

[49:29] John's underlying

[49:33] overarching concern is the inequity in

[49:35] funding across the province. PEI gets

[49:38] far far more funding in many respects.

[49:42] This is one of them that's very

[49:45] and I think that that that must be

[49:47] addressed. We're all Canadians

[49:51] part of the federal government. We all contribute and this is this is our

[49:55] highway.

[49:57] It's the only way on and off

[49:58] realistically.

[50:01] I do have a a a motion before us. I can

[50:04] move from the chair that council

[50:05] supports honorable MP Gord John's motion

[50:08] M35 and calls for fair, stable,

[50:11] long-term federal operational support

[50:13] for BC fairies and that staff be

[50:15] directed to write a letter of support

[50:16] urging the federal government to

[50:18] modernize outdated ferry funding

[50:20] arrangements.

[50:23] Second by counc Steer comments all in

[50:25] favor none opposed motion.

[50:30] Okay. Presentations and reports 10.1. We

[50:32] have a housing pilot number 135691

[50:37] Campbell Street.

[50:40] >> Good evening, Mayor and Council.

[50:46] » And um for the housing agreement bylaw

[50:49] number 1356.

[50:57] So this housing agreement is in relation

[50:59] to the subject property at 691 Campbell

[51:03] Street. Uh it's coming forward today for

[51:05] redux of uh third reading given some

[51:08] changes that were made to the agreement

[51:09] at the last council meeting. So very

[51:12] brief presentation just to go over the

[51:14] um the previous clause revised clause

[51:17] just for clarity. Um so as a summary

[51:20] this is for that two units of affordable

[51:22] housing in reg.

[51:25] So the change that was made was the

[51:29] sentence in bold. So as was brought to

[51:31] staff's attention at last meeting that

[51:33] the province um regulates via the

[51:37] residential tenency branch uh for the

[51:39] increases that are permitted annually

[51:41] and it wasn't clear as to whether they

[51:43] are in alignment with the CPI and so

[51:46] even evaluating those numbers it wasn't

[51:48] clear and the province was actually a

[51:51] little bit higher. So to maintain

[51:53] alignment with the provincial um um uh

[51:57] intent, we decided to pivot from CPI

[52:01] over to the res BC residential tenency

[52:04] branch. So now uh we're in line with the

[52:06] province. Um so this agreement

[52:09] essentially is just nearing what's

[52:11] already permitted via the act. So that

[52:16] was the only change that was made to the

[52:17] agreement. But since the bylaw itself is

[52:20] um uh sorry the agreement is part of the

[52:22] bylaw uh we needed to bring it back for

[52:25] a rereading of third um consideration.

[52:29] So the recommendation table today is

[52:32] that uh the agreement the previous

[52:34] agreement or sorry the previous reading

[52:36] be rescended and that uh the uh the

[52:40] housing agreement bylaw is reread for

[52:42] third consideration as amended.

[52:45] >> Excellent. Thank you.

[52:47] Uh let's I think we can vote on

[52:49] conversation on this one. Would somebody

[52:51] like to

[52:53] read?

[52:54] >> Thank you for the chair. That third

[52:56] reading of district housing agreement

[52:58] bylaw number 1356, 2022 granted at the

[53:01] regular council meeting held on May 26,

[53:04] 2026 be

[53:06] >> Thomas. All in favor?

[53:10] And that the District of Tino Housing

[53:12] Agreement bylaw number 13562026

[53:15] be read a third time as amended.

[53:18] >> All in favor?

[53:21] >> Excellent. 10.2 official meeting plan

[53:23] amendment.

[53:25] 0.03 03.

[53:30] » Of course,

[53:33] >> interesting.

[53:52] » Go ahead, Mr. Ross. Good evening, Mayor

[53:55] and Council. Today, I'm going to present

[53:58] to you for first reading uh amending the

[54:00] OCP to facilitate the development of a

[54:02] new multi-residential building in

[54:04] partnership with the Tino Housing

[54:05] Corporation at the address of 740 Camp

[54:11] subject property just outside of our

[54:13] community's growth payment boundary. Uh

[54:16] the report before you speaks to the

[54:18] associated OCP amendment to change the

[54:20] land use designation for this parcel.

[54:25] Following this amendment if acceptable

[54:27] would come the amending of the zoning

[54:29] bond. Uh these processes are um intended

[54:33] to run in a staggered concurrent way to

[54:36] expedite the process um while ensuring

[54:38] that the OCP amendment uh will be

[54:40] adopted first.

[54:46] The site's situated between uh our uh

[54:50] district- owned water infrastructure to

[54:51] the north and private commercial

[54:53] structures to the south. Cross Campbell

[54:55] Street to the west is a steep slope

[54:58] upward um that's somewhat forested and

[55:01] there's also proposed residential

[55:03] development quite large up there as well

[55:06] known as Woodsmere um not yet

[55:08] constructed but uh expansive in scope.

[55:11] So that development would have some

[55:13] impacts um to this downst property. On

[55:17] site is an access drive that exists to

[55:20] maintain and service the Bay Street

[55:21] compouse just to the north. Much of the

[55:24] site um is relatively flat before

[55:26] substantially slipping downward to the

[55:28] shoreline. Um and so the current

[55:32] structure as well as

[55:34] um sits in a nice per perched

[55:36] unobstructed

[55:38] with unobstructed views across Brown and

[55:40] passage to over to Mir's Island

[55:45] with views over to Mir's Island. So to

[55:47] summarize the property in question, 740

[55:49] Campbell is designated for residential

[55:52] but low density acreage just outside of

[55:55] our containment boundary. The site's a

[55:57] little under one acre and we're looking

[56:00] to change its land use designation from

[56:02] peninsula to future homes.

[56:05] A bit of a background uh here. This

[56:08] amendment was initiated by staff to help

[56:10] advance requirements associated with the

[56:13] housing accelerator fund project. Um,

[56:16] particularly initiative three of this

[56:18] project outlines a plan for the district

[56:20] to collaborate with Tino Housing Corp.

[56:23] uh to build non-market multif family

[56:25] housing projects on district owned land

[56:29] as well as to expedite that process. The

[56:32] goal of this initiative really is to to

[56:34] leverage district owned assets assets to

[56:36] increase the supply of below market

[56:38] housing targeted at local workforce.

[56:42] The determination of this site arose

[56:43] from a collaborative and strategic

[56:46] review of five district land holdings.

[56:48] And this site was chosen as number one

[56:52] um during the committee of full meeting

[56:55] on July 29th, 2025.

[56:58] And then subsequently permission to

[56:59] proceed was granted for this amendment

[57:01] back in March on the 31st this year.

[57:06] So here's a a schematic or a rendering

[57:09] from the schematic design architectural

[57:11] package. Currently what's being proposed

[57:14] is a 21 unit multi-family development.

[57:18] Um this would increase the density far

[57:20] beyond what current policy allows for.

[57:24] The development would respect the cliff

[57:27] geometry uh and maximize views. What's

[57:30] being proposed is a very efficient

[57:32] modular design, stacking the units,

[57:35] having a simple structure, there'd be no

[57:37] underground parking. Uh the development

[57:39] um would appear as two stories from the

[57:41] street, stepping down to three stories

[57:43] towards the rear. Uh so it's modest in

[57:47] visual scale. And then the the flat roof

[57:50] associated with the construction process

[57:52] could offer potential for shared

[57:54] residential or shared resident amenity

[57:57] space, perhaps a green roof. all to be

[57:59] determined at future phases. Associated

[58:02] with this project also is a waterfront

[58:05] park. So since this is district own land

[58:07] and there's a current uh slip and um

[58:12] unused boat house, it's it's well as

[58:14] access um it was deemed as a potential

[58:17] opportunity to develop a public amenity

[58:20] uh greater detail. So here's a a

[58:23] rendering from the schematic design of

[58:24] the waterfront park package.

[58:27] Public beach access would be retained

[58:29] the east end of the site. Um there'd be

[58:33] a designed launch point for

[58:35] non-motorized watercraft such as kayaks,

[58:37] canoes, stand up paddle boards, and this

[58:40] would support the district vision for a

[58:43] broader connected water trail network

[58:45] particularly on the inlet side of our

[58:47] community. This would expand community

[58:50] recreation and tourism opportunities

[58:51] within Browning Passage. Um this also

[58:55] would integrate with the housing um

[58:58] providing an accessible waterfront

[58:59] public amenity. Um and furthermore as

[59:02] part of this design uh there would be

[59:05] green infrastructure considered to clean

[59:08] and mitigate storm water runoff from

[59:10] this site as well as perhaps sites

[59:12] above.

[59:17] So a few key considerations the next two

[59:18] slides outline those.

[59:21] Um the USB amendment required uh for

[59:24] this would to be to change the the

[59:28] laneous designation from peninsula to

[59:30] future homes to enable this multi-unit

[59:31] housing development. Uh this does

[59:34] advance council housing objectives.

[59:36] Um however it's outside the village

[59:38] containment area and so we require this

[59:41] would require specific policy change to

[59:44] uh to change their our conservative

[59:46] growth targets from the OCP.

[59:51] This supports uh this project would

[59:54] support compact growth using existing

[59:58] uh or redevelop land that has existing

[1:00:00] servicing. There's strong alignment with

[1:00:02] our active transportation plan uh due to

[1:00:05] its its access to transit as well as the

[1:00:07] multi-use path. Uh infrastructure

[1:00:09] capacity uh is a constraint particularly

[1:00:11] around availability of water um that

[1:00:14] would need to be resolved prior

[1:00:16] occupancy. And then there could be some

[1:00:18] perceived sensitivity around scale and

[1:00:20] character

[1:00:22] from this development as it does exceed

[1:00:25] typical candle street development.

[1:00:28] To summarize, there are challenges but

[1:00:30] staff do believe that the application

[1:00:33] does address each and achieves some key

[1:00:35] benefits. Uh here this slide essentially

[1:00:38] illustrates that tension uh displayed by

[1:00:41] a few notable elements. So it's

[1:00:43] currently not within the growth area,

[1:00:44] sits right outside of that. It does

[1:00:46] address an urgent housing need. Um there

[1:00:49] are known water and servicing

[1:00:50] constraints. However, it is efficient

[1:00:53] use of district own land. There's

[1:00:56] potential building character and

[1:00:57] environmental hazard considerations. Um

[1:01:01] but it does also uh provide strong

[1:01:03] location

[1:01:05] for mobility and public amenity.

[1:01:09] to get to the uh efforts associated with

[1:01:12] community engagement. The referral

[1:01:14] process has already been initiated.

[1:01:16] We've reached out uh to both the the

[1:01:20] nation, our regional district, school

[1:01:21] district 70, as well as the Ministry of

[1:01:23] Trans Transportation.

[1:01:25] Um there would be a public hearing

[1:01:27] scheduled for this. We're looking at

[1:01:30] regular meeting in August.

[1:01:33] Um and then public notices would go out

[1:01:35] according to community charter our

[1:01:38] bylaws as well as

[1:01:40] >> associated with this because it is an

[1:01:42] OCP amendment there are several

[1:01:44] recommendations

[1:01:46] I'm not going to read there.

[1:01:50] >> Excellent. Thank you very much Mr.

[1:01:55] I I'd like to say I think it's an

[1:01:57] excellent project and I fully support it

[1:01:59] and uh from there I will just go to

[1:02:01] council master

[1:02:04] it's a great project uh provide some

[1:02:06] will provide some much needed housing

[1:02:09] and I think it's really good that we're

[1:02:11] providing park for the residents of Tina

[1:02:16] better water access.

[1:02:23] » Yeah, definitely a thumbs up. And and I

[1:02:24] just, you know, in the comment around

[1:02:25] the designation of the future homes and

[1:02:27] just literally being outside of that and

[1:02:30] you know, we draw I will say arbitrary

[1:02:32] lines for these types of land use

[1:02:34] designations and uh you know this is so

[1:02:36] close. I mean so in terms of the uh the

[1:02:39] fitting I I think it's an excellent fit

[1:02:41] and as councilors have have reiterated

[1:02:43] this is an excellent project.

[1:02:46] And

[1:02:47] >> um aside from being an excellent project

[1:02:51] in meeting some of our goals in terms of

[1:02:54] housing and affordable housing, um I

[1:02:59] think it's a good fit

[1:03:02] on on the neighborhood imprint as well.

[1:03:05] It's buffered by a park land one side

[1:03:08] and some room

[1:03:11] to mitigate impacts on that side of the

[1:03:15] neighborhood.

[1:03:16] and it's situated

[1:03:19] um on the other side among some fairly

[1:03:21] dense commercial units. So, um if if any

[1:03:26] of the inlet properties were to be

[1:03:30] chosen for this designation, I think

[1:03:32] this is a good fit that way as well. So,

[1:03:35] I'm in support of of uh taking it to

[1:03:40] first reading.

[1:03:43] >> Sure.

[1:03:44] Um, no comments beyond what Sorin said.

[1:03:49] I agree with everyone.

[1:03:51] I have a little comment uh just on

[1:03:56] you know we often talk about we make

[1:03:57] policies we make bylaws and they're to

[1:03:59] govern and they're very very carefully

[1:04:01] drafted and they take into account many different opinions and different

[1:04:05] aspects from infrastructure to land use

[1:04:08] and I want to say that we have some very

[1:04:11] difficult complex problems

[1:04:14] and sometimes that requires very

[1:04:16] creative thinking

[1:04:19] seizing opportunities

[1:04:21] that may not come again. And I would

[1:04:23] just like to say that this this uh this

[1:04:27] proposal, this project

[1:04:30] exemplifies all of that creative problem

[1:04:32] solving.

[1:04:34] Uh you know, this land was purchased

[1:04:36] with a growing communities fund.

[1:04:39] It's being spearheaded by the housing

[1:04:40] corporation

[1:04:43] finding potential funding for levels of

[1:04:47] government as well as our own OAP

[1:04:51] uh income from from emergency

[1:04:54] short-term. So I I just you know and

[1:04:56] then the part thrown on access to our

[1:04:58] infrastructure uh that we don't have to

[1:05:01] if we follow this then we do not have to

[1:05:03] necessarily uh

[1:05:05] dismantle our own property that had to

[1:05:08] do to get access to it. So I just think

[1:05:10] this is a really wonderful example of

[1:05:12] how to break all the rules in a really

[1:05:14] great way.

[1:05:16] That's my final opinion.

[1:05:20] Seeing no objection, would somebody like

[1:05:22] to uh read the recommendations? And I

[1:05:26] think there's going to be Who's got the

[1:05:28] recommendations?

[1:05:28] >> It's just one big one.

[1:05:29] >> One big one.

[1:05:30] >> Yeah.

[1:05:31] >> And

[1:05:33] I'll do it. I move that District of Tino

[1:05:36] official community plan amendment by

[1:05:37] number 1290.

[1:05:39] 3, 2026 be introduced in read a first

[1:05:42] time and that council in accordance with

[1:05:44] the local government act has considered

[1:05:45] the opportunities for consultation with

[1:05:47] persons, organizations and authorities

[1:05:49] it considers will be affected by the

[1:05:51] proposed official community bylaw

[1:05:53] including the first nation clay pot

[1:05:56] regional district number 70 the ministry

[1:05:59] of transportation and transit

[1:06:01] consultation undertaken to the

[1:06:03] appropriate at this stage and that

[1:06:05] council has considered whether

[1:06:06] consultation should be early and ongoing

[1:06:08] and will consultation opportunities

[1:06:10] through the return process and public

[1:06:12] hearing and that council direct staff to

[1:06:14] schedule a public hearing for the bylaw

[1:06:15] and local government.

[1:06:18] >> Second by council master. Any further

[1:06:20] comments? All in favor on opposed

[1:06:22] motions. Can we just take a second?

[1:06:24] We're going to take a a

[1:06:28] couple minute recess and bring councelor

[1:06:29] SW back.

[1:09:07] That is reconvened.

[1:09:12] 10.3 waste and wastewater maintenance

[1:09:16] policies.

[1:09:20] » Thanks. Uh hello Mayor Council. staff

[1:09:22] are pleased to present the water and

[1:09:25] wastewater maintenance and inspection

[1:09:27] policy for consideration for council's

[1:09:30] conclusion.

[1:09:35] Starting off with a little bit of

[1:09:36] background information

[1:09:39] as part of aspen management program

[1:09:42] staff continually review existing

[1:09:44] policies for maximum levels of service.

[1:09:47] Uh this identified a policy gap related

[1:09:49] to water and wastewater.

[1:09:53] Uh following that staff requested

[1:09:54] authorization at the January 27th

[1:09:57] community goal meeting to develop

[1:10:00] policy. Staff then held a internal

[1:10:02] workshop with utility operators uh to go

[1:10:05] over historical practices legislation

[1:10:08] requirements.

[1:10:12] Valuable knowledge should say that. Um

[1:10:15] and then the draft policy was completed

[1:10:18] uh at towards the end of May.

[1:10:26] Like to emphasize that while we didn't

[1:10:30] have a policy at the time uh that didn't

[1:10:32] stop us from implementing asset

[1:10:33] management software. So this slide is

[1:10:35] just a representation of orders that

[1:10:37] were completed throughout 2025 by the

[1:10:39] utility operations team. you will see a

[1:10:42] heavy focus on wastewater treatment

[1:10:44] processes. That's because we had this

[1:10:45] nice booklet of fresh on manuals that we

[1:10:48] could implement schedules into. Uh so

[1:10:51] one of the the key points on this that I

[1:10:53] wanted to put this slide in there is

[1:10:55] because asy goes through and we start to

[1:10:57] build up more maintenance and inspection

[1:10:59] tasks for other um water water items and

[1:11:03] disciplines, we'll start to see that

[1:11:05] ratch the format shift a little bit.

[1:11:12] So a uh quick overview of the policy

[1:11:15] format. Uh the policy outlines the the

[1:11:18] purpose uh and the scope of assets that

[1:11:21] it covers. Uh it the policy itself the

[1:11:24] policy section itself is split into

[1:11:26] sections the general section and then

[1:11:28] four sections based on the environmental

[1:11:31] wrong environmental operating

[1:11:32] certification program or EOCP. um but

[1:11:35] just so um different avenues that

[1:11:38] utility operators focus on and and learn

[1:11:40] about how those process commitments

[1:11:42] working. So that's the way it's

[1:11:44] structured. Each one of the four

[1:11:46] sections in the OCP is further broken

[1:11:49] down into maintenance tasks versus

[1:11:51] inspection items and that'll support as

[1:11:55] we progress into putting those kind of

[1:11:58] levels of service into our asset

[1:11:59] management.

[1:12:04] So uh general the general section of the

[1:12:06] policy uh this covers uh general safety

[1:12:09] items. Uh it does set out a

[1:12:11] prioritization structure for the

[1:12:13] different disciplines.

[1:12:16] Outlines operator certification

[1:12:18] requirements,

[1:12:19] general utility facility inspections. It

[1:12:22] also covers uh the emergency generators

[1:12:24] that cover a broad spectrum of

[1:12:26] infrastructure uh and some continuous

[1:12:29] monitoring.

[1:12:33] sections 4.2 to 4.5 of the policy, uh,

[1:12:37] these outline those four different

[1:12:39] disciplines based on the EOCP.

[1:12:42] I'm going to just present a couple

[1:12:44] highlights from those four sections. Uh

[1:12:47] so for water treatment uh these include

[1:12:50] treatment plant equipment, deep cleans

[1:12:51] and process equipment, water quality

[1:12:54] samples, valve exercising to make sure

[1:12:57] that valves are functioning properly.

[1:12:59] For the wastewater treatment side, uh

[1:13:02] this includes gas sensor calibrations,

[1:13:04] leak and corrosion inspections because

[1:13:05] there's present H2S gases that can

[1:13:08] equipment faster than other facilities.

[1:13:10] Uh and then general tank cleansings,

[1:13:12] whether it be they enclosed or open tank

[1:13:14] systems. uh for the water distribution.

[1:13:17] Uh these include dam inspections, fire

[1:13:20] hydrant servicing, submarine pipeline

[1:13:22] inspections, same thing valve

[1:13:23] maintenance. There's a some crossover.

[1:13:26] Uh and that section also outlines leak response timelines based on levels

[1:13:30] of water water criticality that were out

[1:13:33] of that stage.

[1:13:35] Uh last but not least, uh wastewater

[1:13:37] collection. Uh this section covers

[1:13:41] gravity main flushing um to make sure

[1:13:43] the conveyance works, lift the station

[1:13:45] cleaning maintenance and uh some inflow

[1:13:48] and infiltration uh study requirements

[1:13:51] to ensure that our wastewater treatment

[1:13:52] plant is functioning at optimal design

[1:13:55] levels.

[1:13:57] Uh I do want to just take a minute to

[1:13:59] note uh on the priority levels. While

[1:14:02] each discipline is prioritized based on

[1:14:06] uh based on risk and and service

[1:14:08] delivery, the work orders themselves

[1:14:10] that are included in each different

[1:14:11] discipline have their own um

[1:14:15] criticality. So you could have on the

[1:14:18] water distribution side, which in here

[1:14:20] indicates that it's a priority four, you

[1:14:21] could have a high ranking item in in a

[1:14:23] work order that the crews are actually

[1:14:24] going to receive to go and implement and

[1:14:26] that will be done faster than a lower

[1:14:28] priority item on tree. So when we looked

[1:14:31] at those items, we looked at things that

[1:14:34] provided life life safety items

[1:14:36] depending on which one they were in. Um

[1:14:38] things that were going to potentially

[1:14:40] impact service lives in terms of uh

[1:14:43] maintenance requirements that we're

[1:14:44] going to make sure that assets performed

[1:14:47] uh among among other things. So

[1:14:50] there is a lot of work in the back end

[1:14:52] to make sure that things aren't going to

[1:14:53] miss. So don't I just wanted to to point

[1:14:55] that way.

[1:14:57] So some next steps um if council should approve the policy um the final

[1:15:05] policy will will be distributed to the

[1:15:07] utility operators uh and posted and

[1:15:09] we'll talk on on what that looks like.

[1:15:12] Um we'll also begin to just update and

[1:15:15] review what gaps we have in our standard

[1:15:19] operating procedures. Um if there's

[1:15:21] things that need to be up updated or

[1:15:22] referenced um that are critically like

[1:15:24] there's some money missing for some high

[1:15:26] priority and develop those internally.

[1:15:29] Um and all of these items um and policy

[1:15:33] will help us support future asset

[1:15:35] management plans be presented to

[1:15:37] council.

[1:15:40] With that staff are available for any

[1:15:43] questions council may have.

[1:15:46] >> Excellent.

[1:15:48] uh open up to council for questions,

[1:15:51] clarity, comments

[1:15:55] here.

[1:15:56] >> Yeah, just a quick comment. Uh my my day

[1:15:58] job where we have binders and binders of

[1:16:00] maintenance uh and inspection and then

[1:16:03] of course SOPs uh beyond belief. I

[1:16:06] really wanted to thank staff for I know

[1:16:07] how much work goes into creating a

[1:16:09] document like this and and the

[1:16:10] importance and the prioritization that

[1:16:12] you have put forward especially around

[1:16:14] our water uh distribution and our water

[1:16:16] treatment facilities. Uh it's a

[1:16:17] wonderful document. Uh and I think it'll

[1:16:19] be great for staff to have this and the

[1:16:21] continuity because people come and

[1:16:22] people go. So this the ability for that

[1:16:24] continuity to have it in writing is

[1:16:26] going to be critical. We really

[1:16:28] appreciate it.

[1:16:32] » Councilor like to offer to read this.

[1:16:34] >> I I can do that for the chair. Uh, I

[1:16:37] move that the District of Tina water and

[1:16:38] wastewater maintenance and inspection

[1:16:40] policy attaches appendix one to the

[1:16:42] staff report titled water and wastewater

[1:16:44] maintenance and inspection policy dated

[1:16:46] June 16th 2026 be approved.

[1:16:50] >> Second by Mr. Thomas. All in favor

[1:16:55] 10.4 we have zoning amendments.

[1:17:10] Um for this presentation I will be

[1:17:13] giving you a brief overview of the zone

[1:17:15] amendment bylaw number oh sorry

[1:17:20] I'm going to be presenting the

[1:17:21] permission to proceed for 825 camel

[1:17:23] street and that is for phase two of the

[1:17:27] woods mirror development just as a

[1:17:30] refresher the subject property that

[1:17:31] we're uh speaking two is highlighted in

[1:17:34] blue. So this familiar from phase one is

[1:17:37] council did um approve the adoption of

[1:17:40] zoning zoning amendment bylaw 1315 back.

[1:17:46] So that would have resulted in the

[1:17:48] existing zoning as you see in the

[1:17:50] graphic here. 1315 uh was was referred

[1:17:54] to as the um uh Campbell Street uh

[1:17:57] neighborhood development. And so in the

[1:18:00] red parcels, uh those those lots are now

[1:18:03] well the whole lot in its entirety is

[1:18:05] considered a split zone between A2 and

[1:18:07] that CSM zoning. The proposal is going

[1:18:10] to include the land that is situated in

[1:18:13] between those two areas.

[1:18:15] So, a little bit of background. As the

[1:18:18] uh the applicants received their zoning

[1:18:20] approval for those first two parcels, uh

[1:18:23] they submitted a subdivision application

[1:18:25] and through that exercise um and

[1:18:28] discussions with staff, it was

[1:18:29] determined that it would be more

[1:18:31] efficient um in terms of um uh roadway

[1:18:34] construction and uh uh some of the works

[1:18:38] that were required to accommodate the

[1:18:40] first two phases that it would be more

[1:18:42] efficient to um move forward with what

[1:18:45] would have been phase do uh or is a

[1:18:48] portion of what would have been phase

[1:18:49] two of the development. So uh this is

[1:18:53] going to include a uh park plan

[1:18:55] dedication as well as the road

[1:18:57] dedication through that subdivision

[1:18:59] application should council

[1:19:01] second phase of zoning.

[1:19:04] Some highlights from the uh the overview

[1:19:08] of the evaluation of the proposal. Um

[1:19:12] the new piece is going to include a uh

[1:19:15] an apartment building complex uh that

[1:19:17] would add about 71 units of housing to

[1:19:20] the market. This would be uh protected

[1:19:23] under the rental tenure restrictions as

[1:19:25] well. Uh and the applicant has uh

[1:19:28] expressed a willingness to enter into

[1:19:29] some affordability discussions although

[1:19:31] those discussions are still early days.

[1:19:34] Uh this would be utilizing this

[1:19:36] previously disturbed site. So there is

[1:19:38] uh still some environmental uh

[1:19:40] considerations however not to the extent

[1:19:43] that um uh properties with full full

[1:19:45] trees that hasn't been previously logged

[1:19:47] may result in and it is within the

[1:19:50] preferred growth area. So the hazard

[1:19:53] zones map zap hazard zones as well as

[1:19:55] within the village containment area and

[1:19:57] future home designation.

[1:20:01] There's a a significant amount of work

[1:20:03] still uh to do um for sort of moving

[1:20:06] ahead. Should council approve permission

[1:20:08] to proceed, we would be predominantly

[1:20:10] looking at the water uh limitations. The

[1:20:13] uh previous application did receive

[1:20:16] water allocation uh water allocation

[1:20:18] certificate. So the applicants would be

[1:20:20] looking at uh potentially incorporating

[1:20:23] some water conservation measures into

[1:20:25] those pre-approved developments in order

[1:20:27] to bring the water usage down. um and

[1:20:30] also incorporating some water

[1:20:31] conservation into the new development as

[1:20:33] well. So there will be some further

[1:20:35] detailed assessment uh required for

[1:20:37] reporting to determine what the

[1:20:41] infrastructure uh capacity and demand

[1:20:44] the uh community amenity contribution

[1:20:47] conversation needs to happen as well. So

[1:20:50] uh as mentioned we will be exploring

[1:20:51] affordability uh an affordability

[1:20:53] component to this proposal or other um

[1:20:57] to be determined. Uh there was a traffic

[1:21:00] impact assessment that was completed for

[1:21:02] the first phase and given the high

[1:21:04] volume of of um new units. We would want

[1:21:07] to see a new traffic impact assessment

[1:21:10] with that road development that would

[1:21:11] move from the um the proposed access up

[1:21:14] to the uh north um to Ellers Road. uh

[1:21:18] would loop that neighborhood and

[1:21:22] potentially create a little bit more of

[1:21:24] a dynamic when it comes to traffic

[1:21:26] ingress and egress. So, we want to have

[1:21:27] that fully worked out as well as uh the

[1:21:30] potential for safe crossings at either

[1:21:33] the Ellers's location or south where

[1:21:35] we're in negotiations for a transit

[1:21:37] stop. There is uh the new subdivision

[1:21:42] plan. Um there was a site plan that was

[1:21:44] incorporated into the initial

[1:21:45] development agreement. So any sort of um

[1:21:48] change to that site plan would need to

[1:21:50] be formalized uh that would then inform

[1:21:53] the subdivision um as well there as as

[1:21:58] noted the existing development agreement

[1:22:00] would need to be modified to accommodate

[1:22:02] the road construction uh what we're

[1:22:05] referring to as road B as well as the

[1:22:07] parkland configuration has changed

[1:22:08] slightly and that was uh the result of

[1:22:11] just responding to um more detailed site

[1:22:14] analysis and some of the

[1:22:16] topographical constraints that were on

[1:22:19] the lot. And so it's moved sort of um

[1:22:24] more of a along the line of the road as

[1:22:27] opposed to horizontal. And so it's

[1:22:30] maintained the size and scale, but it's

[1:22:32] just changed configuration.

[1:22:34] And then the uh uh proposal would meet

[1:22:38] the prohibition requirements through the

[1:22:40] LGA uh local government act for um

[1:22:43] public hearing. So notice public hearing

[1:22:45] waiver would need to be distributed

[1:22:46] prior to any advancement of the plan.

[1:22:51] » With that um the recommendation is u to

[1:22:55] consider permission proceed for further

[1:22:58] exploration of this.

[1:23:00] >> Super.

[1:23:03] >> I do have a couple questions. It's kind

[1:23:04] of technical. Uh subdivision. So um why

[1:23:09] is the just

[1:23:11] what's the purpose of subdividing the

[1:23:14] property rather than just applying to

[1:23:16] build the the building proposed building

[1:23:19] on the existing within the existing

[1:23:21] zoning? I just

[1:23:23] s

[1:23:24] >> thank you for the question. Um so there

[1:23:27] is the initial subdivision of the 24p

[1:23:29] simple lots. So those are all going to

[1:23:31] need to be subdivided in order to to

[1:23:33] sell them. um the the complexities with

[1:23:37] some of our bylaws and policies around

[1:23:38] servicing. So limiting the number of

[1:23:41] service connections per lot. Um when you

[1:23:43] have a comprehensive development like

[1:23:44] this, it makes the most sense to

[1:23:46] subdivide the parcel to isolate that

[1:23:49] parcel and make sure the servicing is in

[1:23:51] alignment with wildfire regulations. It

[1:23:54] also um it provides an avenue for road

[1:23:58] dedication as well as parkland

[1:24:00] dedication. So um in a lot of those

[1:24:03] conversations and negotiations for um

[1:24:06] these types of amenities um that is the

[1:24:08] mechanism in which we secure them. So

[1:24:10] there's a there's a number of of

[1:24:12] reasons. We generally don't uh prefer to

[1:24:16] see split zoning in the district. does

[1:24:18] create some challenges around uh zoning

[1:24:21] or sorry land use regulation uh in the

[1:24:24] sense that if you have a a lot

[1:24:26] specification that dictates lot lines or

[1:24:29] start sorry sideyard setbacks rear

[1:24:32] setbacks without those parcel lines

[1:24:35] those boundaries um are difficult to to

[1:24:39] enforce

[1:24:42] » and um follow um in this if this was to

[1:24:47] go through. It's within this particular

[1:24:49] subdivision that the district would finally or get that parkland uh

[1:24:55] dedication that was was proposed in

[1:24:57] phase one.

[1:24:58] >> Uh that's correct. So this was initially

[1:25:01] proposed as a multi-phase development

[1:25:03] and so a lot of the um in the current

[1:25:06] development agreement there was a

[1:25:08] commitment to dedicate a certain amount

[1:25:10] of parkland and then sub the subsequent

[1:25:13] subdivision would have resulted in an

[1:25:15] additional parkland piece. So, uh, what

[1:25:18] the applicant is doing is essentially

[1:25:20] bundling those two phases together is,

[1:25:23] um, uh, wanting to proceed with a single

[1:25:26] subdivision application that includes

[1:25:27] the two lots for each apartment building

[1:25:30] with the fee symbol. And so, we would

[1:25:32] want to ensure that the road dedication

[1:25:34] and the parkland in a whole as it's

[1:25:37] presented um, would be dedicated at that

[1:25:40] time. Uh what we would be uh looking to

[1:25:43] do as well is to um go into an agreement

[1:25:47] because essentially that is that

[1:25:48] parkland represents the 5% parkland

[1:25:51] dedication um and that 5% is of the lot

[1:25:55] in its entirety. So should the um

[1:25:58] subsequent phases of development move

[1:26:00] ahead, we would not we would not likely

[1:26:02] be securing any additional parkland

[1:26:04] dedication that is the parkland piece in

[1:26:07] uh in its entirety.

[1:26:10] Thanks for that sir. Thank you to the

[1:26:13] chair and and you answered one of the

[1:26:15] mayor law's questions around the

[1:26:16] parkland dedication. Second and there's

[1:26:18] as you're saying this is permission to

[1:26:20] proceed. There's a lot of information

[1:26:21] that's going to be coming forward and and around specifically around the

[1:26:25] affordable housing u conversation and um

[1:26:29] one and a half questions uh in terms of

[1:26:32] at what phase do we start having that

[1:26:34] would that be at first reading while

[1:26:35] we'll get that information around those

[1:26:37] conversations. And if you could remind

[1:26:38] me on the on the initial 55 unit

[1:26:42] apartment uh complex what uh and I can't

[1:26:45] remember if there was uh affordable

[1:26:48] housing uh that was incorporated into

[1:26:50] that. I do remember there's a lot of

[1:26:52] discussion around it but I can't

[1:26:53] remember the final details of that.

[1:26:56] >> Thank you for the question through the

[1:26:57] chair. So the initial uh discussion of

[1:26:59] the 55 unit um there was a a condition

[1:27:04] applied to the zone in that it's um

[1:27:06] restricted to rental and so there was no

[1:27:08] affordability piece per se but it did

[1:27:11] secure that housing as market rental. Um

[1:27:14] with the uh discussions with the

[1:27:16] applicant there was resistance to commit

[1:27:18] to any affordability values because of

[1:27:21] the funding models that they were

[1:27:23] exploring. um they have, you know, often

[1:27:26] have affordability components built into

[1:27:29] that financing model. And so we very

[1:27:31] likely would have seen affordability

[1:27:33] affordable units sort of come out in

[1:27:36] that um in that development. Uh but we

[1:27:39] were unable to to sort of secure those

[1:27:42] up front just because of the the early

[1:27:44] stages of that development and not not

[1:27:47] knowing which funding model they were

[1:27:49] going to go forward with. So now that um

[1:27:51] we're further down the design

[1:27:54] roadway um there's been a lot more work

[1:27:57] gone into say the proforma and so

[1:28:00] there's a bit more of an understanding

[1:28:02] of of the the costs and um sort of the wiggle room per se that they would

[1:28:09] have in sort of signing affordable

[1:28:10] units. Um, and I just have to stress

[1:28:13] that it was a very um

[1:28:16] just a a high level sort of

[1:28:18] acknowledgement or willingness to enter

[1:28:20] into that. There there was no commitment

[1:28:22] made, but there would be the the rental

[1:28:24] tenure release for the 71.

[1:28:29] So, sorry to to continue on with the

[1:28:31] second part of your question, we would

[1:28:33] be having those conversations prior to

[1:28:36] coming forward with first reading um

[1:28:39] whether or not we were able to secure

[1:28:41] the affordability piece or not and then

[1:28:43] council could uh comment.

[1:28:46] >> Great. Thank you. There would be there

[1:28:47] will be some comments yet.

[1:28:51] Anderson.

[1:28:52] >> Um I have two questions and one was

[1:28:57] answered about the parkland but um that dedication would be for the whole

[1:29:02] par.

[1:29:05] >> The other question I had about the

[1:29:07] parkland. Do we know much about the

[1:29:10] topography of the land and and if we're

[1:29:14] getting usable parkland or if it's

[1:29:17] difficult to develop into recreational

[1:29:22] property.

[1:29:23] Um so maybe that will come out in in

[1:29:28] further exploring and assessing it, but

[1:29:31] maybe we know something about that now.

[1:29:35] Um, so yeah, I'm I've we've had parkland

[1:29:39] dedications

[1:29:41] in the past that become quite difficult

[1:29:44] to to do much with

[1:29:48] uh due to the nature of the landscape.

[1:29:52] We've had bogs and we've had rocks and

[1:29:54] we've had

[1:29:57] uh ravines and all sorts of things uh

[1:30:00] donated to us in subdivision process

[1:30:04] that don't make very good recreational

[1:30:06] property. So I'm always looking at uh at

[1:30:10] that as early on in

[1:30:13] proposals as we as we can. So that's a

[1:30:16] concern and I don't I don't know if you

[1:30:19] have the answer to that question.

[1:30:22] Um, the other thing I was wondering

[1:30:26] about, I I think some of the original

[1:30:29] iterations of this entire

[1:30:32] project, um,

[1:30:35] that the numbers of apartment units were

[1:30:39] more around 90 and now we're up into

[1:30:44] 30, 125 or so. Um, and I'm wondering if maybe we don't have the answer to

[1:30:51] this if that's part of the perform and

[1:30:55] the exploration of the feasibility of

[1:30:57] the entire project

[1:31:00] or that's higher numbers might be driven

[1:31:03] by the request for affordable units.

[1:31:08] Um,

[1:31:10] yeah. And I'm just wondering if there's

[1:31:13] any comment on that.

[1:31:16] increased density overall with with just

[1:31:19] the apartment zone.

[1:31:23] >> Thank you for the comment through the

[1:31:24] chair. Um so speak to the the higher

[1:31:26] density um question first. I'm I'm not

[1:31:29] sure what the rationale was for changing

[1:31:32] that that volume, but I would suspect

[1:31:34] that it was probably rooted in that

[1:31:36] proforma. Um but I would have to defer

[1:31:39] to the applicants to provide some

[1:31:41] rationale for that and I'd be happy to

[1:31:43] come back to council with that answer.

[1:31:44] >> Okay.

[1:31:46] um to uh speak to your first question

[1:31:48] related to parkland, the condition of

[1:31:50] that parkland once received. So, this

[1:31:53] will be an important topic of

[1:31:54] conversation as we move through the

[1:31:56] negotiations for that parkland. It would

[1:31:58] not be in the district's interest to

[1:32:00] secure parkland that is not graded, that

[1:32:02] is not potentially seated or serviced.

[1:32:06] Um this would not be considered a piece

[1:32:08] of parkland that would serve as natural

[1:32:11] vegetation or or uh like a conservation

[1:32:14] piece. This would be a usable um

[1:32:17] parkland that we would want to ensure

[1:32:19] that is uh suited to recreation and and wouldn't be a cost burden to the

[1:32:25] district that that that um transfer

[1:32:28] occurs after the time in which the the

[1:32:31] lands have been um developed to the

[1:32:34] standard that we want them to be. Um and

[1:32:36] this was discussed early. I know there

[1:32:39] was early conversations about that being graded. The um the timing of that

[1:32:44] transfer is likely to occur post

[1:32:46] development. Hence why there was that

[1:32:48] temporary park that was built into the

[1:32:51] agreement early so that there was a an

[1:32:53] area green space uh usable park land um

[1:32:57] in advance of that larger piece being

[1:32:59] completed. And so the applicants um have

[1:33:03] expressed an intent to use that that

[1:33:05] piece of land. um there's going to be a

[1:33:07] lot of soil moving around and so it will

[1:33:09] serve as a bit of a staging area. Um

[1:33:11] they're going to have to build it up and

[1:33:13] that that was part of the rationale for reconfiguring it was to um provide u

[1:33:20] more of an opportunity to have a level

[1:33:22] um and graded piece of parkland whereas

[1:33:25] the other direction was quite a steep

[1:33:28] slope so it may not have been suitable

[1:33:30] for recreation use.

[1:33:33] >> That's good. Glad to hear that. Thank

[1:33:34] you. Jer.

[1:33:40] » Yeah, I'm happy to see it proceed. This

[1:33:42] has been around a long time. Um,

[1:33:45] I identified some of the concerns I

[1:33:47] have, which is water and parking. Uh,

[1:33:49] we've recently approved a couple of

[1:33:52] developments where the we've been

[1:33:55] offered 10 to 20% affordable units.

[1:34:00] I'll be brutally honest, I want to see

[1:34:02] the same in this. I think it's time this

[1:34:04] council got hard on

[1:34:07] uh pushing developers to offer a decent

[1:34:10] amount of affordable units. So you can

[1:34:14] convey that message

[1:34:17] >> if I may. Um that's in the funding model

[1:34:20] there was um there there were higher

[1:34:24] percentages. So based on like sort of

[1:34:26] what um type of of residential agreement

[1:34:30] we'd like to see, there could be

[1:34:32] different stages of affordability built

[1:34:34] into that for

[1:34:35] >> I've seen funding models change so

[1:34:38] often.

[1:34:40] I want to see

[1:34:41] >> I'll make sure it's noted.

[1:34:46] » I have a a note. I noticed in the phase

[1:34:49] one there was some other nonresidential

[1:34:52] structures

[1:34:54] store

[1:34:57] like that. This I just want to note that

[1:34:59] this is a significant dense

[1:35:02] proposal and we have

[1:35:06] as noted with THC when THC looks at

[1:35:09] smaller

[1:35:11] high density

[1:35:13] developments the topic of covered space

[1:35:17] or amenity space

[1:35:20] by all residents is quite big deal and I

[1:35:24] don't see any on this and so I just

[1:35:25] thought maybe it'd be good good time to

[1:35:26] just throw that by the the applicant and

[1:35:29] say look uh it's it's a high priority

[1:35:35] significant dense proposal and that

[1:35:38] would that would make their willing to

[1:35:41] consider it. It would make their

[1:35:42] proposal

[1:35:44] a lot more appealing to the residents

[1:35:45] that eventually live there and the

[1:35:47] community

[1:35:51] steer.

[1:35:52] >> Yeah, thank you for the chair. you you

[1:35:54] bring up a great point and I I think

[1:35:56] this is a a high density area. We're

[1:35:58] creating quite a large new neighborhood

[1:36:00] uh potentially a large new neighborhood

[1:36:02] in this area and so making those

[1:36:04] neighborhoods uh very community focused

[1:36:07] and livable. And I think that's going to

[1:36:09] be something that I'm going to be really

[1:36:10] looking for uh in there because we we

[1:36:14] recognize the need for housing, but we

[1:36:16] also want the type of housing uh that is

[1:36:18] communityfriendly for lack of a better

[1:36:20] description. So that'll be something

[1:36:21] I'll be definitely keeping my eye on.

[1:36:24] which alludes to the amenities that bear

[1:36:26] law was just speaking to.

[1:36:31] I'll just

[1:36:33] >> um make a comment following up on those

[1:36:36] since you guys brought it up uh through

[1:36:38] the chair. Even though I do understand

[1:36:42] the value of community spaces given the

[1:36:45] rising cost of construction and owning

[1:36:48] to councelor McMaster's point of wanting

[1:36:50] to see more affordable housing

[1:36:52] contributions from the developer rather

[1:36:55] than looking to add on development

[1:36:57] angles and costs. I'd be more interested

[1:37:00] in prioritizing affordable housing uh

[1:37:04] contributions coming out of this if

[1:37:05] we're look like it's nice to have those

[1:37:07] things, but if it's an added cost and

[1:37:09] drives up the cost of construction and

[1:37:12] reduces those contributions,

[1:37:14] um that's something I would be concerned

[1:37:16] about before we start asking for extras.

[1:37:21] » Councelor Slowman.

[1:37:22] >> Yeah, I just wanted to echo councelor

[1:37:24] Anderson on that usable park space.

[1:37:27] That's what I'll be looking for. that's

[1:37:28] a priority when you're building a huge

[1:37:30] neighborhood like this having someone

[1:37:33] um

[1:37:35] I also really appreciated the um water

[1:37:38] conservation discussion being brought

[1:37:41] and I think that'll be important to get these numbers to work

[1:37:45] >> super all right any other comments

[1:37:48] questions seeing none offer to read the

[1:37:51] recommendation

[1:38:05] I'll move that staff be authorized to

[1:38:07] proceed with further review of the

[1:38:09] zoning amended application for 825

[1:38:13] Campbell Street. Second by C Thomas. All

[1:38:16] in favor

[1:38:18] car.

[1:38:21] Right.

[1:38:22] Moving on to 10.5

[1:38:27] housekeeping

[1:38:30] presentation I believe.

[1:38:39] » So uh moving on to the zoning amendment

[1:38:42] by presentation number 1359.

[1:38:45] This is for subject property 1400

[1:38:47] Pacific Highway.

[1:38:51] uh just a summary of the proposal. So

[1:38:53] this is uh to the the applicant seeks to

[1:38:57] reszone from uh what's existing as A3 to

[1:39:00] the RA4 or the large acreage

[1:39:04] residential. So, this was a a new um

[1:39:06] zone that was created specifically for

[1:39:08] this property uh but was intended to

[1:39:11] serve as sort of a a general zone that

[1:39:14] um potentially other properties would uh

[1:39:17] benefit from that would align with the

[1:39:20] rural uh land association. So, the total

[1:39:23] lot area is about 13.9 14 acres, but the

[1:39:27] parcel that we're speaking to is just

[1:39:29] the southern lot um which is across the

[1:39:31] highway which amounts to about 3.26 26

[1:39:34] acres and for this development we're not

[1:39:38] seeking any cash uni amenity

[1:39:40] contributions given the scale of the

[1:39:43] development development

[1:39:45] the proposed uses uh will be for uh two

[1:39:48] dwelling units that's in the form of

[1:39:50] single family dwelling plus caretaker

[1:39:51] cottage and secondary suite this keeps

[1:39:53] it the low density uh there will be

[1:39:56] permissions for home occupations as well

[1:39:58] as accessory buildings although uh

[1:40:00] short-term rentals and bed breakfast uh

[1:40:02] uses have been explicitly excluded from

[1:40:04] the zone.

[1:40:06] In terms of development of the lot, the

[1:40:08] zone has incorporated a 30% lot

[1:40:10] coverage. We've also incorporated a 30%

[1:40:12] vegetation retention uh as well as um

[1:40:16] the uh

[1:40:19] 30 m vegetation buffer. There is a

[1:40:22] single access that was permitted in 2024

[1:40:25] via the Ministry of Transportation

[1:40:27] Transit access permit and that will be

[1:40:29] the only access to the lot uh proposed.

[1:40:32] it is subject to development permit um

[1:40:34] number eight which is the wildlife

[1:40:36] habitat DPA. So they did go through the

[1:40:38] development permit process to secure

[1:40:40] that access and would be required uh to

[1:40:43] move through that process again at the

[1:40:45] time of subdivision if uh if meant to

[1:40:48] advance as well as the time of

[1:40:49] construction.

[1:40:52] Some highlights are that the uh the

[1:40:55] development in its rural form uh line

[1:40:57] with the OCP and land use designation of

[1:41:00] the area. Uh the graphic there shows

[1:41:02] that there is riparian that encroaches

[1:41:04] onto the lot but does not um encumber

[1:41:07] the proposed parcel. Uh there are

[1:41:10] borders there at the um as you can see

[1:41:12] alongside the highway that represents

[1:41:14] the 30 meter vegetation retention

[1:41:16] buffer. There is a covenant in place um

[1:41:19] that that the district is named in. So

[1:41:21] that does minimize the buildable area of

[1:41:23] the lot helping to preserve a large area

[1:41:26] of the the subject property um should

[1:41:29] development proceed.

[1:41:33] So um due to staff oversight we did not

[1:41:36] meet the um statutory requirements for

[1:41:39] notification for first reading of the

[1:41:41] public hearing waiver. So notice was

[1:41:43] redistributed or distributed in

[1:41:45] accordance with the um LGA. Um we they

[1:41:49] um have had the sign uh erected since

[1:41:52] the first reading, first and second

[1:41:54] reading and it's still in place. Uh we

[1:41:56] hand delivered and mailed to all

[1:41:58] residents and tenants within 60 meters

[1:42:00] as well as posted in two editions of the

[1:42:02] Westerly newspaper. From that public

[1:42:05] engagement, we only received one uh

[1:42:07] comment which was in support of the

[1:42:09] application.

[1:42:11] bringing us to the recommendation today

[1:42:13] which is to resend uh the first and

[1:42:15] second reading and proceed with

[1:42:17] rereading of first, second and adding

[1:42:20] the third to progress the file.

[1:42:24] Look forward to any questions.

[1:42:27] >> Thank you. Any questions for clarity?

[1:42:31] None. Councelor Sawyer.

[1:42:33] >> Um I was just going to say I'd be happy

[1:42:35] to read the presenter motion.

[1:42:38] >> Okay. I think there's no question.

[1:42:41] There's no comments. I see none.

[1:42:43] >> All right. I move that first and second

[1:42:45] reading of District of Zoning amendment

[1:42:48] bylaw number 1359, 2026 granted at the

[1:42:51] regular council meeting held on May 26,

[1:42:54] 2026 be rescended.

[1:42:57] >> Second by Thomas. Any further comments?

[1:42:59] All in favor? Opposed? Motion is

[1:43:01] carried. And I move that district of

[1:43:04] Tino zoning amendment bylaw number 1359

[1:43:07] 2026 be read of first and third time.

[1:43:10] Thomas any comments on favor

[1:43:14] security.

[1:43:15] Excellent. We have no

[1:43:18] business. We have item 13 business

[1:43:21] initiative by council members

[1:43:25] committee external appointments

[1:43:28] etc.

[1:43:30] Cloman.

[1:43:32] >> Yeah, I'd like to give you a simple

[1:43:33] motion that motion is preparing the

[1:43:36] development of summer swimming and

[1:43:38] aquatics at Kennedy Lake.

[1:43:46] Any other external

[1:43:49] point verbal reports, committee reports?

[1:43:52] Seeing none. Okay. Question period. Miss

[1:43:55] Larson.

[1:43:58] We know currently everyone signed up for

[1:44:00] question period. However, we do still

[1:44:02] have a number of public in attendance

[1:44:04] via Zoom. So, if you are in attendance

[1:44:06] and you would like to ask a question

[1:44:08] about anything from the meeting this

[1:44:10] evening, you can do so now by using the

[1:44:12] Q&A function.

[1:44:14] Your name, presidential address, and the

[1:44:16] agenda item you're asking a question

[1:44:17] about. I will now open the call.

[1:44:21] Calling once,

[1:44:24] calling twice,

[1:44:27] calling three times.

[1:44:30] No questions at this time.

[1:44:31] >> Thank you, Mr.

[1:44:33] Well then uh we will move them to the

[1:44:36] close and I'll just move from the chair

[1:44:38] meeting to close to public pursuing to

[1:44:40] section 91 AC and 2B5 charges

[1:44:45] a personal information both an

[1:44:47] identifiable individual who volunteers

[1:44:49] being considered for position as an

[1:44:50] officer employer agent of the

[1:44:52] municipality or another position

[1:44:53] appointedity 91C labor relations or

[1:44:56] other employ

[1:44:58] consideration of information received on

[1:44:59] how the conflict relates to negotiations

[1:45:01] municipality

[1:45:03] government to vote between the federal

[1:45:05] government to vote and party

[1:45:08] seconded by I think it's over there or

[1:45:11] was it council council all in favor

[1:45:16] mot we're going to take uh at least five

[1:45:20] minutes

Regular Council - 16 Jun 2026

Transcript