Council adopted the 2026–2030 financial plan and advanced several major borrowing and infrastructure decisions. The clearest split came over council pay: most members chose to compare Oak Bay with larger, higher-spending Capital Regional District municipalities, while the mayor preferred all regional municipalities. Council also reversed its earlier refusal of a covenant change at 592 Island Road, approving a revised tree-protection arrangement after debate over the tree risk and whether council had enough new information. BC Transit outlined a 25-year regional plan, including more frequent and rapid service, while councillors pressed for reliable local connections and meaningful public input on future route changes.
Generated from the recording's captions and the official minutes.
What was discussed
AI summary · check against sources
7.1 BC Transit Draft Victoria Regional Transit Plan
BC Transit presented a draft plan looking ahead to 2050, replacing the region’s 2011 long-range plan. Its proposals include an all-day frequent network with service at least every 15 minutes, more rapid transit, express routes, better airport service, and planning for higher-capacity transit between downtown Victoria and Langford. A presenter said digital on-demand service could be considered in lower-density parts of Oak Bay, while maintaining basic access and coverage would remain important. BC Transit plans to make minor revisions, present the draft to its commission in July, and later conduct public engagement on detailed network changes.
Agreement
Councillors welcomed regional transit planning and supported improving service and connections.
Council members stressed that local routes must connect residents—including seniors and people unable to walk far—to frequent or rapid transit.
BC Transit said a later network review would include substantial public engagement.
Disagreement
A councillor cautioned that low ridership on infrequent routes may reflect unreliable service, not a lack of demand, and urged equity safeguards rather than relying too heavily on on-demand service.
9.1.1 Report of the Oak Bay Mayoral Task Force on Derelict Vessels and Marine Management
Council considered the task force report as part of the recommendations from the March 16 Committee of the Whole meeting. The report was received, and council directed staff to report back with follow-up work. The transcript does not capture the full wording of that direction.
Agreement
The recommendation carried without recorded debate.
Council received the task force report for information and asked staff to outline the work-plan impacts of advancing its recommendations. Staff will bring that options analysis to the next review of Council’s Priority Projects, and the report will be shared with neighbouring municipalities, the Yacht Club Board, and other interested local agencies.
Official wording: THAT Council receive the report from the Oak Bay Mayoral Task Force on Derelict Vessels and Marine Management dated March 16, 2026, for information.
THAT Council direct staff to report back with a Council Priority Project Options Analysis identifying a high-level overview of the work plan impacts associated with advancing the recommendations as outlined in the report from the Task Force on Derelict Vessels and Marine Management dated March 16, 2026;
AND THAT the Project Options Analysis be brought forward at the next review of Council's Priority Projects.
THAT the report be referred to neighbouring municipalities, the Yacht Club Board, and other local agencies that would have an interest.
Two members of the public spoke about the draft framework. One urged council not to endorse it, raising concerns about the province’s handling of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and saying the framework should distinguish treaty lands. Another speaker noted that the province was pausing its work on the Act. The mayor said the framework was about Oak Bay’s roles and relationships with First Nations, not setting legal obligations under the Act; a councillor described its focus as relationship-building and reconciliation. Council received the framework for information.
Agreement
Council agreed to receive the framework for information.
The mayor and a councillor described relationship-building and reconciliation as central to the framework.
Disagreement
A public speaker opposed endorsing the framework as written and argued that it should address treaty lands and the provincial legal context; the mayor said those legal questions were not what the framework set out to do.
Routine: receive the report on the draft Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Framework for information.
Official wording: THAT Council receive the report from the Chief Administrative Officer titled "Draft Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Framework" dated March 16, 2026, for information.
Council set the process for reviewing mayor and council remuneration, not the amounts themselves. It directed staff to start a review and prepare a policy for reviews every four years, by April of the fourth year of a council term. The chosen comparators are Capital Regional District municipalities with populations over 10,000 and expenses over $10 million. Staff said a draft policy and remuneration information would return to council in May. The mayor favoured comparing all regional municipalities; the motion to use the narrower group passed with the mayor opposed.
Agreement
Council supported beginning a remuneration review and having future reviews every four years.
Council agreed that future reviews could be conducted by staff or an independent consultant.
Council agreed to complete future reviews by April of the fourth year of a council term.
Disagreement
The mayor preferred using all Capital Regional District municipalities as comparators; the carried choice excluded municipalities that did not meet the population and expense thresholds.
Councillors discussed whether the review should account for municipal complexity, the value of consultant work, and how current the comparator municipalities’ own reviews were.
The remuneration review will compare Oak Bay only with CRD municipalities that have more than 10,000 residents and total expenses over $10 million.
Official wording: THAT the comparator municipalities used for the review be only those municipalities in the Capital Regional District (CRD) with populations larger than 10,000, and total expenses exceeding $10,000,000.
Staff will prepare a policy requiring Council’s remuneration to be reviewed every four years, either by an independent consultant or by staff.
Official wording: THAT staff prepare a Council Remuneration Policy, including a provision that future remuneration reviews be conducted every four years by either an independent consultant or staff.
The policy will require each remuneration review to be completed by April in the fourth year of a Council term, before the general local election.
Official wording: THAT the Council Remuneration Policy include that future reviews be completed by April of the fourth year of a Council term, prior to a General Local Election.
Council received staff’s first long-term borrowing guidelines and approved the proposed communications approach. Staff described an internal borrowing limit of 15% of revenues, with closer monitoring if borrowing rises into the 15–20% range, and said the limit was not expected to be exceeded in the current forecast. Councillors focused on explaining why Oak Bay faces a backlog after years of underinvestment, how borrowing affects different generations, and how residents will be consulted on individual projects. Staff said project-specific communication and engagement would depend on the project and its approval process.
Agreement
Council approved the communications approach and supported explaining borrowing in plain language.
Councillors called for clear information about the consequences of past underinvestment, the cost of delaying work, and how debt and reserves work together.
Council members supported stronger consultation as major projects and borrowing decisions come forward.
Disagreement
No disagreement on the motion was recorded; councillors differed in their suggestions for how much consultation and public-facing material the approach should include.
Routine: receive the report on long-term borrowing guidelines and the communications plan.
Official wording: THAT the report titled “Long Term Borrowing Guidelines and Communications Plan”, authored by Rianna Lachance, Director of Finance and Asset Management, dated April 13, 2026 be received.
Council approved a site-specific zoning change to allow an addition to a 1913 house at 1330 Hampshire Road. The house already exceeds the current floor-area ratio limit, so the amendment raises the limit for this property. Council members welcomed the proposal as a way to retain and upgrade an older home near the village. Council gave the bylaw first, second and third readings and adopted it at the meeting.
Agreement
Councillors who commented supported preserving the older house and allowing it to be upgraded.
Council rescinded the bylaw’s earlier third reading, removed the words “not-for-profit” from Section 1 of the amendment, and gave the amended bylaw third reading. The change removes the nonprofit qualification from the car-share provision, whose wording still refers to a car-share co-op. A councillor asked why the bylaw was limited to co-ops; staff said the term was used in other jurisdictions but could not explain why it should be retained. The bylaw will return for adoption.
Agreement
Council approved rescinding the earlier third reading, the amendment, and third reading as amended.
Council members acknowledged that the bylaw could need further changes if other car-share models seek to operate in Oak Bay.
Disagreement
A councillor questioned why the bylaw referred specifically to co-ops rather than car-share programs more broadly; staff could not provide a substantive reason.
Council removed the words “not-for-profit” from Section 1 of the proposed streets and traffic bylaw amendment.
Official wording: THAT "Streets and Traffic Bylaw No. 4100, 2000, Amendment Bylaw No. 4955, 2026" be amended in Section 1 by striking the words "not-for-profit".
Council adopted the amendment to the Development Application Procedures Bylaw. The transcript gives no further discussion of what the amendment changes.
Agreement
The adoption motion carried without recorded debate.
Council adopted loan authorization bylaws for the road reconstruction program and storm sewer rehabilitation program. During discussion, a councillor asked when council could consider added streetscape work under the complete streets policy, such as sidewalks, trees, bike racks or benches. Staff said council sees the capital plan and can weigh in on project scope; council approval is sought for some optional additions, and staff expect to bring forward more opportunities as the capital program grows.
Agreement
Both loan authorization bylaws were adopted without opposition.
Staff confirmed that council would have opportunities to consider optional enhancements to capital projects.
Council adopted the 2026–2030 financial plan. The mayor described it as the end of a lengthy process involving staff, public input and council deliberation, and called the result a compromise balancing community needs with responsible financial management. The vote was unanimous.
Council reopened its earlier decision to deny a covenant amendment for 592 Island Road, then voted down that denial and approved the amendment. The applicant’s proposal would adjust the tree-protection area to allow a larger building footprint; the approved resolution also authorizes the mayor and corporate officer to discharge the existing covenant and register a replacement. Supporters said the plans fit the neighbourhood, would provide a home with a secondary suite, and included measures to reduce risk to a significant tree. Opponents argued that the covenant should be upheld and that council had no new staff report or information to justify changing its earlier decision.
Agreement
Council agreed to reconsider the earlier resolution.
Members on both sides recognized the importance of the protected tree and the covenant.
Disagreement
Supporters judged the tree risk manageable and the housing and neighbourhood-fit benefits worthwhile; opponents said the covenant was clear and the existing record did not justify changing it.
Some members supported reconsideration after a site visit and further discussions; others argued that these did not amount to new information from staff.
Council reopened its earlier decision to deny the covenant amendment application for 592 Island Road.
Official wording: That Council reconsider resolution 2026-132 THAT Covenant Amendment application COV00010 for the property located at 592 Island Road be denied.
Council approved the covenant change for 592 Island Road and authorized the Mayor and Corporate Officer to replace the existing covenant with a new restrictive covenant so the tree protection area can be amended.
Official wording: THAT Covenant Amendment application COV00010 for the property located at 592 Island Road be approved;
AND THAT the Mayor and Corporate Officer be authorized to discharge the covenant CA7084432 and to register a new restrictive covenant against the subject property to allow for an amendment to the tree protection area.
Council received a Capital Regional District letter asking municipalities to identify publicly owned or otherwise viable sites for supportive housing and sheltering. Staff said Oak Bay was not undertaking an immediate site review in response, while future work—including an affordable housing strategy and review of municipal lands and facilities—could help clarify its role. After receiving the letter, council defeated a motion to have the mayor write to the housing minister outlining potential plans for below-market or shelter housing. Members who opposed the letter said Oak Bay first needed more information about sites, services and resources; supporters wanted to show the province that the district was not ignoring the regional need.
Agreement
Council agreed to receive the correspondence for information.
Members recognized that supportive housing and sheltering require more than a site, including services and resources.
Disagreement
Some councillors supported a letter to the minister to acknowledge the need and maintain communication; others said a response would be premature before Oak Bay had completed internal work and identified what it could offer.
Routine: receive the CRD Board’s letter about possible sites for supportive housing for information.
Official wording: THAT the correspondence dated March 26, 2026 from C. McNeil-Smith, Chair of the Capital Regional District Board, regarding potential sites for supportive housing, be received for information.
The Mayor would write to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs about the District’s possible plans to identify suitable locations for below-market or shelter housing.
Official wording: THAT the Mayor write a letter to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs outlining the District’s potential plans that would identify appropriate places for below-market or shelter housing.
Routine: adopt the minutes of the two Council meetings held on March 23, 2026.
Official wording: THAT the following minutes be adopted:
Council Meeting held on March 23, 2026 6:00 PM; and
Council Meeting held on March 23, 2026 7:00 PM.
Routine: receive the listed Heritage Commission and Advisory Planning Commission minutes.
Official wording: THAT the following committee minutes be received:
Heritage Commission meeting held on February 4, 2026;
Advisory Planning Commission meeting held on February 18, 2026; and
Heritage Commission meeting held on March 4, 2026.