That Council post pone consideration of the options outlined in the report titled “Emissions Intensive Heavy Industry Uses”, dated 2026-JUL-27, to allow for engagement with Snuneymuxw First Nation and the Nanaimo Prosperity Corporation to take place.
Procedural vote
Oh, no, what's for after. Sorry. Okay, I know we've got like four different options on the table. One of my concerns that, that I would like to see before we make a decision and I just throw that out. Is I would like to see engagement with, uh, same old First Nation before we even look at any determinations and better definitions. Like I think everybody knows my position. I think we need to look at gasification as an option. That's why he's asking the questions. And people, I think quite often mix up incineration with gasification. And I think biomass is netting like we said. Like I just don't have enough information yet. Like I agree. Like I think LNG is dangerous. Um, you know, like from the research I've done, I think that in petroleum, another, you know, concern I do have as well. But I don't think there's nothing information to make an informed decision right now. I'd like to hear more from that. You know, when we talk about community consultation, I think it's very important that we hear from some of the doctors that spoke as well so they can provide the, uh, their perspective for preventive medicine. I think it's important that we hear the economic benefits versus that. All of that. Because it is a big decision to make. I do understand site specific. But my issue is site specific is it's time consuming cost a lot of money. Um, if we don't get more information, like I was looking at number three, but part of me would like to make a motion to defer the decision until the engagement with, uh, SFN and Nanamo Prosperity Corporation, which was part of the original motion put in by, um, Councillor Hammond's be conducted and then be brought back to us after that conversation takes place because we have had conversations with SFN around industrial lands, especially when we're looking at, um, Duke Point area and all the rezones and stuff. So I just
on. And then bring it back to Council for the decision as to which options we want to look at. Because I think it's important that we hear SFN's perspective on these lands because we do know a lot of those areas are impacted by some of their hereditary and cultural stuff. And they haven't been consulted on this yet. So I would like to hear from them. That's just my personal viewpoint and also ENPC is to impacts. And then have another report come back to come back to us. It's just something I threw out before I make the big decision on yes or no. Or. So be a worship just to clarify. Would it be the same report and these same options coming back before you after
purpose for going to SFN first is I want to do it before it goes to public hearing. I think it's important that they be given as a government to government that we speak with them first. The reason I included NPC, because that was part of the original motion. That Councillor Hemmons was told that would happen, that didn't happen. So we're not getting a report that was requested by Council at the time. I agree. Like my other concern, which I've shared before, and it's been talked about at the regional district with, with, I can't remember Ben's last name. They are looking at gasification because we don't have the land. So that is being looked at. Many First Nations are being involved on you slave with tooth who have just struck a partnership with, uh, I can't remember the name of the group in Vancouver to do huge gasification because it's renewal. And they consider it green fuel. So that's my concern, the difference between gasification. And incineration. They're quite different. And I think it's important because in exactly what you said, Mr. Councillor Manley. SFN may come back and say, yes, we support site - specific zoning. I want to hear that from them. And we're okay to go to public hearing on every one of these. Or they may come back and say, you know what. We don't want to say specific on these. We want them gone, period. You know, so I would like to have that information before we get to a bylaw or whatever. And my other concern is, and I don't know how this will play with the government when we have a minister telling us to stay in our own lane. When we do this previously, which is concerning, because these bylaws have to go to them for approval, right? So I just believe it's better to engage with SFN from the start instead of waiting until we're already at a motion where we're going to rezone or we're going to do this. And they haven't even had a chance to weigh in yet. That's just my personal viewpoint. I prefer to consult first and then do it after. Thank
slowly. So speaking in support of deferral, I think it's essential that we get the nation's perspective on this as well as, um, when we have this initial debate, I did ask staff to get prosperities take on this as our economic development agency. Um, I would like to hear from them. So for me, I support the deferral to
Councillor Hemings. Thank you worship. I've already spoken, but I wanted to address Councillor Brown's comments. I actually find it a little rude to say that we don't care about prosperity or you don't. That's the organisation that Council has funded to give us expert advice on the development of the economy in the NINIMO. And we had a really great presentation from someone who's working very closely with prosperity. And I think they're doing really great work. So, um, I just found that a little out of line and I wanted to say that. I think prosperity is the right person or the right organisation because they have VIU at the table. They have deported the table. They have the airport at the table. So in terms of bringing perspectives of industrial players, absolutely they can go and get specifics. But I think they represent, um, our economic partners
worship. I will be supporting the motion, although I guess I feel I would prefer that it was less restrictive. I was very concerned when I read in the report and I highlighted it. That, and I quote, no engagement has taken place at this time. And I'm not blaming staff because I know they were hurrying to get this report back to us as directed. But I think the more communication and engagement, the better, certainly with SFN. I want to hear what the prosperity corporation has to say and absolutely what the industries that are going to be affected potentially have to say as well. So I think there's a lot of engagement that needs to happen. And, uh, I am not comfortable making a decision on this until that engagement has taken place. Thank you. Thank you.
you. Then and I will prosperity corporation has already identified priority sectors and emissions intents heavy industry is not one of them. They've, they've, uh, they've identified marine and blue economy, clean tech and sustainability and advanced manufacturing and industrial tech. I think the Nanaima Prosperity Corporation is already on the path to where this community should be going. And so, um, you know, we had that presentation on foreign direct investment. I wasn't in attendance that on that day, but I did meet with Mr. Stansfield and went over the presentation with him. Uh, in terms of CNAMO, they've been very clear. They want to be consulted when there are proposals for rezoning, in particular, anything that's going to create additional pollution in their territory. And so the only way that that can happen is by creating site - specific zoning. Right now, um, a proponent could come in, an international organisation could come in by land. Let's get a development permit for building an incinerator. And, um, there's, there would be no requirement for consultation, not with city council and not with, um, first nation. And in fact, we might be bound by international trade agreements. To, uh, watch that proposal get, get built. And, you know, have a company like Wheel Braider importing garbage. From Oregon, Washington state, because we do have a, uh, an international agreement with the United States on the transfer of hazardous waste. It's the counter the U. S. Agreement on transboundary movement of hazardous waste. And, uh, Oregon and Washington are closing incinerators. So we could become the garbage dump of the Pacific Northwest without so much as a public hearing. Or any consultation was the name of. So this is the root for consultation with NaNamel. This is how they would have a voice in anything that happens. And they've been very clear with us. I think that the letter that they sent on April 7th was very clear that they want input on industrial activity within their territory that adds any additional pollution. In our territory. I don't know of other bylaws where we have gone to consult with Sonema on changes to our bylaws. Um, but, but maybe somebody could educate me about that. But I don't, I don't support a deferral at this time. Uh, so I'll be
Mayor, through you. Um, I don't support the deferral. Main reason I think some of the options provided, from the community, uh, on certain emission, heavy emitting producing industries, um, that we can make an easily a decision on a couple of things. For example, petroleum refineries and LNG export facilities. That's pretty easy decision to make to prohibit data. And just in a sense, ask that if something came for like that, I'd have to go to public hearing. Uh, I think also the question of municipal waste to energy. Um, that's one that's even in our regional district, Solid Waste Management Plan that we don't support that. Um, that's something that we could easily go ahead with now. We know in 2014, there is a huge amount of public protests that shut down a proposal that didn't need to go to public hearing right into the province and got the Council involved. So let's just close the door on that, that they didn't quite close on 2014. Um, and then, uh, so option one for me is something that we could easily do tonight. Um, and we don't need it to refer to later. I think that's a very balanced approach because, uh, chemical plants immediately going ahead with prohibiting that and thermal electrical generators. There's a lot of nuance there. And the things that are very aligned with what this council wants to do that we would be closing the door on which we shouldn't. And our zoning bylaw lacks the, um, nuance and the specificity to actually, um, have a good process in place of what should go to public hearing. Um, and that's why, uh, I agree with having greater, uh, engagement with SFN, um, and with the community on reviewing our heavy industrial allowable uses and amending our zoning bylaw. And option three says direct staff to complete a comprehensive review of heavy industrial uses for the cities industrial zones as part of the zoning bylaw update project. That would be a great public process to go through and having a very close look at our heavy industrial uses and what we want to prohibit and ensure goes to public hearing or one that we can allow in a permissive use. And so I think going forward tonight with Option one and option three would one, do the no - brainers, um, that we don't really need to go out for continued engagement on. And then allow for a public process engagement on reviewing the other industrial uses and the definitions through a review of our heavy industrial uses. That would be making a decision on this item as opposed to prolonging inevitable because I know where the community stands on these issues. And if some proposal was put forward, that was heavy industrial use and proven emission. There would be a human cry and we'd have to fill up gallery and spend, uh, nights and nights and nights of hearing why the public wants greater public oversight on, uh, heavy industrial uses and heavy emitting industries. So I'm definitely not in support of
will be voting in favor of deferral. And the reason for me is I think there's no one at this table. In fact, no one in this region who wants to see unhealthy emissions. Nobody does. But the important part is, is that this is about industry. And we do need to speak to SFN. We do need to speak to the industries. We do need to speak to our NPC. We need to have as much information as we can to make the best decisions possible before we go to rezoning. That would be my preference always. So I'll be voting in favor of this. I wish that the motion said speak to industries as well as SFN. I wish we could put that in as a friendly amendment. I'll just put that out there. I think that it would be smarter to include those that are the most affected by this. And to get their expertise on what we are or are not doing. So that would be
of the saying in Judicial Community, nothing about us without us. Council received a letter July 22nd sent on Sunday night, the 26th from the Port of the Nanaimo, assigned by Donna Hayes. Uh, and from a joint letter from CENAMIC First Nation signed by Chief Mike Wise, uh, long request for the city of Nanaimo along with others to participate in a strategic economic round table, uh, involving numerous partners, uh, including, as they said, uh, transport Canada, industry Canada, housing infrastructure candidate, crowned induced relations candidate, National Defence candidates, the name. And then I'm a board authority DP world, British Lumber Ministry of Transportation. Infrastructure jobs economic growth relevant shippers, et cetera, et cetera. Councillor Manley, be the first to acknowledge that he then wrote in response to that. A short letter, uh, asking, pardon me. It was then followed up today, tonight, by a letter from Councillor Joseph, designated under the terms of the letter from Sanemach and the port. Saying it's come to the same exact tension that on July 27, 2026, Mayor and Councillor, considering options to amend the city of Bylaw, Navala 204500 related to emissions intensive industrial industrial uses, et cetera. We are mount Aaron Counsel. We address the issue of munitional governance related to missions intensive industry and our letters of April 7th. In that letter, we explained how every industrial activity's particular concern, et cetera. Since that letter, we have not been engaged in specific proposed zoning bylaw amendments or more generally unablishing a framework for missions, et cetera. Uh, so. Asking us essentially to not deal with this without further consultation. I think that is fairly clear. Um, we know that the port authority, a major economic driver and employer through the industries that are located there, uh, has not been consulted with respect. I won't be quite as harsh perhaps as Councillor Henns. But we fund the Nanaimo Prosperity Corporation for obvious reasons. I have to ask, what's the hurry here. I don't think anyone's going to build a liquid natural gas plant in the next few months or propose. I don't think we're going to see any of those things. What I do here is that the csanamic First Nation, who we've just taken enormous step down, the road, as I reminded everyone tonight, towards reconciliation, by ensuring they'll actually have the right to vote for mayor and counsel of this city with whom they have been working diligently in the last several years with a protocol agreement working group have basically said, hold your horses folks. Could you please consult with us not do anything further for the time being? Uh, that would be enough for me, let alone that need to consult with the port authority and the Community generally. We also have finally, and this will not please some folks because they seem to have become the whipping boy in the community around heavy industry. But a letter from Mr. Sadler on behalf of the Namo Forest Product saying, as did everybody else in the community, just saw the report that was prepared by staff, which we received just last week in accordance with the agenda, like everybody else, saying thank you for the opportunity to review and provide plum or any comments on this evening. I will planning a department emissions intensive heavy industry uses report to Council in advance of the July 27, 2026 Special Counsel meeting. That stated July 24th. That's when it's public for everybody. We ask that counts prior to Council adopting any of the options presented in the report that staff and council invite all I for landowners to participate in a thorough consultation to review the current uses and the impacts of proposed restrictions on existing businesses and future plans for those businesses. Because this isn't just about today about existing industry. This is about what the Community's Future might look like. And with respect, it's becoming pretty obvious. I would hope in this community, given the protests around taxation levels, that if you don't have an industrial base, then you have to tax residential owners more to pay for what everyone wants and seems to regard as important. I was much moved by the honest response around poverty and isolation being significant contributors to the health of the community and its citizens. So unless someone can convince me, and I doubt very much they're going to, for you can tell from the tone of my voice. That there is no necessity to do this tonight. Deferl is the appropriate thing. Process is important. It is the ways our society operates. I'm going to support the motion to defer until the Community Consultation. I am not about to participate in creating a controversy tonight by trying to pass a motion. It'll simply further divide this community. We've already had enough submissions in the last few months about various attitudes about heavy industry and employment and the economy. I think it's time for us to take a step back. Defer this, discuss it, get staff to do their work, listen to the public, give the public a full opportunity to be heard. Strikes me as logical. Never hurts to listen. It does not always pay, however, just to talk.
you. I'm going to refer to, um, you have table one and then two paragraphs down. It says the city's currently in the process of reviewing the zoning bylaw. As part of their update. And as part of the update, staff will complete a comprehensive review of heavy industrial uses for cities industrial zones, which provide an opportunity to rebus practices. So why are we doing this now if this review hasn't been completed yet? Because, you know, my concern is there's been no engagement with SFN or industry or anomal prosperity corporation. Like I don't have enough information yet to make an informed decision. And then I'll ask a
second question after. I can speak to that through your worship to Council Armstrong. So, uh, specific direction from Council on emissions intensive, uh, heavy industry. Is what, um, what was requested options to prohibit certain uses. That were considered emissions intensive heavy industry. The zoning bylaw would have not necessarily focused on those uses. But as part of the zoning bylaw update, we would look at alignment of, um, of industrial uses with city plan with the OCP. In
Follow up, please. And then my second question's on gasification, which is different than incineration. Uh, these conversations are happening with, uh, the RDN waste because we know our landfill's going to die out shortly. So how would that impact that would gasification fall under incineration since they're two separate
things. I think, um, that would depend on how, um, it would depend on how ways to energy incineration is defined. Would be my answer. But, um, it's at this point, uh, there's not been, um, is not a definition hasn't been developed. And that's something that could be considered. Through, uh, engagement with, um, stakeholders like you're suggesting. I'll
Protect those uses continuing. So there are implications there, of course, but there are provisions in the local government Act. Okay. So it wouldn't affect their current uses. And, um, I assume that that would also include, uh, the biomass cogeneration facility. They use hog fuel would waste byproducts. And that would still be considered an accessory use, even if they expanded, um, their biomass cogeneration facility.
Through the chair to Councillor Manley. With respect to HARMAC, we have a specific use that's permitted in the I4 zone. That's wood and paper processing. Um, which is what HRMAC would fall under currently. Um, with cogeneration, that is one thing that we identified in the staff report is the challenge with, um, uh, removing it outright as a permitted use is that it wouldn't cover accessory uses. So, uh, in the case of HERMAC generating power for, for other uses, they're biomass side. So it is accessory to
Any questions for the delegation, Councillor Thorpe? Yes, I do your worship. Thank you very much through you, FAM's Mr. Chapman. Thank you. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly because I'm not sure of what I heard. And that was, you seem to be recommending option four. An option four, in my agenda, simply says that
Council provides alternate direction. Yes. So that's why I suggested elements of the other options that would be what you like. What that direction to staff would be. Right. Thank
Frank by Azuma, I understand. Hi, indeed, yes. I presume
you. Great. Thank you. Hello. I'm Dr. Erica Frank. I'm a professor and physician at UBC and I'm speaking supportive item 12C to create better accountability and clearer commitment to preserving the substantial lures of Nanaimo's healthy ecosystems. I wear another PET in addition to physician and professor that's useful here too. As an elected city councillor for six years at UBC's University neighbourhood association, I appreciate the needs that you have to balance. I hope to encourage you to move away from the notion of an anything goes heavy industry zone with its assorted toxic gases and effluence from the admissions. Intense heavy industry that's currently allowed in our bylaws. I came to UBC in 2006 as the Canada Research Chair and Preventive Medicine and Population Health. Pleased to be part of BC's extraordinary health promoting ecosystem for both humans and the environment. And that drew me to live on the island and to buy land and plan to settle in cedar. The remarkable ability we have to live in a well - zoned wilderness at the doorway of a gateway city like Nanaimo. That's why I wanted to live here and contribute this to this community. And so I don't want to stand passively by and allow these irreplaceable natural health - promoting resources get spoiled by short - sighted policies. I'm a specialist in preventive medicine and was the Canadian Medical Association's 2016 nominee for the director of the World Health Organisation. And it's clear to me here locally that if Nanaimo wants to retain and enhance its reputation as a healthy and desirable place to live, that these recommendations that waste to energy incinerators, chemical plants, thermal - energy generators, petroleum refineries and LNG export facilities. Indeed, have little place in such an ecosystem along with their toxic gases and effluence. In particular, this includes as a familiar to council, I imagine by this time given the many discussions you've had on incineration, uh, products of combustion like VOC's volatile organic compounds like benzene that cause respiratory and nervous system and renal and hepatic injury injuries to our lungs, to our livers, to our kidneys and to our nervous systems and that are also known carcinogens. The same is true of another product of combustion dioxins, which are carcinogens as well as endocrine and immune disruptors. And when something as singingly inert and as innocent as plastics are combusted, the resultant dioxins, the landscapes. Landing on the fruits and directly and getting bioconcentrate in the animals, um, that we eat both the terrestrial ones and the aquatic ones. So I would submit in closing that these recommendations form an extraordinary opportunity to maintain this system, not to discard this chance to keep a truly wild space, adjoining a substantial city, a space with environmental health that supports human health. Such preventive medicine opportunities as these are really rare in the world. It's what brought me to Nanaimo and what I think makes it special and attractive and providing extraordinary leadership. And so I encourage the council to support these wise recommendations. Thank you. Thank
Thank you very much. And I just wondered if you could comment on the difference between gasification and incineration and your experience. We see all of Europe and Asia going towards gasification. Is there a big difference or do you still share the same concerns about gasification as incineration. Um,
that actually is something that I can speak to having been, um, on city council at UBC when we allowed the, uh, bio - research, excuse me, the biofuel research incineration facility and gasification facility to happen at UBC. Um, I was responsible actually for making, giving the social license to make sure that that was, um, properly monitored. Um, there are, uh, different. And typically fewer issues with gasification than within incineration. But, uh, it is not, uh, it does not allow cart blanche. And the, um, the places where it's been used for things like, um, gasification of wood pulp like happens, um, at, at UBC and wood chips and waste wood. That's a really clean stream with no plastics in it, for example. That really make me very confident that dioxins, for example, won't be an issue. Um, if you're talking about gasification of less pure waste streams, which this would be obviously, they're quite a number of residual considerations for that as well. Thank you for
Presentation. And thank you for that information about gasification and the difference between, um, regular garbage and biomass. I think that's an important distinction. Um, you're a doctor and preventative medicine. That's your area of expertise. You would say, would you say that, uh, health care is more about more than just, uh, bricks and mortar. It's about the environment
that we all live in. Yeah. At the, um, at the cable bay hearing, um, in April where I submitted, uh, written comments, the representative from HRMAC suggested that doctors like me would want to come to Nanaimo to be able to take care of a well employed population and having worked in occupational health and safety. I, I am a whole lot more interested in social determinants of health in this extraordinary ecosystem that we've created and preserved. And. Ability to have, uh, the medicine on social determinants of health on environmental health. And the NIMO really is at such a pivotal place and has such an extraordinary opportunity for leadership, um, that this seems like another place where we could really be a shining star in terms of attracting, um, both humans and, um, retaining an ecosystem with employers that want to provide this health promoting. System. Are
You aware of statistics around people who live close to heavy arterial routes, uh, the life expectancy of people who live, you know, perhaps near a freeway as opposed to those who, uh, live farther away from, uh, sources of
emissions. Yeah. There are, um, I can't, I'm happy to provide you with explicit data and follow if you'd like, but, um, find particulates, um, such as happen from, um, emissions both from transportation and also from stable sources. Those, uh, those exacerbate worsen, uh, asthma, um, uh, these, uh, many of these products, uh, create ground level ozone, which also worsen asthma, um, as well as, uh, worsening other, um, pulmonary and cardiac conditions too. Thank you for your
Councillor Manley. Thank you very much, doctor. My question is going towards LNG. I was doing a lot of research on the CEDEMAT thing because that's very controversial up there, obviously. Um, and they show that, um, they have a 74 percent higher rate of asthma. Is that linked directly to the LNG or could that also be to the,
um, aluminum plant Earth combination? Very many factors. And in CEDAMOT specifically, they do have a very affected airshed because they have already had RioTintol Alcancility there for many years. And they are in a vulnerable airshed with the way their geography is and maintaining those emissions within the atmosphere. So as a specific example, CIDAMAT is at very high risk because of their airshed due to the combination of alkane, RioTento activities, plus LNG Canada. And now the potential for expanding to LNG Canada phase two and the floating
LNG test. In the fall, if I may, because, um, from reading what I've read, I understand a lot of the issues come at the FLIRUP times. And the government only keeps the records for 30 days. Then they destroy them. So would that make it hard for you to, or any physician or whatever to trace back? Because like, would it not be a good recommendation to have those records kept for a lot longer than 30 days? Oh,
absolutely. Yeah, it's very difficult to make direct connections between outcomes and what their causes, because this is the real world. There are many factors impacting individuals health. Um, but there have been for sure issues with kind of record keeping, as you said, but also with actual monitoring and regulation. There's been many revealing news stories, uh, studies coming out showing that, um, there have been industrial issues causing flaring to be much higher than the regulated and permitted amount. And also evidence that, um, the kind of permitted amount of flaring is considered on a kind of average operations basis as opposed to during the startup phase, which can actually last for multiple years when flaring and emissions from flaring are actually much higher. And those emissions are not being monitored or accounted for inregulating. Thank you very
much, Councillor Brown. You think so much. Thanks so much for being here. I'm just curious, I wanted to ask the same question to other presenters. But is there any localized data based on the impact of existing industry on
Things like respiratory health and things like that? Not that
I'm aware of. There's some BC specific data. And there are some studies in certain areas in Vancouver about markers of air quality and health outcomes next to very busy arterial roots like traffic routes, but I don't know of
any of the nine. Right. And just one other question. And if you don't have the answer, I know it's off the cuff here. So is there a research out there about the impacts of say like automobile use and the, obviously it's pretty known. The pollution causing in comparison to industry, especially in some of the other areas reference, like what's the ratio of damage? And I know that can be hard, but I'm just curious if that comparative
analysis is out there. Um, I think, um, I don't know that they've been able to tease out specific in sort of, um, like traffic versus, um, industry, uh, emissions from industry. Although again, the study that I was talking about for Vancouver, the, they were taking samples and trying to trace back, um, sort of where the different particulate matter came from. But again, that's sort of somewhere that was really close to a very busy highway. And so of course, a lot of it was traffic. So absolutely pollution from traffic plays a big role. Um, as do wildfires, um, but yeah, the, the emissions from heavy industry
their wood and paper processing use. And it's already, um, in operation. So it wouldn't be affected. Would an expansion
of that be affected. Mr. Holm, uh, three worship provided, it wasn't a principal use. And it remained an accessory use. Then I would say no. A lot of it's going to come down to the details and what their longer term plans are. But, uh, if it's an accessory operation to the, uh, what was the definition again, Christine. Um, thank you, Ms. Mays. Wood and paper processing. If it's accessory to that, then no, then it wouldn't be impacted if we were thoughtful and careful in the way we defined waste energy. And we were sure not to exclude that use as a co - generation as an accessory use. Than it could be, could continue as accessory to the wooden wooden paper processing use. But it would not be able to, uh, exist as a, um,
delegation is Paul Chapman. Please. Uh, hello. My name is Paul Chapman. I live in the old city neighbourhood in St. Naok territory. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you tonight. I'm going to be speaking about the virtues of site - specific zoning. For certain industrial uses that are currently allowed under our zoning bylaw. I think there will be people after me, delegations after me that will be speaking to some of the real world impacts and implications of being permissive. In what you include in your industrial zoning. So I'm going to just speak about the opportunities that, um, site specific zoning offers. And I think the primary one is that it allows the voice of community concern through council to be considered. For these impactful industries. And when I'm saying impactful, I'm talking about heavy polluting industries. We don't have to reach back that far. Do you remember the concerns around the data centre at Wellington? We don't have to reach back that far to remember the community concerns expressed around the possible expansion of industrial zoning cable bay. We don't even have to reach back that far to remember the community concern around the waste energy facility that was proposed to import waste from Vancouver for power generation. And, you know, how close, how near that was to becoming part of our airshed and a permanent way. Site - specific zoning isn't a blanket ban on industry. It looks at the costs and benefits. It can require rather than suggest best practices. And it strengthens a social license between the industry and the community. It can be, but it need not necessarily be an opportunity for Council to say no. For proponents that don't meet that social license. It doesn't mean you can't consider the industry. It means you must consider the industry. As Councillor Brown and others have previously pointed out, land use is a purview of city council. And the Community Voices heard at the incinerator protest and during the data centre debate. And at the cable bay rezoning, public hearing support the thoughtful consideration of site - specific zoning. I think that Option 4 from the staff report is the best one. And really it's about bringing in elements of the other options to give you a way forward here. So there's the options kind of in one and two around the removal of certain industries from being permitted that automatic permission under industrial zoning. And that's really the cautionary principle as the other element of Option 3 where there's a comprehensive review. And through that comprehensive review, you figure out which ones are permanently removed and then become part of site - specific zoning. And if there are ones that are deemed to be not harmful to our airshed to our watership, they can go back into the industrial zoning. Um. So I thank you for your thoughtful consideration