August 9th, 2022
RE: Endorsement of Tofino Housing Corporation future development site identification and purchase process
Dear Mayor Law and Tofino Council,
In April 2022 District staff presented a report to Committee of the Whole with respect to the following Council resolution passed during the DL 114 rezoning:
THAT staff be authorized to conduct a review of those District-owned lands outside of the proposed development and make recommendations to Council for areas appropriate for environmental protection through zoning, covenants or other means.
The Committee received the report from staff.
From the discussion that occurred at that meeting THC understands that there are hesitations with whether any additional development on District Lot 114 (DL 114) should occur after the first 5 lots that have been subdivided are developed (2 apartment buildings, 3 duplexes).
THC understands the concerns raised by members of the public and Council include:
• The area is covered by mature forest, which has biodiversity, wildlife and climate mitigation benefits;
• The lands are part of the trail network that provides access to Tonquin Beach and Tlaa-kaa-shiis / the Tonquin Forest area, and it is relatively close to the residential area of Tofino which has benefits for residents and tourists alike;
• The planned density will change the character of the neighbourhood;
• There are hesitations about whether so much housing is needed given other planned non-
market and market developments As has been emphasized by the THC:
• The DL 114 lands are identified for Future Housing in the Official Community Plan;
• DL 114 has been identified for housing development by District policies since 2005;
• The business strategy adopted by the THC in 2018 and shared with Council anticipated being
able use a portion of these lands for future housing, including the sale of land for market
development to support below-market, affordable housing development.
• Preliminary analysis by THC suggests only about 20-25% of DL 114 is suitable for development
(less than 10% has been developed to date) with about 75-80% of the DL 114 lands most
suitable for conservation; and
• THC is considering both the shorter-term 2030 Strategic Plan development target (180 homes)
and long-term expectations for below market housing need in Tofino (400 homes +).
Page 3 of 5
Within this context THC understands there is a need to work with District staff to consider the various options for where additional THC facilitated below-market housing development could occur alongside conservation priorities and options for DL 114. THC is seeking endorsement of the following project components:
• Identification of opportunities for below market housing in association with new developments and other partners (may include private development lands, hospital lands, Mount Colnet lands, school lands, Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation lands and other partners as they emerge);
• Consideration of development opportunities on District lands other than DL 114 (see table);
• Consideration of different development / conservation scenarios for DL 114;
• Consideration of financing requirements to acquire private lands for below market housing
development;
• Development of a decision-making framework to guide decisions about using identified District
lands (whether DL 114 or elsewhere) for below market housing development as the community
need requires it; and
• A public engagement and consultation process to allow a broad segment of the Tofino public to
indicate their preferred priority between the development options identified with potential partners, conservation and development options for DL 114 and other District lands, or implementing the financing options to acquire private lands.
THC is proposing to include, in addition to DL 114, the District lands listed in the table below for further consideration in the review. The table also includes possible development scenarios for the selected District lands. THC would like to emphasize to Council and members of the public we are not proposing any of these developments, but rather if development was determined to be appropriate at the location identified what scale of development could be realised. The project work would include additional assessment of development feasibility and potential, and allow for future public input into prioritizing appropriate development scenarios. Many of the District lands are already slated for other uses, are in a poor location, constrained by covenants or also have high environmental values. There are three parcels currently dedicated, but not actively used, as Parks that we believe should be part of the assessment. We would request that Council indicate if any of the lands identified below should be removed from consideration.
Property
181 1st Street 720 Campbell St
Third and Main Parking Lot
Parking beside Municipal Hall Lone Cone Rd Park
Size (m2/ac)
620 / 0.15 1,835 / 0.40
1,345 / 0.33
1,345 / 0.33 6,616 / 1.63
Initial projected density
8-10 3-storey stacked townhouses
12-15 3-storey townhouses
30 units in 3 storey apartment
As above
70 units in 3.5 storey apartment
Comments
Treed, rocky
Waterfront, steep, potentially suited to some higher priced housing to raise money for below-market projects Limited by parking options and heigh of development; 5-6 stories likely required to justify underground parking
As above
Dedicated park, partially cleared, steep towards Lone Cone
Page 4 of 5
Abraham Drive Park (rectangle) Parkland off Lynn Rd
Abraham Drive Park (skinny section)
Park west of Yew Wood subdivision
2,260 / 0.56 10,236 / 2.53 TBD
7,400 / 1/81
21 units in 3 storey apartment
35 units as 2.5 storey townhouses
TBD TBD
Dedicated park, treed, gully with riparian area?
Dedicated park, treed, relatively flat
Is only 20m wide – could it be tiny home walk-in site?
No access unless via DL 117
DL 117
TBD
TBD
Similarly treed and with trail network to the community centre/Tonquin Beach; need to confirm surplus lands after WWTP project.
District Lands not included:
• 174 Grice Rd; covenanted for conservation
• Campbell Street Park / Skate Park / Tennis Courts; developed park
• First Street Park; developed park
• Tonquin Park; already used park
• Public Works Yard; no surplus land
• Sharp Rd Lift Station
• Cemetery (1980 Pacific Rim Highway)
• Cox bay Parking Area
• Tourist information pullout
• 1368 Pacific Rim Hwy (Jensen’s Bay); covenanted to subdivision owners for P2 use only
• DL 118, DL 119; no access, mature forest
With Council endorsement of this approach THC will be more confident to spend MRDT resources on some of the initial work components and be able to work with staff on a joint project plan for the next budget cycle.
Cordially,
Ian Scott, MCIP, RPP Interim Executive Director
Page 5 of 5
30 comments:
Best to lead this guy away in a straight jacket
Please Dan Law , stop the gravy train !
If we could only move the grave sites in the cemetery it could make a wonderful trailer park.
Maybe we could buy up some cheap land after private development as been refused. Just saying.
Isn't it amazing. Council is pitched this laundry list of lunacy in one of their last meetings. Desperate attempt at insurance incase a more prudent council comes into power and ruins the free for all.
Is this all for real. This is hard to believe. It just seems like the ravings of a madman.
It is all too easy to describe Mr. Scott as a kind of modern day carpetbagger( look it up, the definitions seem perfectly applicable) but that would ignore these idiot councilors who are his enablers.
ENOUGH! If this individual was paid to do this by the DOT it's time for it to stop. This is nonsense. It's time to finish the project on DL 114 and stop. This individual has set himself up to be a permanent indispensable unit of expense for the district, and I might add an unlimited expense so far. Billing the district $5000 every time he drives up here from Victoria is utter nonsense. Not only is it nonsense it is a significant waste of taxpayer money.
If this craziness is why our taxes increased by 11% I implore the district council to give their heads a good shaking, pull their heads out of sand, and act as responsible fiscal managers of the district. Get rid of this cancer making itself bigger and bigger at our expense.
Did it ever occur to anyone that our interim housing Director maybe more interested in creating more income for the catalyst corporation?
Why not simply inform Mr. Scott that he's free to design and describe any type of housing scheme he likes. However, he should be aware that DOT council has authorized ZERO funds, and staff are authorized to spend ZERO hours on Mr. Scott's proposals.
Sorry, Ian. Josie's gone. Fend for yourself.
Scott suggests "• A public engagement and consultation process to allow a broad segment of the Tofino public to indicate their preferred priority between the development options identified with potential partners, conservation and development options for DL 114 and other District lands, or implementing the financing options to acquire private lands."
Where was his "engagement and consultation process" during the public meeting regarding the current DL114 scheme, where almost 100% of the submissions, oral and written, were against his project proceeding, but it was railroaded ahead regardless of what the public wanted?
Scott already has a bunch of funding and free land to spend it on. Let's see what he can do with that, first, before any thoughts about increasing anything.
I've seen those places on Sharpe Road. I ain't impressed. Homes? Really?
6:57 AM. Ian Scott = Cancer. Love it! Well said.
I've watched the affordable housing program very carefully since day 1 because I badly needed housing. the original strategy was 1/3 home ownership, 1/3 condo ownership, and 1/3 long term rental. all rent and price controlled.
the presale of 10 tiny home lots would pay for the road and servicing with the bigger buildings contracted out based on presale condos and rentals. lots of details but the thrust of affordable housing was to create an opportunity to own a home here and have a family..........not in its present state with a all units being built rented out by a Vancouver company for 50 years. on district land. more like staff housing. its sickening how badly this maniac has bamboozled the DOT into this scenario and now wants a free hand with our lands and money. enough is enough!
This is a part of the legacy of "Josie, the best mayor that Tofino ever had!" That woman did damage that people aren't even aware of yet, debt that will burden the community for decades. A slum on Sharp Rd and another slum off Petersen. Public land given away. Public funds wasted. Her friends entrenched in the district office, at huge cost, and no way to remove them. Schemes like THC the daily norm. The future looks grim.
Thank God we got rid of those plastic straws.
7:43PM, This guy is not a maniac. He's a clever, calculating, focused individual. He's a friend of Josie's, another one. His hand is in your pocket only indirectly, he's not a direct employee of DOT, just a dedicated citizen wanting to supply Tofino with affordable housing, trying to "help" us.
Aren't we blessed.
My guess is everyone commenting here already has housing.
To 9:16 There are many realities here in Tough. You want to pit one part of the town against another? Way to go.
Ok let's go that route.
Affordable Housing has cost the taxpayers of Tofino over 4 million since it's inception. In land, in forgiveness of standard fees, in free services, in taxes, cash, and salaries and consultants fees paid and on and on. It is excessive and an uneconomical use of public finds and resources.
But Tofino councils foolish and fruitless pursuit has cost us more deeply than that large amount might indicates. In the fifteen years that council did not advance any significant private or public rezoning for housing development, the price of construction has tripled. There was a time when Tofino could have had very affordable housing developed at no cost to the taxpayer at all. Now the costs are astronomical and /Tofino is prepared to proceed at any cost. And who is paying for it. Are you 9:16. My guess is you think everyone who wanders down the road to live in Tofino, for a year or two needs to be subsidized by the taxpayer. Subsidized by the people who are moving out in increasing numbers, because they can't afford 11% compounded annually forever. while people think them all rich because they have a house in Tofino.
Just wondering if anyone here listened to the meeting yesterday? Sounded more like putting the brakes on than proceeding at any cost.
To 10:52
I am paying actually and am in favour of this type of development to allow for other people to live here who will live, work and volunteer. It has not cost the taxpayer $4 million - you need to research the history of the funding. I highly doubt you would have been in favour of it back when it was affordable either!
Could you please tell us the actual cost ? Thank you, Ralph
are you kidding? This is all rental housing with the income going to an out of town company. The cost of building the road that is now being constructed to pop out behind the community hall was quoted at $1 million in 2005 by Keith Gibson. I would suggest that it's probably more than double that now. Some of the cost of the affordable housing project that is being built now and the one already on Sharp Road is hazy. Are their taxes deferred? who is paying for the basic infrastructure, services, Road building engineering etc for the site on DL 114? Tack those costs onto the last 20 some odd years of budget items for the Tofino housing corporation and we might be lucky if it's only $4 million. This is mystery work & the public is not supposed to know what's going on
we need to call into question disabilities of various councils to do simple math when it comes to looking at a budget.
Then I would have to wonder about their abilities to understand the actual cost of doing something compared to the budget estimate.
Also call into question the sanity of various commenters herein.......
In former times , the district made available building lots available to locals . They were sold for the price of servicing with the covenant that building had to take place within a two year time frame. These lots gave people a chance at home ownership , not rentals.
There is no reason why this couldn’t have happened again. The district decided instead to opt for a rental plan that keeps the revenue going to the management company rather than home owners gaining equity in their own homes. At the same time , the district has actively discouraged any private developments citing water restrictions.
Gibson Heights was already zoned for single family homes so proceeded. Same with Yew Wood condos. It is possible that a development that embraces “affordable” housing could proceed. I guess they use less water.
Auditors had to correct THC books in the last year. They (mis) represented the value of the land associated with current projects Instead of around $400,000. Auditors identified real value as more into the millions. No doubt this was an accounting "error". Who was responsible for this. The councilors? were they asleep? or was it some one whose interests were advanced by underrepresenting the real costs of THC activity?. You tell me.
a
Ralph, you are so correct. But I have to say somewhat sarcastically, in those days councils were unsophisticated. They did not solve everyone's problems. They just provided the conditions for people to create their own success. Currently that is viewed as a radical right wing nut bar idea. Today our experts can only imagine solutions that involve government doing everything while the people, individually, are disempowered. Both methods can work but one comes with enormous costs and produces a weak and dependant population. Just what current politics requires.
This sure would have been a cheaper way for the community to provide staff housing. Just anchor it in the harbour.
https://comoxvalley.craigslist.org/bod/d/langley-city-camp-facility-offers/7515416341.html
In regard to the auditor having to correct the mis-valuation of the district Lands from the hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars: this was what I am getting at... It amounts to giving away millions of dollars to a Vancouver company which will create a rental income for at least the next 50 years for the company. There's a question there of whose friends they are or something like that - stinks to high heaven. I call into question the basic mental competence of the council at the time who failed to understand what they were giving away and why were they giving it away?
A couple of years ago I had a conversation with someone on the beach who was doing for other small BC communities, exactly what Catalyst was doing for Tofino. The only difference being he had never seen a community that "sweetened the pot" to the extent Tofino did. "over the top and round the bend" was the expression he used. That is all I know.. Now you guys fight it out.
According to the mayor it is a "rule" that nothing controversial will be discussed 3 months before an election!
Election? We're having an election? I thought those people were elected, like, forever. Who has reached end of term?
Doesn't really matter, so long as Al is still there afterwards. Tradition, y'know.
Opportunity to "throw all the bums out". Who will be the "Tofino First" candidate?????
Sharp rd isn’t a slum
Post a Comment