[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