Transcript: Council - 2026-07-20

Speaker A · Sa.

Speaker B · Significant.

Speaker C · Welcome everyone to council meeting on Monday, July 20th. Our final meeting for the summer. I would look for a motion to reconvene the regular meeting of council Councillor Cavan, Seconder Councillor Helliwell. All those in favor? Any opposed?

Speaker C · None opposed. We do have councillor Braham online. And so Councillor Bram, the usual rules. If you feel you're being ignored, speak up and we will assume you're voting in the affirmative unless you indicate otherwise.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker C · Thank you. Thank you. And I will look to Councillor Cavins for the territorial acknowledgement.

Speaker E · The township conducts its business on the traditional territories, the Lekongan speaking peoples, and works to be increasingly mindful of its commitment to more inclusive governance with our neighbors. We are committed to building stronger working relationships with both the Kasapsim and the song He's Nation.

Speaker C · Thank you. All right, there are late items to add to the agenda under item 7. 2, deer fencing, regulation, item 10. 1, 10. 2 and 12. 1. So with those additions, if I could

Speaker F · get a move approval with the additions.

Speaker C · Thank you. Is there a seconder? Councilor Boardman. Thank you. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. Now, favorite time of the night and if I could have Mr. Mike Miller to come forward, please.

Speaker G · It is my pleasure to recognize an individual who truly embodies the spirit of volunteerism, community service and dedication. In Esquimalt, the Township Community Arts Council has nominated Mike Miller as a deserving recipient of the Esquimalt Volunteer Spirit Award.

Speaker G · And it's easy to understand why. A pillar of a community is someone who can be relied upon. Someone whose steady contributions help strengthen the organizations and the people around them. Mike is exactly that kind of person.

Speaker G · For many years, Mike has been an essential part of the Township Community Arts Council, serving as vice president and providing dependable leadership and support. He has played a key role in the success of the Memorial Park Music Fest, organizing outstanding local musicians who have entertained residents and visitors throughout July and August. And just a reminder, tomorrow night is the next one.

Speaker G · When the uncertainty of the COVID 19 pandemic brought many community events to to a standstill, Mike refused to let community spirit fade. In 2021, he developed a plan that complied with public health requirements, ensuring that Music Fest could continue safely. Thanks to his determination and creativity, the event carried on and has continued to thrive ever since. Mike's contributions extend well beyond the arts council. He has been an active organizer with the Esquimalt Celebration of Lights, helping to create memorable community experiences that bring residents together. His commitment to service reaches even further. Mike volunteers at numerous CRD events and proudly served Canada in the Royal Canadian Navy for more than 30 years. Today he continues to support our local military community as a civilian employee at CFB esquimalt.

Speaker G · Throughout his many roles, Mike consistently demonstrated generosity and a deep commitment to serving others. He is a community builder, a dedicated volunteer and a kind hearted friend to many. On behalf of the Township and our community. Thank you Mike for your outstanding contributions and all that you do to make Esquimault a stronger, more vibrant and more connected community. Please join me in congratulating Mike Miller, a truly deserving recipient of the Esquimalt Volunteer Spirit Award.

Speaker H · It.

Speaker C · That is truly the best way to stay Start a Meeting all right, so we have the minutes of the regular Council meeting held on July 6th. I look for a motion to adopt Please thank you. Seconder any errors, omissions or changes required. Seeing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. We are now moving into a public hearing and this is to afford all persons who deem their interest in property affected by the bylaw an opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions before the Municipal Council on matters contained in the bylaw.

Speaker C · This is a public hearing pertaining to proposed bylaw number 3183, which would allow and regulate deer fences and deer fence extensions on residentially zoned parcels containing six or fewer dwelling units in the Township of Esquimo. Please be reminded at this meeting that this meeting is being live streamed and that a recording will be archived on the Township's website for future public viewing. Personal information, including your image and personal opinions may be collected and disclosed as part of the Council proceedings on the video. So when providing your support or your opposition to the proposed bylaw, please do not provide any personal information about a third party as you may be disclosing their personal information without their consent.

Speaker C · So the order of business at the public hearing is as follows. We have the introduction of the proposed bylaw and application by staff. We will have questions from council to staff for clarification. Formal receipt of written submissions provided prior to the public hearing. I will invite any comments on the bylaw from members of the public, either in the room or on the phone, because I understand there is someone on the phone and we will do formal receipt of additional written submissions, if any, and then the public hearing is closed and no further information can be provided.

Speaker C · So I know you've all heard the rules in the past, but I'll just quickly run through them. Everyone wishing an opportunity to speak will Be heard. Speakers are asked to limit your comments to two minutes once everyone has had a chance to speak. Those wishing to speak again only if you have new information. The township, including the council chambers is a workplace that value respect. So please keep your comments respectful. All comments are to be directed to mayor and council. The purpose of the hearing is to give council an opportunity to listen to the views expressed by the public. It is not council's function at this hearing to debate the merits of the proposed bylaw with individual citizens or among amongst ourselves.

Speaker C · There is information on the back table about the proceeding and this hearing and as chair I reserve the right to conclude any presentation made by member of the public that does not relate to the proposed bylaw, is disrespectful toward any person or is repetitive of views that you've that the speaker has already put forward forward.

Speaker C · Council will listen to the opinions expressed during the hearing with an open mind and members of council remain amenable to persuasion. So I will now invite the director of Development Services to introduce the application and purpose of bylaw number 3183.

Speaker H · Your worship, members of council, Mr. Lebowski will present over you and background on behalf of the department.

Speaker I · Thank you.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker J · Good evening.

Speaker K · Mayor, Councillors, members of the public

Speaker H · are here.

Speaker K · I'm going to talk about deer fencing regulations that we're adding to the zoning bylaw and potentially have third reading of the bylaw after this. So first I'll just introduce the deer that we have in the township. They are called Colombian black tailed deer. They're native to Vancouver Island. They can jump over 2 meters and they can pass through holes that are 20 centimeters by 20 centimeters square. Deer can become entangled if they can fit their legs or snout through a fence. So this information will be relevant for later in the presentation. Give you a timeline of how we've gotten here. In 2021, council received a report outlining potential changes to the zoning bylaw and deer fencing. That was. That was simply received for information.

Speaker K · It became a council priority in June 2025 and then staff did some research and we presented a report in January. At that meeting we got direction to use the Saanich bylaws as a model, however allowing for front yard deer fencing as well, which Saanich does not allow. In April, this was presented to the Advisory Planning Commission which recommended approval without amendments. And then council in May gave first and second readings with no amendments. I'll introduce the actual amendments. The fence is meant to be 5 x 10 cm, a mesh, a woven wire mesh that's 5 x 10 cm or less. And the woven wire mesh is used because it's a durable material that's safe for deer.

Speaker K · We looked at netting or plastic, but that can get cotton, deer antlers or legs. And it can trap other animals such as bats, reptiles, and amphibians. Woven wire mesh also avoids this problem. It's very durable compared to the other materials. So we've added two definitions, deer fence and deer fence extension. The deer fence is basically a deer fence from the bottom all the way to the top. And a deer fence extension is meant to be built on top of an existing fence. And fences are 1. 2 meters high if they're in the front yard or they're 2 meters high if they're in the backyard. But deer fence extensions are built above that. We're limiting the height of these deer fences and deer fence extensions to 2. 5 meters.

Speaker K · As I said previously, deer can jump up to 2 meters, but occasionally they've been known to jump jump even higher. So 2. 5 meters is a safe height to prevent even the most agile deer from jumping over that. And it's only in residential zones with six or fewer dwelling units, and that's per lot. So if it doesn't include apartment buildings, it doesn't include large townhouse complexes with

Speaker H · or

Speaker K · it's six units per lot. The other thing we're considering here are we don't want the deer to get injured. So we've added rules that above a height of 1. 2 meters, there should not be any finials, protrusions, or other elements that could impale or injure deer attempting to jump over it. And that includes horizontal bars at the top of deer that you see in many deer fences, because if a deer hits the top of the bar, it could get injured as well. So those things are not permitted from our perspective. And this picture is actually a deer fence that is in a squamal. This was taken last week. This is an example.

Speaker K · We can use other types of metal, perhaps, that are more durable, but this shows what a deer fence could look like. Thank you. I'll take any questions.

Speaker C · Thank you. Are there questions for staff? Any questions?

Speaker D · Not at this time. Thank you.

Speaker C · All right. And no questions. All right, we will move on. Thank you. And we are now down to public input. Anyone wishing to speak to the bylaw included in this proposal is invited to provide your comments. Now.

Speaker C · You're reminded that your comments may be recorded. Please limit your comments to two minutes. And you will see there is a series of lights there. Green means go Yellow means you're almost done, and red means stop.

Speaker C · And please state your name and address for the record and welcome.

Speaker L · Thank you. My name is Craig Model. I live at 908 Dunsmuh Road. I'm here on behalf of a few other people that couldn't make it tonight. First of all, your honor, mayor, council, thank you all for pursuing this issue. It's taken a while, I know, but it's heartily welcomed. I would also like to say a great thank you for Mr. It's great. I'm here with the support of others to fully support this amendment. And as someone who used to get 8 and times more deer in my yard, I greatly appreciate it. So thank you.

Speaker C · Thank you. Staff. Do we have any members who are pre registered to speak online, Your worship?

Speaker B · No, they have declined.

Speaker C · Okay. Are there other members of the public that wish to speak? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak? I'll call a third and final time. Seeing none, I will now declare the public hearing for.

Speaker C · Oh, sorry, we have to do the receipt of the written submissions. So if I could get a motion to receive the written submissions, please.

Speaker M · Second.

Speaker C · All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. We're a little rusty at this. The province took away these lovely public hearings for the most part. And so I declare the public hearing for the Zoning bylaw number 1992, number 2050, the amendment bylaw number 2026, number

Speaker G · 3183, to be closed.

Speaker C · Council, you have a staff recommendation?

Speaker D · I'll move the staff recommendation.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker J · Seconded.

Speaker C · Seconded by Cavins. Go ahead, Councilor Brain.

Speaker D · Can I say it's about time.

Speaker C · Hooray.

Speaker D · My big thing is I really like how staff took the time to protect both the wild, like keeping in mind that we want to protect the wildlife as well as protecting our plants and gardens and things like that, I think we found a really nice balance. And I'm excited to see this go forward.

Speaker C · Thank you. And just procedurally, I'll look to Ms. Hopkins. Do you want this motion read into the record?

Speaker B · Yes, please, your worship.

Speaker C · All right. Councilor Braymond.

Speaker D · All right. Yep, that council give third reading and adoption to Zoning Bylaw 1992 number 2050amendment bylaw 2026, number 3183 to incorporate regulations for deer fencing into the zoning bylaw.

Speaker C · Thank you. I'll go to councillor Cavins.

Speaker E · I just want to say how excited I am to see this, and it's a long time coming. And I think the fact that no one commented tonight and we don't get very many complaints. Just shows that this is already, well, acceptable to our residents and not to our dear.

Speaker C · Any further discussion, Councillor Armour?

Speaker J · Yeah, I just want to note that of course the advisory planning Commission recommended we give approval of this too. And I just want to take the opportunity to thank them for their input and their their thoughts on this.

Speaker C · Any further discussion Seeing None. All those in favor? None. Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. All right, we move down to bylaws for adoption or first and second reading that are subject to a public hearing. And we have the adoption of parks and recreation regulation bylaw. We've seen this before. Look for a motion. Councillor Cabins.

Speaker E · I'll move for adoption.

Speaker C · You want to read it out, please.

Speaker E · The adoption of the parks and recreation regulation bylaw 2007 number 2665 and then bylaw 2026 number 3192.

Speaker C · Thank you. Seconded. Do you wish to speak to it?

Speaker H · No.

Speaker C · Do you wish to speak to it? Okay, I will call this question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. All right, we have one more to do. Adoption of tax prepayment plan bylaw.

Speaker J · I will move that council adopt tax Prepayment Plan Bylaw 2026 Number 3186.

Speaker F · Second.

Speaker C · Thank you. Do you wish to speak? Councilor Morrison? Do you wish to speak? Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. Okay, we are down to public input now. This is on items 10 which are the staff reports, 11 which is the bylaw reading not subject to a public hearing and 12 which are committee of the whole resolutions. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak?

Speaker G · Any.

Speaker C · Welcome. Same rules apply. 2 minutes. Name and address for the record and yes.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker C · Please line up if you wish to speak. Welcome.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. My name is Meredith James. I live at 1077 Colville.

Speaker J · Mark Sadoway.

Speaker E · Good evening. Also 1077 Colville.

Speaker A · So we're here to speak to agenda item 10. 1, the development variance permit application for 1073 Colville. It's our neighbors in principle. We're very much in support of this application. We agree this type of housing is needed in Esquimalt and appreciate the efforts the developer has made to do this kind of cycling and active transportation oriented development. But the other side to that is that we do share some of the concerns that are raised in the correspondence that others have written in about this application. Adding the stressors onto that really short laneway that the ENN goes onto when it travels through that part of Esquimalt both during construction and then when people are living in those new homes that will back onto the laneway.

Speaker A · Until I read the letter from our neighbors at 822 McLeod, I wasn't aware of the challenges that they had experienced with the landscaping project that they undertook. And it seems inevitable that this project will create similar issues that should be considered in advance. So we would like to see more materials from the developer that speak to how they'll accommodate or divert the ENN Trail users during construction, ensure that people will be able to exit and enter the new parking pads in a safe way, and provide space for delivery drivers to park when they're dropping off packages in the new Laneway homes. So I think more information is needed about the potential impacts to the lane and how they'll be managed. But with confirmation that there is a plan to mitigate those impacts, we would be fully in support of the project.

Speaker E · I would just add to that. In addition, information about potential impacts to

Speaker H · neighboring properties would be helpful.

Speaker E · There's differences in grade between the current

Speaker H · grade of the neighboring properties and the proposed grading, and it's sort of like, what's the plan? How will this work? So anyway, thank you.

Speaker C · Thank you. Welcome.

Speaker M · Good evening, Mayor and council. My name's Graham Tarling, I live at 455 so Sturdy street and I'm speaking on behalf of Esquimoc climate organisers and Creatively United for the Planet. I'd like to speak to Agenda Item 10. 2, the SS MUH Community Engagement Final Report. Esquimoc Climate Organisers is very happy to see that this report reflects a lot of the views and ideas relating to natural assets and tree protection that we've been promoting for the last few years. That this topic was rated the number one SSMUH issue by residents across the three methods of engagement is very encouraging. As a result, the myriad benefits of mature trees, improving our physical and mental health, mitigating climate change, providing infrastructure, services and sustaining biodiversity will ultimately be more formally recognized, valued and managed. It will be well worth the effort.

Speaker M · Just this morning I read a story about Nanaimo's just published urban canopy assessment. And Factoring in that Esquimalt is 1/10 the size of Nanaimo by land area, the services that Esquimalt's tree canopy is providing equates to around $1. 4 million annually. Eco looks forward to the immediate interim change of emphasis under the existing framework to where discretion is available, consider site specific circumstances and apply professional judgment to try and achieve the required Recommendations. As an interest holder, we are also keen to engage whenever possible as part of the Select Committee's work to establish the permanent bylaw policy and guideline changes that will allow natural assets and trees to receive enhanced protection while still allowing the sympathetic and thoughtful development of much needed housing under BC's SSMUH legislation.

Speaker M · We urge council to endorse the staff recommendation.

Speaker E · Thank you.

Speaker C · Thank you. Are there other members of the public that wish to speak? I will call a second time. Please come forward. You can bring that down.

Speaker I · Yes, sorry. Good evening, Mayor and Councilor. I haven't been to one of your meetings for a very long time but I usually sometimes see you on Wurtel Place. So I live at 1045 Wurtel and I have lived and supported this community since 1979. And as the public has mentioned about Colville, I don't know, I've never seen anything. I don't know what the development is supposed to be. So I can't say yay or nay to it. So I really think that people in the community around them, because we have the path any and in, but our properties are looking down on all of this. The area of Kova that is in question.

Speaker I · We would really appreciate to have some more input and showing exactly what the height is going to be because I know there was a new duplex of the left of this property and it would be really nice not to have it extend over that.

Speaker I · We have been supporting everything. We get to look at the gorge park that is our green space. So I really with development. I know, I understand that. But we have to be considerate to all the people on that ortel place that have lived there for many, many years and supported this community. So I really think that we should have more information, even pictures of it.

Speaker I · What are we looking at? Thank you.

Speaker C · Thank you. Are there other members of the public that wish to speak? I'll call a second time. I'll call a final time. All right, we'll move on. And we are at staff reports. And first up is the development variance permit application for 1073 Colville Road.

Speaker H · I'll look to Mr. Brown, you, Worship, members of council. So this is an application to vary the lot size. The applicant actually started this whole project before anybody knew anything about small scale multi unit housing. And once the small scale multi unit housing legislation came into effect, they pivoted and have adjusted their application accordingly. They would like to subdivide the parcel into two smaller parcels of just over 410 square meters each. However, the minimum lot size for the RD, one zone is 660, 68 square meters. Therefore, before subdivision can be approved, the lot size, lot size has to be varied. They are proposing three units on the lot on Colville and four units on the lot facing the lane. The applicant is here and has presentation to explain in more detail their proposal.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker C · Thank you. Are there questions for staff? Councillor Armour?

Speaker J · Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brown, for those comments. If Council was to. I mean, one of the options, for example, was to table pending additional information, and if Council was to, let's say, give some sort of direction or suggestion that there needs to be better protection on McLeod Avenue in terms of the interface between cyclists and vehicles. And, you know, some people have suggested that there could be some infrastructure works in terms of creating safer pathways and greater signage and things like that. If that was to happen, who would be responsible for doing that? Is that. Does the proponent have to contribute to it? Is that squamalt? Is that the crd because it's part of the enn. How would that work?

Speaker H · So this is a variance permit application. So there is discretion, Council's discretion. If it's directly related to the variance, then Council can probably put some conditions on the variance itself if they want to approve it. With conditions, I am not sure, like, we have no idea what that type of mitigation might look like. In terms of cost, we would need an engineer to have a look at that and our engineering department would have to review it. So it's a bit difficult to suggest the magnitude of what this might include, whether it's even possible. So we're dealing with a lot of unknowns right now. So you'd be putting condition on a potential approval without actually knowing very much about what the condition might look like. So I'd be a little bit careful in doing that.

Speaker J · Could we, then, building on what you just suggested.

Speaker B · Sorry?

Speaker J · Building on what you just suggested, are we in a position to table a decision on this and then request that, as you suggest, an engineering report be done to analyze potential mitigation?

Speaker H · Yeah, I think that that is so possible, yes. Given the discretionary nature of a dome variance permit and that it is directly related. Yep.

Speaker J · And who would pay for the engineering report?

Speaker H · The applicant.

Speaker C · Councillor Morrison, then Cavan.

Speaker F · Yeah, thank you, Worship. Very similar questions, but I guess where I'll be is a little more direct around in the discussions with the proponent around looking at the site and looking at subdivision and options and scenarios, was there a discussion about the fact that the laneway is, you know, essentially part of the Inn Bike Trail and pedestrian trail.

Speaker F · There isn't a lot of car, you know, there's a lot of design of properties such that there's a lot of cars that'll be intersecting with that activity because of driveways and whatnot. So was that discussion ever. Did that discussion ever occur like why try and design the what they're trying to achieve here in a way such that there wouldn't be driveways required going into the bike lanes into the pedestrian lane?

Speaker H · Your councilor Morrison I'm not this wasn't my application but I'm not aware of any specific discussions related bicycles and the fact that bike trail goes to that piece of lane. There was certainly lots of discussion about vehicle access into the lane. I'm not aware of any specifically related to potential interface between bicycles and let's

Speaker F · through the chair I'll ask different way like so let's pretend we're doing which we've had a lot of experience with a multi family development condo building or a large apartment building. And they're looking at okay, how are we going to have parking access? What's the you know, what's the intersection going to be in terms of how it interacts with the road? Would our engineering staff ever go and look at those scenarios and raise concerns around public safety just even with traffic like vehicle traffic and then pedestrian and sidewalk and then also cyclists and cycling lane, would that ever not occur in those sorts of developments?

Speaker H · Yes, the engineering department has reviewed this very specifically but I do not know if they address the issue of bicycles. But they have spent a lot of time in discussions with the applicant about parking and access to both the lane and to the front. But I am unsure.

Speaker F · But not with the purview of public

Speaker H · safety or well, with the safety of cyclists. I do not know if they have actually discussed bicycle safety given that portion of the en trail goes through the lane.

Speaker C · Councilor Morrison, we will have the proponent.

Speaker F · Yes, thank you. I just trying to figure out what was discussed before it even got to this point why we have these driveways going the way they are. Okay, thank you.

Speaker E · Councillor Cavan, similar question on a recent project. Someone was looking to add two entrances on a much on a frontage that was much longer. It was about 38 meters and staff did not support to this is a much narrower frontage and I'm just curious about process. Will this design need to come back to council then with a variance and are staff likely to support that if it does come?

Speaker H · Thank you. So the engineering department has reviewed this particular site layout and provide the comments based on that site layout to the applicant. So I would assume that they support it. They've certainly had lots of discussion and lots of back and forth with the applicant. Now since, as I mentioned, we've been dealing with this application for quite a while, since that time, the engineering department has adopted its new standards. And those standards may say one access per frontage. I'm not aware of any discussion we've had with the engineering department in that vein. However, if the standard is one driveway per frontage, then they will need to come get back to council and get a variance

Speaker N · one.

Speaker E · Follow one more. One other question is about what we're actually approving or what we're being asked to approve tonight. And this is a variance permit around a subdivision. But that means that we're basically. I'm going to explain how I understand this. We're approving this to be subdivided and once it's subdivided, it will have the standard SMU or RD2 regulations about it. And so we're not actually necessarily approving this particular layout or site layout. If a subdivision occurs, they can put four units on each site according to the regulation and it wouldn't come back to us. Correct.

Speaker H · So what we're going to do is if council approves this variance tonight, we are going to attach to the variance permit the drawings that are before you in the package and then they will be obligated to. In order to get their variance, they will have to follow what's in the package. There may be like tweaks in windows or something like that, but the basic layout will be what you see. Otherwise they'll be coming back to them in their variance per permit.

Speaker E · And you're confident that that's enforceable. So if they're two separate lots, they won't be able to do eight units instead of the seven if they came back without your permission.

Speaker H · Yeah,

Speaker J · yeah.

Speaker H · Because the variance variance permit will. Is. Is automatically forwarded onto the new lots.

Speaker E · They couldn't withdraw it and submit a new one.

Speaker H · A new variance permit application, a new development permit. Once subdivided they could, but then I think that would put the variance permit offside. I'm not 100% positive, but the intent is that the variance was granted by council based on what they saw that night. And if they come and change it either, even if there are two lots of they would need to come back to council and amend the variance permit. That's. That would be our approach.

Speaker C · Okay, thank you, Councilor Boardman.

Speaker O · Thank you. That was my main question. But I do just have a follow up so in the staff report it talks about creating three units on parcel A and three units on parcel B. Yet I think I heard three and four. So can you confirm what we're looking at?

Speaker J · Really important.

Speaker H · A small unit,

Speaker O · It's just. Okay, thank you.

Speaker C · Anything further, Counselor? Helloa.

Speaker P · I have what's probably an unfair question, Director Brown. Do you know any of the history on why for the ENN Rail Trail? We sort of have that 130 meter cut out through the laneway.

Speaker H · Unfortunately, I do not. I can only assume it's some topographical big rock or indentation. I know there's a. Almost a little jungle in there, but I'm not sure if that is part of it or not.

Speaker L · Okay.

Speaker P · And no plans to your knowledge or the CIOs to look at that area or anything otherwise this is working.

Speaker H · Yeah.

Speaker P · Thank you.

Speaker C · Believe it or not, I was around at the time, it was 20 years ago. And my recollection, which is not always crystal clear, is that the grade beside the E and N was too steep to allow continuity through there. And so the laneway was chosen as a way around that. It's my understanding too that there's also some trees that we wanted to avoid cutting down as well. But it was going to be my question as well. What do we know about the history? What do we know about the use of that lane? Have we got any agreements with CRD with regards to usage? Because it really was minimal. We had to accommodate the driveways that were there.

Speaker C · But the ENN corridor has also increased substantially in its number of use. Okay, Councillor Boardman. And then we'll go to the proponent.

Speaker O · Thank you. Have we done any studies in terms of cyclists or pedestrians or cyclists? Mainly the number that would pass by that particular.

Speaker H · I'm not aware of any. They may have a bicycle counter there somewhere. We could. CRD takes care of that. Oh, so we can ask the CRD

Speaker C · council. Are you comfortable with having the proponent come forward? Oh, Councillor Brain.

Speaker D · Yes, thanks. Just one question for staff because that is a shared use lane with the enn, which is a CRD piece of parkland, for lack of a better phrase. Should they have any. Should we have any discussion with them on that going forward?

Speaker H · You mean discussion with the crd?

Speaker D · Yes, because it's a part. It's part of the. You know, there will be, as people talked about, there will be closures during construction of the house of the housing units and whatnot. Should there be any discussions with them as. Because I know we own the lane, but it's part of the ENN Trail.

Speaker H · Yes. So that would be taken care of by the engineering department. And I'm quite confident that especially since a number of them are cyclists, that they would contact the CRD and make sure there was coordination to allow the bikes free passage during construction, safe passage during construction.

Speaker D · Okay, but you don't think that they would have a concern at all then? Okay. All right, thank you.

Speaker G · All right.

Speaker C · Would the proponent like to come forward and provide us with your presentation?

Speaker H · Sure.

Speaker C · Welcome.

Speaker Q · Thanks. Is this what I used to

Speaker F · star?

Speaker Q · Okay, perfect. So I'm Russ Collins, I'm with Zebra Design, and I'm here to present this project tonight. So I just want to go to this slide.

Speaker L · So

Speaker Q · one side Callville and one side faces the rear lane. Both are 60ft wide. And we thought we could take advantage of this unique situation and subdivide the lot into two, allowing for a two story, two bedroom, three unit townhouse with no garages on lot A, which is this is a floor plan of that particular one. And we have intentionally stepped back the size of the south townhouse building both for the sake of scale and the neighboring properties and also to be able to propose a modest entry level purchase option for new homeowners at a lower price point. And these are the exterior elevations of that those three rear townhouses that we're proposing. There's no basement, they're just two stories. And there's potential for some storage under the deck at the back due to the topography.

Speaker Q · So on lot B, the lower Colville facing townhouses, we're proposing one unit to have a secondary suite, while the other two will have mechanical and storage rooms. The main floors have living and dining areas, kitchens and a powder room. All the upper floors to the lot B townhouses have three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a laundry room on the upper floor. This is the exterior elevation of that block. There's a slight slope into the garage coming off of Colville. So at the rear of lot A, due to the grade, we are only about 2ft above grade to the main floor. So the building appears as only two stories from the rear lane.

Speaker Q · So here's the shadow study that shows the shadows the buildings are expecting to cast in bright light conditions onto the like on the solstices and the equinoxes. Because there are no houses immediately adjacent to the north, there should be no shadows cast on on neighbors except early in the morning and late in the afternoon. Here's our arbors report. So there are no bylaw protected trees on the site, but there are two non bylaw protected trees on Colville Boulevard that will need to be removed when the road widening takes place, when and if that takes place. So on our plan here, this landscape plan is you can see that we propose to replace the trees on the other side of the sidewalk and propose to plant approximately 10 more new trees throughout the two lots.

Speaker Q · And this is a streetscape showing the townhouses in Colville and the neighboring properties, neighboring houses and so as mentioned earlier, the proposed property faces a street and backs onto a lane, giving a unique opportunity to subdivide and develop on both frontages on the lot. The proposed subdivided lots, Lot A facing the lane and Lot B facing colville, will be 415. 83 square meters and 490. 03 respectively, which are below the required lot area minimum for their zone of RD1. Back in 2022 we started this project and submitted this proposal before there was a small scale multi unit housing policy. After consultation with the Planning Department and Development Services of the Township of Esquimo, our client decided to proceed with the design of two triplexes. I actually had a meeting with the Mayor.

Speaker Q · I'm not sure if you remember that about this project, but we did and with at least one counselor just to kind of get a feel if the desired density was appropriate for the property and area and whether the dual facing development option was supported in principle.

Speaker Q · The current proposal incorporates feedback received from these meetings as well as correspondence from Esquimont staff. Conversations with staff have been ongoing for several years and the development proposal has been subjected to numerous twists and turns of provincial and municipal policy changes. In the interim, the project will offer much needed housing options for the area with a modest increase in density. They are comprised of two bedroom and three bedroom units and will be suitable for a wide variety of household types. They will provide some alternative to condominium living and ground oriented townhouse units. The two bedroom two story units will offer a price point not seen in the townhouse market.

Speaker Q · The proposal is well in sync with the objectives of the official community plan because it supports the the anticipated housing needs in the next five years. Objectives of the OCP include creation of secondary suites and to consider new townhomes residential proposals. The proposal aligns with recent changes in provincial and municipal zoning regulations, small scale multi unit housing and other guidelines. The property lies near to major transit routes and nearby villages and employment centers, parks, schools, grocery stores, shopping, medical centers and other amenities. As well as being easily accessible by vehicle, this property provides an exceptional opportunity due to its location adjacent. Sorry, its location adjacent to the E and N rail trail at the rear lane, which makes it an ideal spot from which to commute and travel by bicycle to nearby communities and beyond.

Speaker Q · These proposed new townhomes address current and future growing demand for family housing and density in the neighborhood without contributing to the urban sprawl. We are pleased to put forward this proposal in light of current residential challenges in the township, considering that the proposed new homes would contribute visual harmony and texture to the streetscape, as well as desired additional housing stock. We hope that the merits of the proposal are apparent and that the variances are deemed supportable. So we thank you for your time and consideration of this application. I just wanted to mention that the suite is in the Colville side, three units, not on the lane. Just for clarification.

Speaker C · Thank you. Are there questions?

Speaker F · Could you go to the site plan? Maybe perhaps the landscaping plan, Something that shows the entire site plan? I think a couple of slides back. Yeah, there we go. Okay, so look, you heard our questions in our discussion earlier about the lane and the new driveways. So I'm also looking at your. The actual aerial map.

Speaker E · So the.

Speaker Q · The.

Speaker F · The property, the current property, 1073, shows driveways in the front facing Colville. And it shows sort of a concrete area in the back facing the lane

Speaker Q · is that there are two driveway crossings, sort of driveway crossings, two on Colville. It's a double single for one of. And on the back, it's similar in that there's. And it's just open parking. There's no garages or anything on the back units. And we've gone through this very carefully with Richard Syrett here in Esquimalt, and we've worked on this with him quite a bit until he was finally satisfied with it.

Speaker L · Okay.

Speaker F · And just looking at this, how you got the back lane landscaping displayed there as well. And I'm asking you a question about visibility. So if you're in one of those two driveways, there's the wide driveway, there's the narrow driveway, and then there's obviously the cyclist or people running or pedestrians or what have you, even other vehicles using that lane. What is the visibility interface like with that landscaping there? If you are from both perspectives, either from someone in the vehicle on the driveway pulling out or a cyclist going by because there's nothing there that provides for cyclists to have to stop.

Speaker Q · Right.

Speaker F · It's just usually because you're trying to keep your momentum, you're going straight through that lane as you continue on with the Inn Trail. So what would be the visibility situation? Do you look at measuring that with the landscaping? As well.

Speaker Q · Yeah, we would want to keep all the shrubs and stuff at that area low so that we can see over it.

Speaker F · And when you say we that that's the people in the driveway pulling out.

Speaker Q · Yeah.

Speaker P · What's that?

Speaker F · They're three meters by.

Speaker P · Three meters.

Speaker Q · Yeah.

Speaker J · So we, we show sight triangles on the corners of each of those driveway crossings.

Speaker F · They're the hatched. The hatched area. Sorry, my name's Louis, I'm with zebra design as well. Okay, thank you. They're the hatched areas that are triangles

Speaker J · beside the driveway access points.

Speaker F · And in those hatched areas you can't have any shrubs that are higher than

Speaker J · 30 inches or any structures that are higher than 30 inches.

Speaker L · Okay.

Speaker H · Okay.

Speaker F · And so someone who's cycling down there,

Speaker J · there'll be full visibility along, along the

Speaker F · frontage of that property where the site triangles are. Okay. All right, thank you.

Speaker C · Other questions there's been significant with regard to interfacing with cycling. What conversations have you had with regard to the ENN Trail and how and potentially I guess CRD with regard to the numbers of cyclists that come by?

Speaker Q · Yeah, we haven't actually had any discussions that I'm aware of about that. Excuse me. On my way here tonight, I went by there, drove through it just to get a feel because we got those two letters that came into the. And I wanted to see what was happening, what they were talking about because it's been couple years since I was there last. So anyway, drove through. I see that there's obviously bikes coming down and onto the lane. One of my suggestions would be that that lane be turned into a one way street like so that you just had. You'd have to worry about two vehicles trying to pass each other because that would really make it difficult because it's quite narrow.

Speaker Q · I don't think it would be a negative thing for people living there to just drive through and come back around. I think that because of the circumstances, I think bikers need to be careful because there was a mention about that there's a sign, but there's actually two signs. One of them's on the lane and one of them is actually on the. When you come off of the railway track. So there's two very bright yellow and black signs warning that there's cars and bikes together coming up. So I think people just have to be super careful coming just like he would, backing out onto a street, any street, with a bike riding down the street.

Speaker C · Thank you. Any further questions for the proponent, Councillor Cavins?

Speaker E · I have one. Sorry, it's for staff Just to understand why staff are support. So this is a weird one because we're subdividing a lot in order to functionally get a townhouse development. I realize why the proponent would like to do this because it doesn't require rezoning but really want to understand why staff are supporting it and what makes this different from other lots in the township that might get the same idea and decide to put eight units on a single family lot.

Speaker H · Your worship, Councillor Kevins. So this has quite a few advantages. It's on a bus route, it's right next to the E trail. It's very close to both the graving dock and CFPs Squamout. There's wide open spaces on the other side of Colville and there's basically the E N rail is behind so there's not neighbors immediately behind. So yeah, for all those reasons we thought this was a good place for some increased densification and the small scale. As I said, the small scale multi unit opportunity came up after we had started talking. This started as a resulting application but after the introduction of legislation the applicant and ourselves as well thought this was an appropriate place for a subdivision for small scale multi unit housing.

Speaker E · But this isn't something you're considering on a larger scale. This is very site specific. The recommendation.

Speaker H · Well this is four variants. Yes. This is specific to the unique characteristics of this lot. However, if there's larger lots that are subdivided and they meet the minimum partial size of the zoning, those will probably get subdivided because the zoning is in place with the minimum lot size. And if the applicant for subdivision meets the minimum lot size or exceeds it, then that's not a legitimate reason to refuse a subdivision.

Speaker E · Okay, thank you.

Speaker C · Any further questions? I just have one for staff and that is that it seems like a significant reduction from the zoning bylaw lot size. It's a 1/3 reduction. And so I guess that's what we're being asked about tonight and I guess I'm concerned. So I don't know that there's a question there but go ahead. Councillor Boardman, I have a question.

Speaker O · So if this development variance permit is approved tonight, this doesn't ever come back to us again ever for anything? Or does it come back for approval to subdivide or for anything? Any other permits?

Speaker H · No, not unless you need a variance for the number of driveways. Because the engineering department's new standards have been put in place since this originally came forward and I'm not sure and I don't want to interpret their standards in case I get it wrong. So, yeah, there may be one more variance coming. I'm not certain.

Speaker O · Okay, thanks.

Speaker C · Councillor Armor you.

Speaker F · Yeah, sorry, through the chair. If I could ask a question, just. I think I made a comment a little bit earlier about discussions that occurred between the proponent and staff around all the different scenarios that you could look at with using this property that you're trying to subdivide. As you heard, there is a concern about the interaction with the bike cycling that's frequent. It is very frequent. I mean, it's a route to one of our biggest employers in the region for a lot of people. Did you look at going with a smaller number of units that would allow for driveway access for everyone from Colville?

Speaker F · If that was in looking at your site plan here, essentially you would have, you know, the full side space running vertically alongside your housing there that could be used for parking or driveway access. All from Colville. Was that an option you looked at and then just kept. Kept the lane, no lane access, but just keep that as landscaping as an option. I know it would mean lesser number of units, but was that one of the scenarios you looked at in terms of drafting out your overall plan for housing?

Speaker Q · We started this design and this idea, like I say, before the SSMUH existed, our intention was to come and rezone the property through hopefully approval from council. We felt we had like. There's a lot involved in getting parking to work on that lot internally because there's driveway aisles that have to be met. They're 23ft in order for you to be able to turn 90 degrees into a parking stall. So you'd lose all the yards in the back. The whole idea for us was the fact it had two frontages. That's why we did it this way, because we got driveways coming off the street, we got private backyards for all the units in the rear. And the other thing.

Speaker Q · I guess I just wanted to point out also that under the SSMUH guidelines, the maximum site coverage allowable on any lot is 50%. And we're proposing the most dense one is lot B, which is 43. 17%. So we're even under on site coverage. Even though the lots are smaller, they're still. We're not as dense as it could be if we were to go to the maximum density allowed.

Speaker F · So you couldn't have this as sort

Speaker A · of,

Speaker F · as I said, if you chopped off two of your housing units in this plan and you essentially made the other the remaining, those four units that would be remaining, you switch them from being Vertical to being horizontal or at right angles. And then you could try and have some side yard space as well. Because you said you were concerned about losing the yard space.

Speaker Q · What I'm trying. What I was trying to mention is that there's drive aisles that we have to have in order to have parking. So there's not enough room to put two duplexes the way that we've drawn them on that page right now and have a driveway come up the side because there's nowhere to park because you have the drive aisle takes up more probably as much or more space than what we've got from that one unit you've removed to the property line. Probably using. I don't know if it's 23ft or not, but that's a drive aisle and that's what you need in order to turn into a parking stall.

Speaker F · There wouldn't even be enough space for a driveway. And then side parking, you know what I mean? Like parking vertically.

Speaker Q · I'm not sure you mean drive straight up the sidewalk. Yeah.

Speaker F · Going along. Having the parking be parallel to the driveway, would that be enough space for that? So essentially someone would pull into a driveway that's a parking space that's right at their front door and then.

Speaker C · Councillor, I think you've received your answer.

Speaker F · So the answer is it's not. There's no other scenario that you can make possible that would allow for the back lane not to have driveway access.

Speaker Q · I wouldn't say there's nothing that could be done. But you're saying drop two units, right? Well, dropping two units, we wouldn't be here if we were doing that. We'd already have. We'd be just go straight for approval. But we came here because we're trying to propose affordable units. The ones that are on the laneway are affordable and we think that that's a pretty unique situation and that's why we started this whole proposal in the first place.

Speaker C · Okay, thank you, Councillor Armour.

Speaker J · I'm gonna. Thank you very much.

Speaker C · Thank you to the proponent. Yeah, you may sit down.

Speaker J · I'm gonna make a motion and then I'll motivate if I get a seconder. I'm going to move. If you look at the options on page two of the staff report, I'm going to pursue a variation of the variance. Number two variance of that that council table the decision on the development variance permit pending an engineering report be conducted in cooperation with the CRD to look at the potential challenges with the bicycle car interface and some possible mitigation measures

Speaker C · for that is There a seconder for that?

Speaker F · I'll second.

Speaker C · Okay.

Speaker J · So, I mean, I know, just.

Speaker F · Sorry to clarify, it wasn't in the motion, but you would be at the proponent's expense, as I heard you say earlier.

Speaker G · Right.

Speaker J · No, that's what Mr. Brown.

Speaker F · Yeah. Okay. So that would. I don't know if that needs to be part of the mother motion or not, but. Okay, thank you.

Speaker J · I know that. I mean, I. What I've sensed from around the council table is there may be mixed views on the proposal itself. I, I actually, the proposal I'm comfortable with. I mean, we can discuss more later, obviously, but I am really concerned about the bicycle car interface and I don't want to use anecdotal evidence, but, but I mean, I'm a cyclist. I go there all the time. And even now, in some ways, like I feel CRD should be bringing forward mitigation measures already because even now, without adding the additional driveways, it is really challenging. There are blind spots the land. I accept what the proponent said about the landscaping, but even with minimal landscaping causing sight line challenges, it's already a challenge.

Speaker J · And as one of the people wrote in said, you know, people come down that hill and you've got a blind corner to your right and you sort of anticipate you have the right of way over traffic, but you don't really know for sure. It's. Yeah, it's hazardous already, is my belief. And I just, I think the danger will increase if we were to prove this. Unless there were some mitigation measures put in place, and I don't know what they are, but that's something engineering could work with with CRD on at least proposed mitigation measures.

Speaker C · Thank you, Councillor Morrison.

Speaker F · Yeah, I guess adding to the anecdotal experience, because I. That's where I cycle that a lot. I prefer cycling on the inn rather than the bike lane, just because it is usually much safer in that there isn't much car interaction other than this little portion. And as Councillor Armour described, it's, you're coming down a slope. So. And I think I said earlier, you want to maintain that momentum so you can continue on. When you go back up onto the enn, it's not like a flat area where you're just sort of pedaling or something like that at a slow pace. We try to promote all ages and abilities using the ENN Trail, and we're not really making it safe in this portion of it.

Speaker F · And even though it's just one little portion, and it's unfortunate that that was the design that they had to do when they, when they built it, as you said, with the history. But I just wonder if there. And that's why I asked earlier about the discussions around the public safety consideration, if there would be more opportunity for. More opportunity for that discussion to continue. And just as Councillor Armour said, maybe it's mitigation, maybe it's a rethinking of positioning of the layout or what have you.

Speaker M · But

Speaker F · yeah, it's going to be with that more density on that lot, that means more vehicles, more times of people coming and going in those driveways there, more than you have now.

Speaker C · Okay. Yeah, I think that's good motivation.

Speaker A · Yeah.

Speaker F · Thank you.

Speaker C · I don't know.

Speaker F · Sorry about my phone. I don't know what's on going on.

Speaker C · Councillor Cavins, a question for staff.

Speaker E · Is this the right way or the best way to accomplish what I'm hearing from my colleagues simply because we do own the lane and I assume engineering is able to have influence over how this is done. So I'm just curious what's the best way? Because I'll just say for motivation, I think that the design is fine and if it was coming to us as a rezoning, I would probably, probably support it, especially for a bunch of reasons. The affordability of those units on the top, on the, to the north, the fact that they're two story. There are lots of things that are positive about this, but I think there are some concerns about this interface and I'm just wondering what's the best way for us to deal with that.

Speaker J · Yeah,

Speaker F · great.

Speaker H · I think the direction council's heading is appropriate. The developer has heard the discussion or the applicant. Sorry, has heard the discussion. They will work with the engineering department to come up with some mitigation strategies. The manager of engineering, who has been very involved in the design of bike lanes in Esquemo, will have a lot of background in order to review. So it is up to the proponent to propose mitigative measures or to determine that no mitigation measures are required. The proponent will submit the engineering report to our engineering department and to the development services. It will be reviewed and then we will come back to council with either this is the mitigation proposed or it has been determined no mitigation is required. So yeah, I think this is a fair process for moving forward.

Speaker C · Councillor Helloa.

Speaker P · Councillor Cavins asked my question and so I agree with the motion itself. I think the intent that they're wanting to put on this site fits really well. I think they've done a Good job of trying to make it fit with what's happening on Colville. The layouts are great in terms of trying to bring in some of that more affordable two bedroom. The biggest hang up is that sort of frontage onto a laneway. In particular the fact that that that portion of that laneway also doubles as an active transportation corridor. And just making sure that we, we get that right. So I support the direction we're going.

Speaker C · Any further discussion, Councillor Bram?

Speaker D · Yes, I just wanted. I actually agree with everything that's been said. But I wanted to add that because it's not in the report, because it was just June 29th APC, they approved it, the whole process, because they believed it added missing middle. And it's interesting they didn't flag the cycling part. But I'm glad my fellow counselors and the community has because those concerns, I think need some tweaking and are valid concerns. So for that reason I'll vote for the motion as it stands.

Speaker C · Thank you. I just have a question for staff. Do we have an understanding of what the right of way for island corridor is versus where our laneway starts?

Speaker H · It is on our mapping system. So yes, we have very clear delineation of our. Our back lane versus the corridor. Right away.

Speaker C · Okay. I'm just wondering whether there could be a widening of the corridor or whether we have any.

Speaker H · Yeah.

Speaker C · Ability, sure.

Speaker H · That that's something that will have to be investigated as part of this process.

Speaker C · Okay, thank you. Are we ready for the question? All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. All right, we're down to small scale multi unit housing community engagement. Final report,

Speaker H · Your worship. Members of council. This evening we're pleased to welcome Patricia Quinn Nichols to the chambers. She was the chief facilitator for the workshop and pre and post workshop activities. And she's written a report along with her colleague Marnie Sandhu, who is on the line in Calgary. So Ms. Quinn Nichols is a licensed IAP2 International association of Public Participation trainer with over 16 years of experience in municipal government. And she's proprietor of Neuquin Consulting in Maple Bay. She was also involved, she may look familiar with the ESQUIMO Community Policing Engagement Strategy. So she's got a presentation to go over. The results of our workshop and the interviews and the online material that we received.

Speaker C · Welcome.

Speaker B · Thank you very much for having me, Mayor and council. It's lovely to be here and thank you, Bill, for the introduction. I have Mandy Sandhu, my colleague, on remote as well. She's joining us remotely and we're both Pleased to be here to share with you the findings that we've discovered through this process. Esquimal District say in how occurs Provincial legislation introduced in 2023 required Esquimo to update its zoning bylaw to permit for small scale multi unit housing or small scale. I'll refer to it going forward as small scale.

Speaker B · Council adopted the required change in 2024 of June through bylaw 3142. It was a necessary first step, but not necessarily the final one. Like other municipalities across bc, esquimalt is now looking at refinements to better fit the character of this community. To hear directly from the community, the township conducted an engagement process from late June to early July and this report shares what we heard and gives Council a detailed picture of how participants want to see small scale implemented on the ground.

Speaker B · Most participants understood that small scale is now required by provincial legislation and is not something Esquimalt can simply opt out of. The central question therefore was not whether a squamous will grow, but how that growth will occur and is it the star that I click the star. Okay. Thank you. The engagement strategy was developed using the IEPT Practice framework which is an internationally recognized approach to planning public participation. The process was guided by a promise to the public. We will keep you informed, we will listen to and acknowledge your concerns and aspirations and we'll show you how your input was used in the decision making process. The first phase focused on the research and internal groundwork.

Speaker B · We confirmed the requirements for Bill 44 and identified the areas where the public could have meaningful influence. We reviewed written correspondence that had been sent into council. We researched what other municipalities were doing and examined how Esquimalt compares with other B. C. communities and the province's recommended guidelines. We also engaged the township staff to better understand operational and technical considerations. In phase two, we focused on the public facing engagement activities. These included 13 interviews, an online survey and a full day community workshop. The workshop included presentations about the legislation, planning and development law and architectural examples of what small scale properties could look like and and a video explaining the building process and potential development costs.

Speaker B · The intention was to give participants enough information so that they could take part in the meaningful and informed discussions that carried on the rest of the day. It's important to clarify what was up for public input.

Speaker B · The promise to the public only has meaning when the public understands where they can influence the outcome. The areas open for discussion were building height, setback lot coverage, parking, landscaping and green space, privacy and overlook and building form and character. With that scope in mind, I'll begin at a really high level.

Speaker B · Overview of the themes that appeared across the different sources of input. Trees, green space and environmental protection came through consistently and represented the strongest overall finding. Height, setback, massing, building form and neighborhood character were frequently raised together as interconnected concerns. Privacy and overlook as well as affordability and feature feasibility often surfaced. Also resurfaced repeatedly. Parking and site design appeared throughout the input even when they were not necessarily the primary topic. Lot coverage was often discussed alongside setbacks. One of the workshop's highest priority recommendation was to convince consider adjustments to both together.

Speaker B · Transparency, predictability and notifications were also central concerns. Improved notification received the highest level of agreement at the workshop and became the direct basis for the recommendation number three. This slide summarizes the themes of the 13 interviews and the written correspondences submitted to council. People wanted greater clarity about what was fixed by the province through the legislation and what council can still change locally.

Speaker B · Affordability remained an unresolved concern. The question was not whether affordability matters, but whether current small scale zoning bylaw will actually deliver more affordable housing. Building scale and design attracted some of the most detailed feedback.

Speaker B · This included the height, the setback, building footprint, sunlight and privacy. Participants also raised infrastructure capacity as a concern. How future infrastructure needs were being planned for and who will bear that cost. The potential loss of mature trees and tree canopy was one of the strongest concerns. There was also concerns about consistency and predictability in municipal processes and decision making. Despite different perspectives, there was some important common ground.

Speaker B · Esquimalt needs more housing, affordability matters and small scale can be can be done well. The disagreement was not generally about whether small scale should exist, but whether the current zoning strikes the right balance.

Speaker B · The issues raised by workshop participants can be grouped into two broad predictability and flexibility. Predictability means clear rules, consistent decisions and a process where residents and applicants can understand. Flexibility means having rules that can respond to the property and its neighbors. Examples such as building height, block level setback, consistency and letting setbacks and site coverage flex together to protect trees. The underlying message was that participants residents were not asking for one rigid rule to be applied everywhere. They were also not asking for the absence of rules. They wanted a process that was predictably that is predictable enough to trust but flexible enough to respond to the property being considered. After identifying key themes, the workshop each group develops a recommendations.

Speaker B · Participants then voted on whether each recommendation should be explored further by the township. It's important to emphasize that the vote indicated support for further investigation. They did not represent approval of specific bylaw wording. Environmental group received the highest number of priority votes, which was 14. It recommended considering adjusting setbacks and site coverage together to protect trees and green space. Setbacks and mass in groups received 10 votes.

Speaker B · It proposed exploring angular planes which is related building height to building distance from a property line rather than relying on one minimum height. The process group also received 10 priority votes and achieved the highest level agreement among all workshop participants. It recommended notification tracker and the consideration of greater staff discretion for variances. The form and character group received nine votes.

Speaker B · It proposed exploring a height range of approximately 5. 1 to 10 meters, block setback consistency and specific privacy protection. This recommendation attracted only the only notable disagreement with three participants indicating opposition. The bylaw Lifestyle and parking group were grouped together. And their recommendation was retaining the current minimum parking requirements and they focused instead on the site design such as permeable pavers, landscaping between parking and bicycle parking.

Speaker B · Every group's recommendation received a majority support for further exploration. Survey respondents were asked to select their top three priorities for new small scale development from a list of eight options. The results, based on 413 survey responses, show how frequently each topic appeared among the respondent's top three priorities. Trees and green space ranked for first selected at 56% of respondents. This was consistent with the Environment group receiving the highest number of priority votes during the workshop. Building height and neighborhood character followed at 50%, height and massing selected by 42%, closely followed by affordability at 41%.

Speaker B · Privacy was selected at 32% and parking at 31%. These findings show that respondents what respondents ranked as the highest when forced to choose some of these topics appear again in this next slide with different percentages.

Speaker B · Those figures come from separate parts of the survey that asked respondents specifically about the provisions in the current zoning bylaw. This slide brings the different sources of impact input together and demonstrates that the recommendations are not based on one engagement method alone. Recommendation 1 the interview and workshop discussion both identified opportunities to use existing discretion now rather than waiting for future bylaw amendments. The survey also showed majority support for further consideration of all six discretionary areas.

Speaker B · Recommendation Number two the interviews called for technical review of height setbacks and lot coverage. Four of the five workshop groups raised issues requiring the type of integrated analysis. This type of integrated analysis in the survey, each of the six bylaw topics we asked about received majority support for further consideration. This is not limited to one or two areas, but the whole set.

Speaker B · The third recommendation interview participants directly identified the need for transparent tracking and notification. The process group recommendation received the highest level of agreement at the workshop. The survey also shows why improved communication matters.

Speaker B · 78% of the respondents understood that small scale was provincially required, but only 49% understood what the township could still control. None of these three recommendations rest on a single engagement method. Recommendation1 directs administration to use whatever lawful discretion it already has to weigh site specific considerations immediately rather than waiting for future bylaw amendments. To be precise, this recommendation would not give staff new authority over height setback, lot coverage or other zoning standards. Changes to those standards would require a future bylaw amendment approved by council following the work proposed under recommendation number two. Recommendation one would also not allow staff to weigh or disregard any existing bylaw requirements.

Speaker B · Recommendation one was never meant to be the whole answer. That's where Recommendation two comes in. This recommendation establishes a small scale multi unit Housing Select Committee, an advisory body that works through the technical, legal and financial details behind behind targeted bylaw changes, reporting preliminary advice before March 31, 2027 and the final recommendation by June 30, 2027.

Speaker B · The committee mandate covers building scale, site design, environmental and privacy protection process and predictability, housing feasibility and affordability exactly the areas that came through most strongly and that administration can't resolve through existing discretion alone.

Speaker B · The third and final recommendation is much simpler. It is the one with the least disagreement of the whole engagement. This recommendation would commit the township to proactively notifying recommend residents proactively notifying residents of new small scale multi unit housing applications so neighbors learn about the development on their street from the township, not after the fact.

Speaker B · This has two parts expanding the development tracker to notify residents directly and confirming use of a draft preliminary assessment tool for transparency. This has the strongest, most consistent support of anything in the engagement and is a direct low cost way to close the transparency gap we saw in that survey. The key question for Council isn't whether change should occur, but how the Township can shape it to reflect Esquimalt's local context, values and long term housing needs. What we heard didn't just inform this presentation, it directly shaped the three recommendations. The findings support an approach that is more predictable, more site responsive, technically tested and transparent about trade offs including reporting back to the community, which is the promise we made at the start of the process bringing these three recommendations to Council tonight.

Speaker B · Is that promise being kept? Thank you Mayor and Council. That concludes the presentation and Mandy and I are happy to take any questions you may have.

Speaker C · Thank you very much for all the great work. Councillor Morrison, can we ask Sorry,

Speaker D · for

Speaker C · staff you can ask questions and direct them to staff for the so thank

Speaker F · you very much for the presentation and for all the comprehensive work that was done with the working group and all the other opportunities for public input that was presented to us in this report. I guess my question, as I said more for staff, is that I don't really understand the final recommendation around having this advisory committee that will do work on this information. It means we basically have to wait, the community has to wait a full other year until we'll have a bylaw. But we've already got you included in your presentation. It was in the report. The working groups outcome recommendations. Why not just implement those into the bylaw and because it does seem like we're, you know, I thought the whole point of having the work working the workshop was so that we could get those recommendations and then start actioning the bylaw soon afterwards.

Speaker F · But it sounds like we're just use the workshop as sort of a gathering information opportunity. Then we're going to make a decision or a recommendation from this other advisory committee a year from now to council on the bylaw.

Speaker C · Let's see if we can get why that.

Speaker F · Why not just go straight to the. Take the information with staff and go straight to preparing the bylaw for council to consider.

Speaker H · So through the first Madam Chair to Councillor Morrison, the workshop did not look at specific recommendations for height, setbacks, etc.

Speaker F · There was a slide though about working group recommendations earlier on there. It's in the report that. That's what I was referring to where there was some recommendations.

Speaker L · There.

Speaker F · That's the one I was referring to. So they're talking about things that you just mentioned.

Speaker M · Right.

Speaker F · So environment setbacks, massing process, form and character, bylaw, lifestyle parking. It's all there.

Speaker H · Yeah. So there's no specific numbers there. That is a much more analytical exercise. So, yeah, they didn't say it should be 9. 5 meters or the setback should be 3. 7 meters. That, that wasn't something that the group decided.

Speaker F · Okay, but why couldn't staff take these. This information that was identified by the working group as recommendations and then. Then staff would fill in that information looking at other. Because there's all that list of comparable municipalities that we could. Staff could look to and then I would. I guess what I. The premise of my question is why are we slowing down the process so that it has to wait a whole other year for a bylaw when we could just proceed using all this information, looking at the comparable municipalities and what they use for heights. And I understand there's a. There's a variety of. But I think staff would have the professional judgment to give options to council on a bylaw.

Speaker C · I'm going to go to Mr. Horan.

Speaker F · Yeah, thank you.

Speaker R · Through the chair, the recommendation of the working group here that we just got presented, the second recommendation is that a select committee be struck to work through the technical, legal and financial details behind targeted bylaw changes. Meaning the team that got together to spend a full day looking at what needs to be done recognized that it's not just a quick bylaw change that needs to happen. There's a lot of work that needs to go into this, a lot of consultation and it's not done like that through the summer. So that's recommendation two that's in this report report here tonight.

Speaker F · So just one last question through the chair for I, I guess what was sort of frustrating for me was when I looked at all the other municipalities that were provided as examples of what they've already done with their bylaws and I just understand why they were able to do it what appears to be a much simpler and much quicker process.

Speaker C · What is your question?

Speaker F · The question is what, like why? So why are we having to do this other process where with the, I understand the information from staff, but it just seems to me that everyone else was much more streamlined in getting to their bylaw and we're adding a whole other year onto ours for this other recommendation number two around having this working advisory committee. And I understand it's, it's complicated work

Speaker C · that's been done, Councillor Morrison, so I'm going to let that question hang right now.

Speaker L · Okay.

Speaker F · But others there, there's many examples of, of other misspellers have already done this much quicker than we have.

Speaker C · Yes, that's my, that's the premise direction that we asked staff to go in.

Speaker F · Well, we did the workshop of the direction, but not this other stuff.

Speaker C · So thank, I'm going to go to Councelor Boardman.

Speaker O · Thank you. I just have a question about recommendation three. Do we know how many people are on the Esquimalt alert system out of our 18,000 people?

Speaker H · Yeah, I, I, I'm not sure. I'd have to change. Check with Tara, our communications manager. But we would certainly need to do some type of public. Getting the word out that we're starting to do this. And if you want to know what's happening with development in your neighborhood, you need to get onto a scrum alert.

Speaker O · Thanks.

Speaker E · Councillor Cavant, I have one small question. In the presentation, it talked about the committee coming back no later than March 31 and no later than June 30. And in the staff recommendation, it says no sooner than March 31 and no sooner than June 30. And so just curious about the difference between the two.

Speaker J · Yeah.

Speaker H · So the recommendation is in the start of the staff report is a recommendation from the consultant in the report. The recommendation, they end in the recommendations section is an alternative from staff because we think that the recommendation from the consultant is going to be very, very, very difficult to meet. So that's the difference. So the recommendation at the beginning of the report is the consultant's recommendation. The recommendation at the end of the report, optional recommendation, is based on a staff thinking about how much work this is actually going to be.

Speaker R · And just to jump in chair, just to add. It's trying to. I think that the workshop and the consultant's recommendation definitely reflects the desire, the desire, including staff desire and council's desire to move as quickly as possible to make some progress on this. But then in the staff report, we tweaked it from no sooner than, because we're trying to reflect the reality of the challenge of actually getting a committee struck. So with the timing of the election and with the staff that actually, you know, put together a terms of reference and then go seek members of this committee, like that solicitation period would happen, you know, during the.

Speaker R · No sooner than, say, August, September, which is election time, and then we're right into a new council and inauguration. So we're trying to. I think even. Even the recommendation here no sooner than is probably pretty ambitious, actually. Even though that's not what we want, we're just trying to reflect what's achievable.

Speaker E · I would just respond. I mean, I agree that this is a large process and a long process. I just wouldn't want to put. It feels like you're putting a limit of when you wouldn't even get. You wouldn't anyways. As opposed to putting a deadline, you're kind of preemptively putting the opposite direction, I think having an expectation that we're not going to see it likely before then. But I wouldn't want to set a committee up to say you can't report should you be done on March 15, which is kind of what it says. So,

Speaker D · yeah.

Speaker C · Councillor Armour.

Speaker J · Yeah. Just further to Councillor Kevin's comment, I fully agree. Maybe we, working with Council, when we get to the motion, can find better wording. To say no sooner than. Makes it sound like, you know, it would be wrong to do that when. When I know what staff are trying to say is those deadlines probably aren't realistic. We'll need to push them back. But I think we either working with staff, find new deadlines or we change the wording to say something like as close as possible to or something like that. It's just the wording does sound like you're penalizing yourselves for a prompt action, which I know is not the intent.

Speaker C · Was that a question? If there are. Okay, if. I'll look to Councillor Bram and if there are no questions, then I'll be looking for a motion.

Speaker D · No, I don't have any questions. I do want to make a comment as I was at the all day workshop.

Speaker C · Okay.

Speaker D · And the day.

Speaker C · No comment. Very quick. I need a motion. Okay, Councillor, I'll go to Councillor Cavins for the motion and then I'm happy to go to you, Councillor Morrison.

Speaker E · I'm going to take the staff recommendation and just remove the dates and I'll explain why in a second. So that council directs staff to begin preparations to establish a select committee following the October 2026 municipal election to work through the technical, legal and financial details behind behind targeted bylaw amendments and that the newly struck committee established reporting deadlines. Period.

Speaker C · All right, I think we need that written read back again.

Speaker E · Okay. It's basically the staff recommendation, but I stop before the very end. So that council directs staff to begin preparations to establish a select committee following the October 26th municipal election to work through the technical, legal and financial details behind targeted bylaw amendments and that the newly struck committee establish reporting deadlines.

Speaker C · Okay. Is there a seconder to that motion? Thank you. I'm just going to look to staff. Any concerns with the change? All right. So I will go to Councillor Morrison before you motivate.

Speaker F · Thank you. Your mic's still on. Sorry, just back to Councillor Boardman's question around the Escuamo. So the notification, we're saying we're going to be more proactive, but we're also saying, if I understood your answers, that they do have to go and sign up for a spinal alert. The onus is on the resident to do that. But for example, we had a public hearing this evening and I understand unless things have changed under public hearing, the proponent or the municipality provides written letters to all the surrounding neighbors that this public hearing was taking place. Or. Sorry, that's not the right example because that was the deer fencing. But the variance that we were dealing with, the surrounding neighbors were notified of that variance on tonight's agenda.

Speaker H · So that.

Speaker F · And then when we'd have a public. We used to have public hearings around development. Everybody within a certain distance of that Property would be notified officially proactively by the municipality. And so why can we just have. And then it was paid for by the proponent to do those mailings. Why could we not have the same process for these as well? So that people don't have to remember to sign up and check the squamble alerts or whatever.

Speaker H · Your worship. Councillor Morrison, that is an excellent question. So I just for the public hearing tonight. So this is a little rule that little bit obscure, but if a rezoning application affects more than 10 properties with more than 10 owners, then notices aren't mailed out. So Deer Fences affects more than 10 properties in 10. So there for just for clarity, there were no notices mailed out for the public hearing for Deer Fences for the variance tonight. Yes, letters were mailed to every owner and occupant within 50 meters. And I you saw that some of the responses you got tonight and they

Speaker F · only knew to respond or to communicate to council because of the written notification.

Speaker H · Yes.

Speaker F · Right. They didn't get it from an Esquimo alert or something?

Speaker H · Unlikely. Although the agendas are sent out on the like terrorist sends out notifications of agendas available and all that stuff. So there is a lot of advertising and notifications put out that the agendas are there.

Speaker F · But yes, but I, I mean I think we all had development somewhere in our neighborhoods where we get a written letter.

Speaker H · Yeah, that's right. So those are development variance, permits and resilience. So your, your ultimate question was why don't we do it for drawn permits? The reason is there is no legislative authority to do that. There's no legislative authority to send out notifications for development permits.

Speaker F · So there's something in the legislation says you cannot do that or is when

Speaker H · you say no legislation that says you can for rezoning and you can for variance and it doesn't say anything for if the government wanted you to send out notifications for a down permit, they would have put in there in the legislation you must send out notifications, but

Speaker F · in the absence of anything because you said there's nothing in there. Does that, does that prevent municipalities from giving formal notifications?

Speaker H · I would suggest that would be very dangerous ground to proceed if we started creating law that has no back. It's not a lot dissimilar to community mandated contributions. It doesn't say you can't do them, but there is no legislative mandate to do them.

Speaker M · Okay.

Speaker F · Because I mean I think we all agree with that recommendation, but it does seem contradictory because we're saying we're going to be more proactive in advising and. And informing residents of these things.

Speaker C · Councillor Morrison. So I've allowed you your question and you can feed into the discussion.

Speaker F · Yeah, but we're not.

Speaker C · But I want to come back to the motion.

Speaker F · We're not really proactively informing the community when we talk about this.

Speaker C · I want to come back to the motion and the mover.

Speaker L · Yeah.

Speaker E · So I'm moving that we follow the staff recommendation to create a select committee. And I think this is actually kind of what I wanted. So I'm really glad to see staff proposing it because I think this is a very complicated set of bylaw amendments, and if we want to get it right, we need to make sure we have the right people in the room, both residents, both people with technical knowledge, and even some, hopefully some members from DRC and APC who tend to see a lot of applications over time and tend to represent a wide range of our residents.

Speaker E · And my understanding is that while the workshop was good, it did skew heavily towards people who may or may not have been neighbors to some of the more controversial projects. And I just think we need to make sure we get a broad range. And I think the next council is going to have to take a lot of time to figure out what that membership's going to look like. But I think it's a long process and I think it's better off to do it right than to do it fast and still have problems. The change that I made was simply to have the newly struck committee establish its own reporting deadlines with its staff liaisons after they've been briefed in the first meeting or first couple meetings, see how long it's going to realistically take them.

Speaker E · I think they can be left to. There's going to be a member of council, at least one on there. They can help decide what the appropriate timeline is, rather than giving them a firm limit that you can't finish before March30, 31st.

Speaker C · Thank you, Councillor. Hello.

Speaker P · I don't have anything else to add. I think Councillor Cavins said it quite well. I think this is a good next step for us on an issue that the community is asking us to do quickly, but we also need to take a bit of time to do it right, because we had challenges the first time doing it quickly. So I think this is a way to try and bridge the difference of hearing the community and responding, but also taking the time to really understand what it means and how to reflect it in the rules.

Speaker C · Councillor Bram.

Speaker D · Yes, And a bit of a clarification, as I did sit through the whole workshop, there was, yes, there were some skewed, but it was skewed on both sides, actually. There was different people in the room and there were some people that weren't directly involved as neighbors or anything, so that was good. And some developers that weren't directly involved in an SSMUH development. So there was a bit of diversity there. I do know that some of the conversations staff heard quite quickly and already acted on, like the notification stuff, like when they started hearing that, so that was great. Am I disappointed that we can't do it faster? Because I am, because I heard loud and clear in that room the thoughts that they. And they wanted things to move a little faster.

Speaker D · So I get that we don't want to move so fast that we miss things or do things inappropriately, but I still go back to, you know, what do we do in the meantime and how do we don't, you know, I don't want a whole flood of developments coming in that don't meet what we heard pretty loud and clear in here in the report and at the workshop and all of that.

Speaker D · So I get why we're, you know, slowing down, but I think there's going to be some disappointment in the community around that as well, because, you know, there are more developments coming forward and they just want to make sure that things don't get pushed through quickly and get, you know, then they don't get what their concerns.

Speaker D · Their concerns met. I'll be curious as to how we pick the, the, the people for this standing committee. That'll be interesting. But, yes, we do need to do it right. But I think there will be disappointment going forward that it's going to take potentially another year to be done. So those are just my comments.

Speaker C · Thank you. Further discussion. Councillor Morrison.

Speaker F · Sorry, maybe it's another question again, just so I'm understanding the recommendation one a little bit better. So the discretion that administration, the staff would have is site specific context. So site specific is that essentially, if we're looking at this slide right now, working group recommendations, does that align with form and character? So looking at a specific site situation, you would have discretion over the height, et cetera?

Speaker H · No, there's no discretion over height, but looking at form and character, there's discretion over window placement, landscaping, plastic glazing, fencing, landscaping, encouraging, strongly encouraging the protection of trees through variances. So those type of things, but not height or setbacks. Those, those are council's purview, not so

Speaker F · just form and more or less form and character minus height guidelines that are

Speaker H · form and Character guidelines. Yes. What the building looks like, you know, it must have a front entrance, those types of things. Landscaping we can work on things like ensuring that there's landscaping within the parking areas, those sorts of things, but not heightened setbacks.

Speaker F · And unless there was a variance required, for example, what we saw tonight, there would never. You don't, you don't see a scenario where that discretion would involve you bringing it to council?

Speaker H · There, there is the ability within the procedures bylaw to bring it to council. If it's a very complex situation where we're not getting a lot of cooperation with the applicant, we can bring it to council.

Speaker L · Okay.

Speaker F · And that's left at your discretion?

Speaker H · That's correct.

Speaker F · Okay. So I just to speak. I. I totally in favor of us moving forward and I'm totally in favor of moving forward in the most prudent manner. And I, so I totally understand the arguments put forward by my colleagues have spoken so far. I still, I guess I'm. I'm wondering if I'm missing something because I, you know, in the report we see all these other municipalities and they're municipalities that are varying in sizes. Some of them are smaller than us with less resources than we have, and somehow they were able to put together a bylaw without the need of doing all this extra taking time and due diligence that we're, you know, have good arguments for doing.

Speaker F · But I don't understand why other municipalities were able to do this much more quicker than we are. And I understand that we, you know, we've taken a long time to see how this is going to. How it's been working in our community. We've learned from that experience. But it seems to me like other municipalities were a little more proactive than we have been. And it's almost. It's more of an onus on us to play catch up at the this point. And I feel like we're delaying rather than. I'm delaying is not the right word, but we're taking longer than. Than probably we should be. If, if we are actually wanting to address this issue as a reflection is what Counselor Bram said is a strong concern for a lot of neighborhoods.

Speaker C · Councelor Armour.

Speaker J · Yeah, I'll definitely support the motion. I just want to flag, you know, one of the things that came clear in the report and it's something we as a council have wrestled with so many applications. It'll be very interesting to see how future councils wrestle with this is the. Doesn't always occur, but often there's an inherent conflict between density and tree Protection and you could see that in the results. I was very interested in seeing that. High priority for a lot of people was additional housing. A high priority for a lot of people was tree protection. While those two goals aren't always able to be achieved at the same time, they sometimes conflict and we wrestle with it all the time.

Speaker J · And you know, it's, it's just going to be interesting to see how this is tackled going forward.

Speaker C · That's Councillor Cabins.

Speaker E · I just wanted to quickly respond to Councillor Morrison in that I think at least a couple of those communities did do a similar process. We're just a little bit farther behind them quite a bit. And I think having the election in the summer kind of does interrupt that work a little bit. And then also I do know that staff are working on the development capacity study that's coming to us in September and asking them to drop everything to do this will mean the other things. And so it's, I think it's a, it's a. We have to balance the various things. And I think also considering that parts of our zoning bylaw are still there from 1992, I would rather us do a proper job than to rush this through.

Speaker E · But I think if the committee forms itself in December or November and decides they can go faster and that they have the capacity and staff have the capacity, they no longer have a limit of how fast they can go. So I think that's for them to determine as well as they move forward.

Speaker C · Are we ready for the question? I will call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. Okay, council, I'm going to see if you can power through housing targets Report,

Speaker H · Your worship. Members of council, pretty straightforward. Our five year housing target was 755 4. At the end of two years we have 989 housing units. We have well exceeded the five year, not only a two year target, but the five year target. Only place we're a little bit behind is in affordable housing. But again, to do a good job in affordable housing you need lots of land that's cheap and we don't have a lot of cheap land.

Speaker C · Are there questions for staff? Councilor Armor, Go ahead.

Speaker P · It's a long one to read.

Speaker J · Yeah, I'll blast through it because our corporate secretary wants it, right? Oh yeah. Okay. I will move that Council, pursuant to section 4, subsection 3, subsection A of the Housing Supply act, receive the year two housing target progress report attached in appendix A to Staff Report Dev. 26 035. Secondly, authorize the Chief administrative officer or his delegate to, as soon as it's practical, publish support on the townships of Esquimault's website. And three, authorize the chief administrative officer or his delegate to as soon as predictable, practical, submit the report to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Speaker C · Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do you wish to speak to it? No. Yeah. Councilor Brain.

Speaker D · No, it's a great report and it

Speaker C · shows we're doing well, Councillor Morrison.

Speaker F · Yeah, we're doing very well. And it's actually not even really the full story. And I actually sent an email earlier to staff just to alert them that I was going to ask this question. And I think, you know, we. Yes, we get full credit for already receiving or obtaining our targets done in two years, which the province was thinking we needed five years to do that, which is extraordinary. But that's not the whole story. As I said, the rest of the story is all the housing that we did before these targets. Targets even became a thing for us. Which kind of almost demonstrates the fact that they weren't even necessary. I mean, we've proven that with the progress we've made already, but there's an extraordinary amount of progress prior to that.

Speaker F · So the question for staff is, do we know how many, roughly how many housing units prior to these targets coming in, in year one? So everything over the last 10 years, say from 2015 up to 20 until 2025, past decade, do we know that? Roughly?

Speaker H · Yeah, you were certificate, Councillor Morrison.

Speaker O · Yeah.

Speaker H · So from 2015 to today, we have completed 1,962 dwelling units.

Speaker F · Yeah. So again, why did we hit these housing targets? Because we were doing extraordinarily well. And then we. We proven it before these targets. We proven it with the targets. Council knows I like news releases, but I don't ask for news releases on everything. I noticed that under communication it says we'll post this report to our website, which is great, but I think this is something that certainly provides for some sharing a little bit wider at the news release, a formal news release just to show not only the province, but all of our news, neighboring municipalities and our own residents that we've done extraordinary well on housing.

Speaker F · We've already got. We've already passed the targets and we've done extraordinarily well prior to these targets even becoming something that we had to do.

Speaker C · So thank you.

Speaker F · Yeah, so that would just make that request of staff to take away if they want to do a news release on this as well for the report.

Speaker C · Any further discussion, it would be nice if the province would acknowledge it back. I Will call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. How are we doing? Do we need a five minute break? Everybody's good.

Speaker D · All right.

Speaker C · Pool. We're up to the pool dehumidification replacement tender. Mr. Henderson.

Speaker N · Thank you, your worship.

Speaker C · Welcome to the table. We haven't seen you in a while.

Speaker N · It's been a while. Yeah. Mayor and council staff are presenting staff report number PNR 26011 regarding the award of contract for the Escum Recreation center pool dehumidifier replacement. A competitive tender was issued on June 22 and closed on July 6. We received six eligible bids. Staff are recommending that a contract be awarded to the low bidder for the work and that we reallocate up to 117,000 944,000 from the garbage bin enclosure project to the pool dehumidifier replacement project. I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Speaker C · Thank you. Are there questions? Councelor H. Put the motion on the floor and we can always ask questions.

Speaker P · I'll move the council award the contract for the Esquimal recreation center pool dehumidifier replacement to Archie Johnson plumbing and heating for $943,171 excluding GST and reallocate up to 117,944 from the garbage bin enclosure project to the pool dehumidifier replacement project.

Speaker C · Thank you. And councilor Boardman Seconding. Do you wish to motivate?

Speaker H · No.

Speaker C · Do you wish to say anything? Are there any questions or discussion? Councillor Cavins.

Speaker E · Just curious that the bid documents indicate that the main unit was already pre selected and included in the bid at a fixed price. I'm just curious if that was selected competitively or.

Speaker N · Thank you for your question through the chair. Yes, we did do a RFQ process and received three bids. The engineered model engineering model was the only bid that met requirements.

Speaker E · Okay, thank you.

Speaker C · Councelor Bra. Any comment?

Speaker D · No. Thank you.

Speaker C · Okay, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. Welcome, Ms. Kitz. And we are at policing update. Thank you, Mayor and council.

Speaker B · Tonight we're presenting an update to council on policing services and policing models analysis. The report shares an important information on the policing framework agreement and its upcoming expiry on December 31, 2026 and provide some information gathered on policing models including the establishment of an Esquimalt police department with shared services. Just here answering questions.

Speaker C · Thank you. Are there questions? I'm not seeing any questions. So there is. Thank you. Yeah, it's it. Although it is a receive. It is there's more to it.

Speaker J · Yeah.

Speaker H · Yeah.

Speaker C · Is there a seconder to that? Thank you, Councilor Armor. I'll move.

Speaker J · The council receive staff report number SI26016. The update on policing services and policing models. Analysis for information and direct staff to include a comprehensive orientation and strategic discussion about policing. Earlier in 2026, 2030 term of council, enabling decision making on future strategic direction for the framework agreement, regionalization opportunities and exploration of alternative policing models.

Speaker C · Thank you. Do you wish to speak to it?

Speaker J · Just that I thought it was a really good report, very comprehensive, covered the whole range of. Of issues. I think any member of the public who are wondering where we're at, this provides a great summary and in fact, on that note, I don't know if you know, I don't know how many Esquimault residents are going to. No offense to stuff, but we may want to put, I don't know, some sort of summary up on a website. I don't know, I'm. I'm speculating now, but there's just a lot of good information in here.

Speaker C · Thank you, Councilor Boardman. Thank you.

Speaker O · Yeah, it's definitely, definitely an excellent report. And you put 20 years worth of history in five pages and you did it really well. And I think that anybody reading this from the public is going to really clearly understand where we are now and, and what we need to do next. So thank you.

Speaker C · Further discussion. Councillor Morrison, I think it's worth pointing

Speaker F · out too, that, you know, I know you've been here 20 years now. Councillor Bram, myself, also been here longer term. Councillor Armour, Councillor Halliwell, we've been here for two terms. We've always been talking every year about regional policing, the need for regional policing, and it always seems to be that Moby Dick story of the white whale or something that we can never actually have some sort of victory on. And I think, though it's worth pointing out that the world is a bit changing in our region and there is an amalgam, very, very important amalgamation referendum. While it's not binding, it's certainly going to lead to a lot of discussion and a lot of thought between San Angel Victoria around sharing of major resources and perhaps even amalgamating, if that's where they decide to go.

Speaker F · We know Oak Bay is also looking at options around their needs as well. So I think we're now getting closer to a place where there might be regional policing becoming a rally, more so than all the years of the past. And so I think that this report kind of tells a good story about where Squamold is right now. But I think there is also that exciting opportunity that may come our way around regionalization, and I think the public need to be well informed on that possibility and to be advocating alongside of us and our neighbors for that as well.

Speaker C · Councillor Cavan Council.

Speaker E · Yeah, I just want to thank you for the report. I also wanted to draw attention to the second to last paragraph, which talks about, with the arrival of Chief Constable Wilson, the change that we've noted and seen in how VICPD is more publicly responding to the requests that we're doing. And so we really feel like we're at a different place, even though the report sort of makes it sound like we're not at a different place, but it really does feel like we're not a different place in terms of how VICPD is hearing. Esquimalt concerns have been raised for a very long time, and we're seeing it concretely outside the building, and we're seeing it in our community as after hours by law enforcement and just a presence there.

Speaker E · So I want to say thank you to the Chief for that and hope that continues, and that really frames how we want to go forward. If that continues, that's going to help us move forward in a way that's going to benefit everyone.

Speaker C · So, Councillor Bram, do you wish to say anything?

Speaker D · Just that this report really should be in the next council orientation because it does sum things up quite nicely for historical background.

Speaker C · Thank you. Okay, this is my last kick at this one. So, in 2008, we had a budget of about 25 million, 500,000 out of a total of 37 million. In 2014, when the framework Agreement came in, our budget had increased to 6. 75 million of a 45 million budget. Coincidentally, Oak Bay at the same time only had a $4 million budget with a full service police department.

Speaker C · We had the Lepard report because we pushed and pushed and pushed at the province to say things are not equitable. And they listened and gave us the reports that showed that there was an imbalance, but then clawed back some of it because instead of using extra policemen in the report, it said we had extra policemen.

Speaker C · Instead of Victoria taking those extra, we ended up having to pay for them and keep them. So at that point in 2021, our budget moved up to $8 million of $59 million. Oak Bay stayed rather the same.

Speaker C · So it continues to be a challenge. And future councils have to be clear on the concerns around costs and governance. And, yes, There are changes right now that are occurring that are positive, but that needs counsel of Esquimalt to stay on top of what is happening and the community to continue to provide their input. Regionalization would be so much better for Esquimalt, but there needs to be the consensus of the four core municipalities. That's hard to achieve. That's going to be if there is the opportunity. That is going to be a long and an arduous process. But I have faith and ultimately I just want to say that an esquimalt police department, which was one of the things that we said immediately we would take out of the equation, may ultimately have been very expensive.

Speaker C · But at some point this future councils are going to have to figure out whether that's the direction they have to go in order to get some sense of control over both governance and cost. And it may be that it's expensive upfront, but there's savings in the background. So I'll call the question on the motion. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried and thank you council for indulging me.

Speaker C · We are down to naming of the township's new fire and Emergency management facility.

Speaker S · Chief Good evening your worship and council. The report before you tonight is ultimately about establishing the permanent identity of the new civic facility. When the project was first conceived nearly six years ago, the name Public Safety Building made sense because the original concept included both police and fire services. As the project evolved, the police component was removed while the working name continued throughout the planning, design and construction. With the completion now approaching, staff felt it was important to pause and consider what the new building actually is and how the community will understand it and how it will be referred to decades to come. The facility will be the operational home of Esquimalt Fire Rescue Services, the township's Emergency Operations center and the Emergency and Resiliency Program. While all of these functions are important, the building's primary public identity will be the Fire Hall.

Speaker S · That is what the residents already call the existing facility is the terminology used in township events such as the Fire Hall Spooktacular and the Fire Hall Open House, and it provides the clearest language for public way finding and emergency communication. Staff reviewed a number of naming options and recommends Esquimalt Fire hall as the official name supported by co branding for esquimalt Fire Rescue Services and the Emergency and Resiliency Program. The recommendation before council is intended to provide a simple, recognizable and an enduring name that accurately reflects the building and how the community will naturally identify it. I'm happy to take Your questions?

Speaker C · Thank you. Are there questions? There are no questions. Councelor armor.

Speaker J · I'm going to move that. Council approved naming the township's new foreign emergency department management facility as the Esquimo Fire Hall.

Speaker C · Thank you. Do you want to speak to.

Speaker I · It's.

Speaker J · It's interesting, you know, because I. This could have been a discussion that could take hours, but fortunately it's late in the night, so hopefully it won't. I mean, it was an interesting public safety building. Doesn't make sense. So it really came down to fire station or fire hall. And you know, I was thinking about it, did a little bit of research on it and it, you know, fire station is seen as sort of the modern terminology, whereas fire hall is, you know, according to AI anyway, deeply rooted in Canadian context and carries a friendly communal connotation. And given the choice of the two, I like hall for that very reason. And I assume that's partly what drove your thinking on it, so. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Exactly. Yeah. So for that reason, that's why I like hall.

Speaker C · Thank you, Councillor Cavan.

Speaker E · I'm going to concur entirely with that. The only comment is that I think in the renderings it would be right to actually say Esquimault Fire hall and make Esquimault a little bit more prominent than just Fire Hall. But that's a design issue.

Speaker C · I have a question for staff. Did we consider anything around using Lekongan language? I'm okay with Esquimalt Fire hall, although it just. Everybody's going to know it's that Fire hall. But this is a fantastic building.

Speaker C · So is there anything else we can do that speaks to that special building?

Speaker S · We thank you for the question, your worship. We will be including indigenous artwork and we have looked at some indigenous wayfinding on the building, but the primary intent behind the fire hall is really showed up with civic wayfinding and emergency communications where it has to be simple, recognizable, consistent language.

Speaker S · And for that reason, the recommendation was fire hall.

Speaker C · Okay, well, it will be the fire hall. It is the fire hall. Even those live around it have never lost the fire hall. So I will call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. Thanks, chief. We move down to council remuneration bylaw. And this is for first, second and third reading. Councillor Hallowell.

Speaker P · I'll move that council give first, second and third reading to Council Remuneration Bylaw 2020, number 3193.

Speaker C · Thank you. Thank you. Do you wish to speak to it?

Speaker P · I think we had our. Our fulsome discussion about at the last meeting. This is now putting those discussions into the bylaw.

Speaker C · Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. We have the reports from the committee of the whole. The resolutions to be ratified. I'll just check with Ms. Hopkins. They don't need to be read out, do they? They don't need to be done individually. They can just be ratified. Okay. There, I made it easy for you. Council. Councilor Armour, you are moving Ratification?

Speaker J · Oh, I was just agreeing with your wonderfulness, but, yeah, I.

Speaker F · Can I.

Speaker C · Can we get punchy about this time?

Speaker J · There's nothing that says wording I'm supposed

Speaker R · to use, but I will move.

Speaker C · Thank you. Is there a seconder? Thank you. Councilor Cavins, do you. Do you wish to speak to it? We had good discussion last week. Anyone wish to have any comment? All right. Hearing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. All right, we're down to public comment, period. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak? I'll call a second time. And I'll call a third time. We all wish you a very safe and happy summer, and we will see you in September for the final sprint of the race. Safe travels home tonight. A motion to adjourn, please.

Speaker P · Second.

Speaker C · All those in favor? Any opposed? Non opposed. Motions carried.