Transcript: Council Meeting - 08 Jun 2026

Just checking the audio on the live stream. Thanks.

room sound check. How does it sound? Sounds good. Thanks.

Checking online audio.

Good uh good evening everyone and welcome to our regularly scheduled council meeting for June the 8th 2026. As we call the meeting to order, we just like to acknowledge that we do our business on the traditional territories of the coast and straight salish peoples. specifically recognize luungan speaking people known today as the sonis and casapsum or squamalt nations and that their historic connection to these lands and adjoining waters continue to this day. Uh up first approval of the agenda. Can I have a mover and a seconder? Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. We have four sets of minutes for approval. Can I have a move all four? Move second. Any changes, corrections, or amendments to those minutes?

See none. All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. Uh we also have receipt of the special parks, recreation and culture committee of April 15th. Moved and seconded. Thank you. Uh any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. Uh my remarks will be brief. We have a big agenda tonight. So we'll try and keep uh on pace. Um this is our first meeting in June, which is uh many things including National Indigenous People's Month, uh the Pride Month, and Parks and Recreation Month. Uh so lots of things going on. I um want to just uh thank all the organizers of the tea party. Uh it was a very successful event despite some chilly weather at times. Um uh we it was a first for a couple of reasons. There was a song tent with with food uh provision uh including Banick. Um uh the uh the separation of the waste was was handily handed over to Ron Carter and team and and that was a great last minute addition. Um really want to just thank

to uh the police, parks and public works staff from the municipality for all that they do to contribute to that and of course all the volunteers who [clears throat] actually make it happen. Uh I do want to just acknowledge uh because if she looks a little frazzled, councelor Brieweight is one of the u on the board of the tea party and is the baroness of beef and takes care of that and generally gets no sleep for three and a half days and is showing up here. So just just acknowledge if uh that that work. So well well done council braithweight. Um of course the teacup race uh went forward with all all participants surviving which was awesome. And um uh I'll leave it there.

And then the actually I just should thank the uh the Oak Bay police were my opponents this year and they were great sports. Uh I dressed up in a black and white robbers costume and they wore blue flashing lights on their helmets as they as we chased each other around over the waves. So it was a lot of fun. Um and then uh last item of interest. Uh I can't believe it's here already, but yay is the uh the first night market is happening uh this week on Oak Bay Avenue. So hope we see everybody there. Uh we now move to the open portion of the meeting where we just invite members of the public. Uh so this is if you wish to speak to items not on the agenda tonight but are just of general interest to Oak Bay, uh this is an opportunity to do so. The items that many of the items on the agenda do allow for public participation and we do have uh make it available at that time. Uh so this is uh sometimes there's questions, sometimes there's comments. Um but for those

online, you can hit uh star 9 uh through the 1855 number or in the Zoom app, you can use the raise hand. If you're in the room, uh if anybody wishes to come and address council, you can do so at this time. Please come forward. So you can be a good good demonstr good demonstration here. Uh just state your name clearly. State your name, your municipality of residence. You don't have to give your address. And then you have up to three minutes. Welcome. Sure. Uh, and thank you, mayor and council. My name is Evan Brown, resident of Oak Bay. Um, and I'll make it brief tonight. Um, but I'm representing the Upland's Neighborhood Association.

Um, and on May 31st, the association submitted a position paper uh setting out parameters in which development uh within the Uplands uh could take place. And the rational behind the paper um was put forth uh some options to increase density in the uplands while maintaining its historic one-of-a-kind park-like setting. Um, as you're well aware, the Uplands is quickly becoming a target for development and the and the Uplands Neighborhood Association um has set forth a plan um looking to add some additional protections uh potentially v via bylaw changes in an effort to uh focus a de development that would better serve a wider demographic of residents and not just uh the wealth healthy.

Uh, tonight I'm here as a representative of the UNA and looking to take any feedback um to our membership on this paper that was submitted about a week ago. And I wanted to just check in and ask if the council had any feedback, if they've been through the paper yet, uh, when we would expect some communication back. Sure. Uh, probably don't have a lot of questions back to you at this point. I think all members of council have had a chance to receive it, go through it, and probably I will probably be reaching out to you at some point just to have a conversation about what what uh what possible next steps are. There are it's not [clears throat] quick or easy to change bylaws, but certainly uh we' be very interested. There's certainly many interesting points. It was not a uh it was a comprehensive document that was sent over with lots of lots of rationale for the for the point put forward. I'll I'll give you that.

Good. Well, that was it. I'll be brief and I'll hand the mic over. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. Anybody else like to come and speak to council? Welcome. Uh just uh have a seat, push the button in the middle to turn on the microphone, name, municipality residents, and you have up to three minutes. Thank you. Um, and I want to also know if it's appropriate. I wanted to talk about the report on phasing out gas powered uh, leaf blowers. No, we did we did receive a lot of correspondence, but that is one of the items that is not on here for public for public input tonight. Okay. So, I shouldn't speak about it.

Not not for that particular agenda item. No, although you could speak in I guess in general terms about environmental issues or or something of that nature. Um, okay. But thank you. I'm sorry. It is on public. I My apologies. It was not a public input. I asked it to. Yes, we moved it over to public input. It will have an opportunity for public input at the time that we it comes on the agenda. So, I will come back at that point. It won't be long. Okay. I'll report it. All right. Anybody else wish to speak to council on any other matter? Yeah, please come forward.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. My name is Leona Fernet, and I live I'm a resident of Oak Bay. I'm also a a representative of the Upper Henderson residents and the Oak Bay neighborhood network is something that our group has become members of. So, as you can understand, I have a considerable amount of um concern for my community. Um I, as you know, I've come and talked to you before about these continued unintended consequences that are are happening because of Bill 44. And um you know I think there is a a somewhat of a you know a bit of a frenzy going on about you know developers getting as much as they possibly can off of a lot. So I'm here to complain about the uh what is happening to 3401 Woodburn Avenue. It is I can just ask you to keep your comments on a general thing because a single land use application. It's not an application that's in front of us.

No, it's not. It's already approved. So, you know, it's put it's this particular thing has put a huge imposition on a neighbor two doors down. It's quite tragic actually that this could happen. And again, I ask you as council and mayor that you just can't turn yourself to the side when it comes to these issues. Existing residents are your constituents. Existing residents have a vested interest in our community. the our our existing residents are significant contri contributors to what we have today. I would like to see some real activity that you as council members and as mayor meet with these residents that are being impacted so negatively.

And that's all I have to say and I thank you again for the opportunity to talk. Thank you for coming out tonight. Uh I will say there is uh there is some work happening. Um one of the thing directors given recently was just on some work on some bylaw updates to look at some potential changes to midblock um zoning uh under the bill 44 smallcale multi-unit housing. So uh it is recognized that that again as you say unintended consequences unanticipated designs and so we are looking at that. So thank you. Anybody else from uh the audience either online or in person? I don't see any other hands online. So uh any other Oh, please come forward. And yes, if anybody's in a different room, I can't see everybody. So just please maybe come to the doorway if you intend to speak next. Welcome. Uh just push the button in the middle to turn on the microphone and then you name municipality. Three minutes. There we go.

Hi, my name is Sasha Eizard. Uh some of you may know of me. I'm from the neighboring district of Sanage. Um I'm going to speak a bit later on another issue. Uh but while I was here I thought I'd get something on the record and that is I think the district of Oak Bay is a paying member of the South Island Prosperity Partnership. Is that accurate? We are. Um they have a report on their website under publications called transformation our impact journey. On page three they claim a $9320 ROI uh return on initiative uh sorry return on investment uh for their initiatives. I'm highly skeptical of this figure. The source cited on the website is Parin Thorough and Associates. Well, they don't have a website, which is very strange to site a source that doesn't have a website. Um, so I ask on the record uh that the district of Oak Bay uh contact the South Island Prosperity Partnership and ask them to produce the report that they site uh for

their $9320 um ROI on their initiatives. Uh thank you. Thank you. We do have a representative that uh is our lease on there. So we can certainly pass that along with that. Thank you. Anything else? It's always interesting what we get coming to this table. So uh don't see any other hands. I'm going to move on if I don't see any other speakers. Okay. Uh thank you for everyone who speaks. I I do appreciate it. Can be intimidating thing to come up to a microphone in a crowded room. So uh thanks to all who who came forward to speak. Uh I move next to section 7. uh these 7.1 the uh section 7 has items that are available for public input including the first one which is a review of the phasing out of gas powered garden equipment which my apologies I started to say was not available. So procedurally here anything that happens for public input we we tend to do it this way. Uh I will invite uh an introduction either a presentation uh introduction from staff. We'll have the opportunity for council to ask

questions. Uh before we get to any kind of motions or direction, we will allow for public input and then we will come back to at the end of public input, we will come back to this table and give give directions, debate motions and so forth. So that's the back and forth and thing. If you're online, uh same process, you can raise your hand online anytime and I will get to you when I get to the public input portion. Uh with that, am I giving it to Miss Woods or to you Mr. Bull? Miss Woods. Thank you, mayor. Uh, good evening, mayor and council. Uh, this report provides an update on council resolution to uh, 2022 uh, 436 relating to the phasing out of gaspowered garden equipment. The report outlines the origins of the motion and describes some of the challenges it faces in implementation.

Uh, these challenges relate to uncertain legal jurisdiction as well as capacity for implementation. staff suggests that the level of effort required exceeds that of a typical council resolution and for these reasons um the motion remains stalled. Although it is difficult to quantify the exact amount of GHG emissions associated with all gas powered garden equipment in the district. Uh given what we know about the district's GHG emissions profile that the largest source of emissions come from driving and from heating and cooling homes and buildings, it is estimated that the GHG uh impact associated with gas-powered garden equipment is comparably small. As such, staff are recommending that this item be considered and prioritized along with other initiatives as part of the community climate action plan. The plan will prioritize proposed actions such as this one alongside estimations of climate change mitigation impact, cost, and level of effort. Without taking a strategic approach through a planning process, it remains difficult to identify which actions are critical and where staff attention and district resources are best directed. Alongside this recommendation, staff are also

recommending communication support for a shift to battery and sorry, electric and battery powered equipment. and that this item be removed from the existing list of outstanding council resolutions. Uh, Deputy Director Green and Director Bull and I are here this evening. We'll take any questions that council may have. Thank you. Uh, thank you very much for that brief introduction. I will now turn to members of council with any questions. council green smart breeway through you mayor to um staff and thank you very much for the report and I do appreciate the recommendations and I just wondered if you had seen a submission from Oak Bay climate force also a very comprehensive and and and cogent um sort of guideline paper that I I I found very helpful as well. So thank you. I'm glad you've seen it. Thank you.

For the record, there was a nod to indicate yes. Just just because she didn't answer verbally. I'm just letting people know that she had through the chair. Yes, I did see it. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Uh and then I move over to councelor Smart and then brief. Thank you. Um uh through staff, I just had a couple um questions. Um, one of them was, uh, by moving this resolution to the community climate action plan, will this later lead us to after, um, our climate action plan goes through community consultation, potentially to some next steps such as um, a grant program should we decide to do that later in the future, and potential funding options.

Miss Woods, uh, through the chair. Uh, yes. Yes. As part of the um planning process, this this item will be prioritized um as I said based on level of impact um and cost and staff capacity and um that will be informed by technical analysis as well as community input and so um potentially uh a grant program or rebate program could be an outcome of that. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. um through Mayor Timswoods. Uh my other question was just with regards to a clarification and I appreciate how comprehensive the report was. Um with regards to outlining staff currently considering um electric uh with with new equipment. I'm wondering um at this time do we um not have a plan um for staff with target dates to phase out gas powered garden equipment for our own municipality?

Miss Woods, uh through the chair, I can start. Um potentially there'll be maybe others who can contribute. Um but uh no, at this time we don't have uh a definitive timeline uh for phasing out uh gas powered equipment uh corporately. Um some of that transition is happening already as is stated in the report. Um and uh some of it is a little bit you know due to market transformation as well. Um and uh perhaps I'll pass it over at that time. I welcome Mr. Slier who's our director of parks, recreation, culture and building district facilities. District facilities. Thank you. Thank you. Just [clears throat] a touch more on the topic. Um staff and the parks team have been um testing [clears throat] and triing uh electric powered equipment over the last few years. Um to your point though as my colleague mentioned we don't have a specific plan and that is something that would need to be developed both for the tools themselves as well as the infrastructure to support the charging counc

where where does staff anticipate the initiative ranking relative to the other climate actions that were currently being considered. So, where does it where does it rank with what we're thinking about already? Miss Woods, uh through the chair, uh to you, councelor Braithweight. Um it's that's a hard question to answer. Um as I stated, you know, we know what the largest contributors are. Um and so we don't rank it at at that level. Um but the planning process itself will help us identify you know where the largest impact is um and how we can prioritize actions accordingly. Thank you. Thank you. And if I may, mayor, um and if we do direct additional work on this initiative now, uh do we know which existing council priority projects would likely be delayed?

[snorts] Mr. Bhead. No. Thank you, mayor. Through you. Um right now, uh let me see. It depends a bit on what direction you give us. But if it's um through a council resolution to ask for X, right, there's um there is some there is one of the staff recommendations is a council resolution with some follow-up and Miss Woods can comment on that. Uh but if it's one of the other options to pursue a bylaw or something like it earlier um for now it it depends a bit on your um direction but for now it would hold off until we have time to look at council priority projects again. So uh it depends a bit what the priority is that you would like to attach to this. Thank you. Yeah. Go ahead Miss Hunt.

Thank you very much. Maybe I'll help my colleague out. Um as this is related to climate action and Megan is our only climate action planner. it would she would be responsible for leading on that action and it would delay uh the work that she would be doing on the larger um community action plan as well as the corporate action plan. Thank you. And last lastly, mayor um um given that the district operations Oh, no. I I think that one's already been asked. Um have any uh indication has there been any indication from the province whether approval would be forthcoming if council pursued a regulatory ban? And are there any other municipalities that have been successful with that over the years?

Uh yeah, through the mayor. Um I'll maybe I'll answer the second question first. Uh so no um I don't know of any jurisdictions in BC um or even across Canada, I believe. Uh to my knowledge, um that have pursued a bylaw of this type. Um I believe there are some in North America, but I don't think I have any Canadian examples. Um and to answer the first question um to answer the first question I um sorry um pardon me can you can you repeat it? Yeah absolutely um has there any been any indication from the province whether approval would be forthcoming if council pursued a regulatory ban?

Thank you. Apologies to the chair. Um I don't have an answer to that. I I don't know. Um we yeah we have we have not pursued that at this time. Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't see other questions from council at this time. I think there's probably going to be some discussion debate. Uh but before I get there, I'll invite members of the public to come forward. So, we had a former speaker which I sent back to a seat briefly. Uh welcome back. If you can just follow the same process, just turn on the microphone. Uh state your name and your municipality of residence and you're welcome to address council.

Is is is it is it on? Yeah, it is. Okay. Um your worship. Uh I'm Fran. My name is Francis Landy. I've been here before. Uh Deja Vu. Um I um I'm a resident of Oak Bay. I I come uh I was I was the author the the the initiator of the petition uh which was the uh at the uh not quite the fa at but but close to the original of of the of the of this whole process uh signed by 450 members residents of Oak Bay and about 200 from outside Oak Bay. Um so it's really nice to be here and I miss Taran.

Um I wanted to talk about uh noise sens sensitivity. Um noise sensitivity is one of the great un undernowledged maladies of our era. It affects about 20% of the population especially with people with with with PTSD uh including members of our police force. It's different from uh noise as a nuisance. It causes extreme mental stress. Uh [clears throat] and anything that mitigates that mental stress is invaluable. Um a European study showed that about four four or 500,000 people in Europe are um hospitalized each year. um because of noise sensitivities uh and I know it to to my personal cost and I've talked to councelor Wraith weight about it um so we moved to Oak Bay in 2017 nice quiet retirement place uh unfortunately it wasn't as nice and quiet as I expected and uh and that led to uh to the petition and and also led to to quite a lot of cost for us personally. And now I wanted to say that I thought that that the Miss Woods report was excellent.

Uh I really appreciated it. I really thought it was very fair and balanced. Um I I wrote to to Chriside Lei afterwards saying I thought that this was a beginning not an end. And I think it truly missed those. Um, but there are a couple of things I wanted to say and I'm must say I'm following in the footsteps of uh of Andrea Kalis's uh climate force um uh um submission. That's the word. Yeah. Um the first I am going to ask you just to be fairly brief just we need lots of room for everybody else to speak. Okay. How much time have I had?

You've had three minutes which is usually early. Have I? Oh wow. I didn't know it quite quick. [laughter] So, okay, I'll hurry up. Um, well, first of all, I think that uh that noise uh that the question of noise needs the question of leaf blowers needs to be separated from that of gas powered equipment generally. Uh it was uh you know the motion as originally planned was far too uh broad and leaf blowers you know we've already got legislation much easier. Secondly, I think that uh the issue of noise needs to be separated from the issue of climate. There's in fact very little climate impact as Miss Mwood said.

Thirdly, um Montreal has been the leader in Canada in introducing legislation in introducing bylaws to to to either ban leaf blowers in general or limit their time. I think we can learn from them to expand our existing bylaws to uh to make them seasonal. Uh West Mount for example has uh um bans uh leaf blowers except in the fall season and in the spring cleanup season. And I think uh I can speak for Bay Climate Force that we are really very willing to work alongside council to to devel to develop further initiatives. Now thank you so much and I look forward to other people's input.

Thank you very much Mr. Landry Mr. Landee. Sorry. Um I will uh I don't know how many more speakers we have. We have lots of correspondents which sometimes translates to more people but sometimes does not. Does anybody else wish to speak to us on item 7.1? This is the phasing out of gas powered garden equipment. Welcome back, Mr. Isard, if you could just state your name for the for the record once again. Hi again. Um, my name is Sasha Isard. Uh, I live in the neighboring district of Sanich. I spend a considerable amount of time in Oak Bay, including yesterday spending the day at the Oak Bay Tea Party with my six-year-old daughter. And yes, we had a lot of fun. I'm speaking tonight on item 7.1, uh, review of phasing out of gas powered garden equipment. However, the item should more appropriately be called review of not phasing out gas powered garden equipment. The five on council who were here last term will recall that I addressed the council on phasing out gas landscaping equipment four years ago. I was aruck when the council boldly and

unanimously decided to phase out all gas landscaping equipment over a three-year time frame. Beginning in 2023, I saw a new golden era unfolding and Oak Bay acting as a leader which could be emulated in Sanich and beyond. Something which did not happen. However, the district of Sanage rejected such a proposal the year previously in 2021. One of the speakers who spoke here four years ago in favor of eliminating gas landscaping equipment, was elected to Sanage Council and didn't lift a finger to eliminate the equipment once elected. In 2022, five of you were reelected in Obey and two new counselors were elected. Pretty much all of you ran on being environmental candidates. Once elected or re-elected in 2022, however, it appears that you effectively ignored last term's council decision to phase out gas landscape equipment over a three-year time frame. The three years is over and it appears that nothing serious to phase them out across the district has been done. Please do not turn around now and claim that you are environmental defenders in the upcoming

2026 election or even worse, doing so another four years down the line prior to the election in 2030 as another term passes without effective action on a critical environmental and health issue. All I see in the attached report are excuses and even a wish to move backward by quote remove council resolution 2022436 from the list of outstanding council resolutions. End quote. In contrast, during the last four years, like the preceding four years prior to that, I've been using electric landscaping equipment most days of the year. No gas landscaping equipment required. Somehow in between, I also managed to knock out every local government paid development lobby membership on Vancouver Island.

To me, leadership is by example. It isn't by being paid to sit idly in a chair talking for years about the issues instead of taking action on them and then making excuses when inaction over years turns into a recurring history of inaction. Point of order. Go ahead, Councel Green. I think we have to be careful with our comments um when you are disparaging either staff reports or individual council members. So, I'm I'm concerned about somewhat fair game as I think this is we're being held to account for policy. Just if you can just keep your comments away from staff, I think we'd appreciate that. Mr. I don't think I didn't think you crossed the line, but I think your point of order to make sure that we're careful. Thank you.

Under the Canadian charter, I have a right to my opinion. I'll continue. Thank you. After 8 years, I'm still using the same batteries that I've been using since 8 years ago with the addition of some more powerful batteries since then. The technological advances have only been increasing with this equipment during this time. I won't rehash the technical, ecological, and health arguments that I made four years ago before the council decided to phase out gas landscaping equipment. I'm limited by the timer. If you have any questions, you can reach out to me by email. Oak Bay Council, it is overdue time to demonstrate real leadership and move forward. The last four years have been disappointing on this particular front, but you can still make the right decision before the term is over. Your decision will be a matter of record and will help define just how environmentally meant environmentally minded you actually were this term.

Please demonstrate real leadership on the environment. Please do the right thing and ensure that gas landscape equipment is sent to the dust bin of history starting for the island right here in Oak Bay. Thank you. comments. Mr. Isert, is there anybody else who wishes to talk to council on item 7.1? Again, I don't have anybody online, so anybody in the I don't see hands in the room. So, if there's anybody in the other in the hallway, this is their chance to speak. Okay. Uh we're coming back to this table then. We have uh the report in front of us. We've had questions. If there's anybody else has further questions, you can ask them at this time. Otherwise, we probably seek a motion on the floor. And go ahead, Council Green.

I would be happy to move the staff recommendation. Okay. Move and seconded. Thank you. Uh wish to speak to it or I'm going to go to councelor Smart. If not, I I'll let Councelor Smart go ahead. Thank you. I was just going to ask if we could sever the three parts because I have an amendment to part two and a motion arising after all three. Thank you. Uh we I can certainly sever the Let me just make sure I can. Um yes, we can sever them for distinct, but we can certainly debate them all together. So If you wish to speak to any one or all three of those parts, you're welcome to M. Councelor Smart.

I would like to give Councelor Green the opportunity to to motivate if she wished. I didn't mean to um u take the opportunity away from her. Well, just very briefly, I I think we've this this topic has been before us for a number of years. Um and I really appreciate the balanced report that was provided to us tonight. Um, and I I think all three uh motions pending changes or amendments are realistic. Um, and I think that uh I I hope we move forward under the under the climate action plan. I think that's important and I appreciate Miss Wood's report. Thank you. Um, yeah, great. Councelor Smart.

Yeah, thank you. Um I do wish to make u an amendment to the the second um part with regards to um the communication and educational materials. I did provide um this in advance um u to staff and and to the mayor. So sure just because I I will deal with them in order if that's amendable. What I'll probably do is just seek that motion to amend at that time. Oh, for sure. Why don't I just take any any additional comments before I start calling the questions? So we have all three port all three parts of this on the thing and we can speak to all three parts.

I'll get to the I'll get to calling the questions. I do just sort of I I do think it's worthwhile before we get to the individual pieces here. I I generally supportive of this general approach. I'm interested in hearing the the other motions. councelor Smart I do think that you know to the points raised by the people I think this was done what now four and a bit years ago uh at the end of a council term and uh you know I think it's it's emblematic a little bit of of coming up with a solution and then going forth and seeing how we can accommodate that solution. Um I think um I really appreciated some of the comments from the speakers here. I do think that we can probably start separating some of these issues around leaf blowers versus noise. Um and I think it really does uh highlight uh I thought that you know the points around um you know noise sensitivity and things play out against things people with disabilities you really need is the maximum amount of physical support on

some of these things and so these are like many things competing issues. Um but I did appreciate the staff reports uh sort of a breakdown of bang for the buck at the end of the day of how we're going to maximally use our resources financial and time uh to get the most uh most good for the community and the and the environment. Uh so with that over to you councelor Smart. Uh sorry I'm I'm going to call the questions uh since seeing no other hands. Oh sorry councelor Appleton. Thank you worship. So seeing as that that option one and its components is on the floor for debate I will speak against the option on the floor on the floor. Um, I feel pretty strongly that at this stage of the game, uh, the regulatory environment or the options available to council are different than they were four years ago. Uh, the options available to council as far as supporting a uh, incentive program have also changed. And so I feel pretty

strongly that there is a role for council here and for the district uh to play in terms of both incentivizing and regulating uh gas powered equipment. And so I believe that we need to evaluate really strongly and really carefully what our options are as far as incentive and disincentive. So I would say specifically I would seek actually option number two with an analysis of a potential incentive program that was not supported by LGCAP knowing that that is more than likely not an option heading forward and also some targeted bylaw changes with respect to the anti-n noiseise bylaw to target specific machinery that has been referenced in comments here from the public and council is well aware are causing most of the problems in the community. So there is valuable information in this report. It's an it's an excellently prepared uh report. There is I I'm not saying that there is not value in everything included in option one. I would like to see council I would vote against it only because I would

like to see council be more deliberate in having a project options analysis for an incentive and a targeted regulatory approach which I think is within the purview of council. So thank you briefly. Uh thanks very much mayor. Um, I appreciate that I'm going to be voting in favor of option one. I appreciate the work that staff have undertaken on this file and I also appreciate the passion of the residents um who originally brought this issue forward um all those years ago. I believe everyone around this table shares the objective of reducing emissions, improving environmental outcomes and addressing concerns around noise and air quality wherever we can. For me, the question is not whether climate action is important.

The question is how we best deploy limited staff time, financial resources, and community effort to achieve the greatest environmental benefit. I understand the frustration that's been expressed by some residents who supported the original 2022 resolution, and I expect a phase out plan to be I I expected a phase out plan to be in place by now. Um but um the correspondence that we received reflects a general general genuine concern that's not enough progress has been made and that residents feel the issue has been delayed for too long. So I think it's important that we acknowledge those concerns and thank the residents for continuing to advocate for environmental issues that matter to them. Since the original resolution was adopted, staff have done additional research and identified several important considerations. There's a significant jurisdictional and legal questions surrounding a municipal ban on gas powered garden equipment. A bylaw-based primary on environmental protection may require provincial approval. No municipality in BC has yet implemented a communitywide ban on gas powered garden equipment and staff have identified that

the expected greenhouse gas reductions are relatively modest compared with totally uh total community emissions. additional work would require staff resources that may affect other council priorities as we've heard and climate initiatives. And so those are important facts that weren't really fully understood when the original resolution was passed. And I think what I really believe is that um the most environmental responsible decision is not necessarily the one that feels the most ambitious. Sometimes it's the one that achieves the greatest measurable benefit with the resources that we have available. And I think the resources we have available now are dictating the the the steps that we should take next.

Thank you. I don't have any other Oh, councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you, mayor. I too will be supporting um the motion that is is put forward. Uh and as councelor Braithweight did state, the district of Oak Bay does not have the sole authority on this. Um the the equipment is can be legally purchased across Canada. Um and so uh it would require provincial um approval also. And I I certainly want to thank staff for a very thorough report. And we we we do um press the staff to work on behalf of the district to find us the uh the best solutions. And I think Miss Woods has outlined that clearly in her report, the best uh solutions for reducing emissions based on the capacity of both the staff and the funding. And so I think that the staff have fulfilled that responsibility um diligently and I do appreciate certainly comments from residents in the community about particularly the noise of of the leaf blowers but um I'm also cognizant of the fact that

enforcement is also not easy to conduct because uh uh it would require people uh perhaps perhaps on weekends, after hours, whenever. So, I think that there are things that we can do with the noise bylaw, but I I will support this because I feel staff are working in the best interests of of the community to um to work on behalf of of our uh climate action plan. So, I'll support it. Thank you. So I'm go ahead councelor Smart and then I will go through these one by one to call the question and we can speak to them indiv individually as well if you wish. Go ahead councelor Smart.

Yeah thank you. I just I really appreciate um those residents that did take the time uh to write in and share some very um thorough letters um with council. We have seen those and um I would also have have been in support of of option two but really do understand the um the new information that we have in in front of us and um the staff capacity that we've had to deal with this being that this has been in the planning department and and we have obviously had a lot of housing initiatives that have been on our plate the last few years and so with um I understand the frustration from the community and I just want clarify that in a sense with these motions going forward um we are still keeping this in another bucket and I understand it's it's a slower process than everybody wanted um but I just want to outline even especially with the last motion of removing it as a as a resolution it's just simply because we are putting it in another um container in which to make sure that it is actually um prioritized

still at the council table um Uh, and I I do feel like there are some innovative things that we can do in the meantime and I'll be bringing those up as an amendment and a motion arising. Councelor Rain, you wish to speak? Thank you. I just want to also add that I really appreciate the public input into this issue, especially the the the letter as I previously mentioned from Oak Bay Climate Force. I really appreciated that letter from Andrea Careless. And I realize this has been on some level a disappointment. But I think um it's a good example of maybe going for too much and and in instead doing it in chunks and starting with leaf blowers. I think the other issue is that the municipality itself has not been able to convert entirely their equipment and they're trying but um I think it's very difficult then to try and convince the community to make a conversion when the municipality is still um unable to do that. So I think this is a good approach and I appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to uh move through these. So they've all been moved and seconded. So I'll go to the first one which is the consider and prioritize assessment uh as part of the community climate action plan. So it has been moved and seconded. Is there any other discussion on that portion? I'll call the question then. All those in favor and those opposed. Councelor Appleton opposed. and the second portion which is develop additional communications and educational materials about the benefits of switching and make this information available on the district's website. It's been moved and seconded. Councelor Smart, you indicated you might have a motion to amend.

Yes. Thank uh thank you. Um I have a motion to amend just to add a a further clarification opportunity that I see exists. Um uh and that staff utilize the coolkit program event framework to host an educational event with garden service providers and residents who have switched to electric garden care equipment to share their knowledge with other residents and garden care providers. Sir, can I ask you to read it aloud one more time so we have it on the no problem. And that staff utilize the cool kit program event framework to host an educational event with garden service providers and residents who have switched to electric garden care equipment to share their knowledge with other residents and garden care providers.

Y so it's moved and seconded. Is that clear to everybody? So the motion on the floor is to add that language to the to this piece. So on the amendment only, not to the whole. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. So we now have an amended second point. So the motion is live on the floor as amended. Any other people speaking to that? Councelor Watson, I think it's a great idea. I know that a couple years ago there was a climate toolkit uh information night and a bunch of issues were covered and the turnout was great. The community engagement and discussion was fabulous. And so I think it's a really great place to uh bring those resources together and share them with the community. Okay, counc on the motion as amended.

Thank you, worship. So, I'm appreciative of this amendment because to my mind, it actually brings it into something which is tactile and and constructive. What is outlined here in in option number two is really to my mind really the minimum that we could do. And I I appreciate staff bringing it forward, but it really is essentially uh a real bare minimum option. So, I appreciate the I will support the amended option mostly because it provides an actual tactile uh constructive piece of information that we can pass along to relevant users. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Appleton. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And then the last item which is to remove council resolution 2022 436 from the outstanding council resolutions. This is a procedural piece at this point since we've already adjusted given it to staff. Any other discussion on that?

Seeing none, all those in favor? Those opposed? Councelor Appleton opposed. Councelor Smart, did you have a motion arising? Yes, thank you. Um, my motion arising is that staff bring back a plan to council for phasing out district-owned gas powered lawn and garden equipment. Before I take a second, because I thought I heard from staff that they were working on that already. So, I just want to just clarify if that if that motion is necessary, if that work is underway already. And I think Mr. Julier is uh still with us. Welcome back. So is the the question just so I understand whether we're working on a plan right now or um that we need direction.

So there was yeah there was just a suggestion of a motion arising to direct staff to work on a plan to phase out gas powered garden equipment. Yeah. So at this point uh staff are not working on a plan. Um, so that direction would be something that we would take away if if council provides that. Okay. So, can you read the motion again? That staff bring back a plan to council for phasing out district-owned gas powered lawn and garden equipment. Is there a seconder for that question? Go. Questions are in order. the question just I'm I'm when we say plan are we looking for project options analysis or are we looking for something I'm I'm looking for a little bit of clarification as to the scope of plan.

Sure. Mr. Su is probably a question for you as to um what you would anticipate bringing back to council. I probably not wanting to create a giant work order for them uh or for our our climate action team. I'm probably fall more into your department. So, uh, yeah, just what would you anticipate if this motion were to be seconded and get support? Yes. And to your point that it would be ideal to not have this be a a major undertaking. At this point, we are working through each time we procure new equipment, we're evaluating the options uh for electrification and to see if the market um is there in terms of the the level of durability and intense use that we have as well as the char charging infrastructure that I mentioned earlier to support um those types of equipment.

uh what is lacking is sort of a a specific plan that gives a target um you know date or timeline um and financial implications for advancing um towards that particular target. So it is very much a sort of a um operational matter that we're working through as as we pro as we procure. Um but it it also plays into some of our long-term planning related to the the work shard as well. So um so in terms of a plan, a scope schedule and a budget would be something that we'd be developing. um and bringing that to council for consideration. That understood? Okay. So, the mo motion's been made. Is there a seconder for that motion? Seconded. Go ahead, Councelor Smart.

Yeah, thank you. Um the reason I'm bringing this forward is is because I I do feel that there is a strong interest in the community for some leadership on this item. And this is a piece that we can do and show leadership on while we're um having the other process work through the community climate action plan. I I always think it's important um you know to set a good example at home of what we're asking our residents to do or I'm not asking in this motion for a specific date for 2030. Um I'm giving entire freedom, you know, [clears throat] to staff to come up with what they think is reasonable. But I think if we don't have goals and and targets and we're making a decision each time a purchase is made um it can be really helpful um and inspiring to to have a have a plan whatever that means um for staff um and and I think that that was a leadership piece that we could do at this table.

Councelor Appleton to speak thank you worship I appreciate the comments. I appreciate the motion being brought forward. I think it's absolutely possible for us to lean in more intentionally on phasing out municipallyowned gas equipment and to look at all of our options. Um, being personally acquainted with some folks that work in this media and and have actually done some some research and analysis about the coming online of new electric equipment. It's actually pretty compelling uh the range and the and the quality of new electric equipment coming online which was not present even a couple of years ago. So um having kind of received some of this information and and heard about some of the the the capability of some of the new equipment, I think that there's a lot more options for us there. So, I think now is definitely the time to lean in, as I say, and be intentional about a plan to with some target dates to phase out gas powered equipment to the maximum extent possible by the district. Thank you.

All right. Uh, councelor Brieweight. Thanks, Anderson. And then Watson, just for record, go ahead. Uh, thanks very much, Mayor. I I'm struggling with this because I I think that the all the conversations that I've had with the manager of parks and the director of parks, they every time something comes up, they do attempt to switch over to a um an electric uh apparatus. Um so I understand where where this motion is coming from, but where I struggle is how much staff time this is going to take to to put put this together when we're already going down that path. So I'll be interested to hear everybody else's comments around this.

um because I'm leaning towards not um supporting it even though I understand the intent um from from the mover. So, thank you, Councelor Patterson Watson. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Um and while I appreciate the intent that uh of councelor Martin bringing this forward, I will not support it. I know that the the staff and we have in fact had that experience at council when they are considering new equipment, they do come to council and they make recommendations um just as they did on some of the new fire vehicles um and and the police vehicles. But I think that there is also a big piece of this that is aside from the equipment and that is uh a review of the entire public works facility itself.

Um, and so I I would prefer staff to stay focused on on exactly that, on working on the plans for the facilities that tie into this. You can't um you can't just change over the equipment without the backbone to run it. And some of this equipment is is not without negative experiences as as certainly I've experienced with the uh the police vehicles that are now electrified vehicles. But they have not yet resolved totally the um the alarm systems in them going off at all hours. So uh you know it there is quite a bit of work but I I want I really want to stay focused on the facilities and how we deal with that get the backbone um infrastructure for what whatever we're doing and still continue examining whenever we are procuring equipment the reports that come forward from staff and staff are diligent in saying these are the options these are the costs and this is what we can handle with capacity in the district um with the FAC facilities to support that backbone. So, I won't be supporting it. Thank you.

Thanks, Council Watson. Uh, thank you. Um, and I do appreciate the intention of the motion and I think it's um, uh, it would be nice if by adopting this that we were signaling the community that something really different would happen. But what I think I'm hearing from staff and I appreciate their advice is that the ability to make decisions around our own equipment has to be very iterative right now and that a a plan might be too rigid and actually hamper us and there'll be an investment in time in producing a plan which may not make much sense when at at the very time when we we we've got other capital concerns to support any these kinds of changes that are that are bigger than this particular issue. So, I don't particularly think that requesting a a plan from staff right now would be a good use of their time and I don't think it would be that fruitful. So, I will not support the

motion even though I do understand the intent. Councelor Green, I also will not support the motion for for many of the reasons that have been stated, but I also think it's much easier to convert on smallcale maintenance operations than it is on a large scale facility like ours in O Bay or like any municipality. And I I I think it takes a lot of research. I know that when we converted all of our garden equipment to battery operated, it it required a lot of research. It also required a budget. And so I think we just have to be mindful that it it can't be done overnight, that a plan may not be possible at this at this point in time, but I appreciate the intent. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh speaking briefly to this, I think the um I think there is there's always, you know, giving a staff direction is a change of direction and and and needs some pretty clear um benefits to that. And I I do think that, you know, the pro of that if we had a clear uh set of information we could make a plan on, I'd be supportive of this motion. I think what I keep hearing from from staff is uh I believe when the motion came forward for leaf blowers three and four or four and a bit years ago, um the anticipation was they anticipated viable equipment within a year or two. And so we're still sort of in the same boat that it's getting very close. Um what I did hear is that the continuous evaluation is going on and the transition is already happening for the lighter equipment and it will happen for the heavier equipment as it happens.

So uh I struggle with this motion because I think it's signaling a change of direction or or specific direction on something that doesn't have a clear mechanism for evaluating a plan and a timeline and a budget because we don't know that information yet. And what I've heard is that as that information is coming in, that work is being done. So, I don't think I'm going to support this because I think it adds a request for a piece of work that isn't uh going to drive change faster, which I think is the intention behind it. Okay. Uh we have the motion on the floor. Motion rising. I'll call the question. All those in favor and those opposed I have councelor Patterson Braithweight Green Watson and myself opposed. That fails. Is there any other items on this item?

Okay. I move now to 7 7.2 two, the 2025 annual report. Miss Anderson is uh here this evening with us to present. Um no new information in here, but it's our summary of of all things that happened in 2025. Welcome, Miss Anderson. That's great. Uh thank you, mayor. Good evening, members of council. I'm pleased to present the 2025 annual report. The community charter requires that the district approve an annual report prior to June 30 of each year and provide an opportunity to the public to inspect the report and provide feedback. The annual report highlights municipal services operations and progress since 2025 and includes the various reporting documents provide to council throughout the year including the district's audited financial and reporting documents. Um there is one omission in this annual report that I want to point out that we're going to correct. on page 14 in council's priorities, the word accessibility was um omitted from inclusion and um diversity. So, we will be updating that on the website. Um other than that, the annual report is before you seeking approval and we're available for any questions.

Thank you very much for that. Um other questions, councelor Braithweight. Actually, this is just one little thing. I I I may have missed something, but on page two of the report package, uh, the report references council approving the audited financial statements on May 11th, 2025. And I'm wondering if that should have said May 11th, 2026. Oh, okay. Yes, thank you. That's correct. Councelor Green, that's councelor Smart. I would be prepared to move approval or do you want questions first? You can move. Uh, no. We we have a subject of public input. So I'm going to seek public. Sorry questions at this point. Councelor Smart. Thank you. Um through you might staff.

My first question was just with regards to um uh the population uh data that is brought up um which on my agenda is page 166124. I just wondered where we get the population data from because it was significantly lower in 2025 and I just wasn't familiar with that information. I wonder if it's possible to find out where that information comes from. This is a document compiled by almost every member of staff across the organization. So, I'm hoping someone in the room here was involved in in that particular data set. Miss Anderson, do you know? Uh, thank you, Meritt. We relied on our colleagues in the planning department to provide those those numbers.

Mr. B. Thank you chair. Thank you mayor for you. We'll we'll double check the numbers and the source. There's number different estimates around there's the census but also BC stats provides estimates. So uh we'll double check that number. Thanks. Yeah I think the only important thing is that it's consistent year to year right. So if we're trending looking at trends over time. Go ahead councelor Smart. Yeah thank you. Um my next question was just with regards to on um page 120 of the report there's a list of reserves and I just wondered if staff could clarify why the climate action uh reserve fund isn't listed and what the asterisk is actually referred to on that page. Thank you.

I'll give that to Miss Hunter reserves finance. Thank you very much. Uh yes, council has a reserve and surplus policy which outlines uh reserves that are set up by bylaw and those are the ones that we include in our annual uh financial statements and then make it through to the annual report. Um there are some additional um grants that we receive from the province which require us to report out publicly and those are the ones that are asterisk I believe. I haven't got my page up here. Uh and those why those are why they would be um also included in that list. Um with respect to operating reserves such as the climate action reserve, they are um rolled up under that operating uh reserve uh fund. Anything else counc?

Yeah, thank you mayor. Just one last question um uh through you to staff. I just wondered, this is my yearly question. Um is it possible next year to add a metric under the um engineering section for active transportation as as one of the categories in addition to sidewalks and roads? Thank you. We'll take that as requested for Miss Hunt. Yes, thank you very much. Yes, I will take that back to the engineering department. Um I believe they looked at it this year, but as we have not yet completed any of our active transportation uh networks, that's why it wasn't included in this report, but next year we will had at least two under uh under completion and so we'll include that data as a KPI.

Thank you. Go ahead, councelor Brieweight. Uh thank you, mayor. And actually, um, speaking of which, of adding things in, um, I'm I know it's not a requirement, but I think many municipalities now include a short section highlighting things like major challenges accounted encountered during the year, staffing pressures, recruitment difficulties, major risks, looking forward, etc. And it just maybe will offer a little bit more of a level of transparency and and an explanation of why some things have to happen within the municipality. And so maybe a consideration of adding a section with something like that. Thank you for that suggestion. Uh I don't see any other questions for members of council. So I'm going to turn to members of the public. Does any member of the public wish to address council on 7.2 the 2025 annual report?

Welcome. And anybody online, please raise your hand at this time. We don't have a we didn't have a thousand hands showing up in the room. So uh we may get through the public input quickly. Uh please go ahead. Uh, I'll let you introduce yourself, Mr. Zelka. Mayor and Council, uh, my name is Eric Zelka. I live in North Oak Bay, and I'm very pleased to, uh, to be here and to have this opportunity under the community charter, sections 98 and 99 to, uh, to hold your feet to the proverbial fire, shall we say. I really appreciate that. And I know uh, we all want to look good. We all want to have great reports, and the report looks fabulous, staff. Um, and you have done a great job in the last year. I I really want to commend you for um under trying times and under some interesting provincial um mandates. So uh well done overall, but allow me to ask a couple of questions. Um one or two actually just came up. Uh and I understand under the community charter section 99 subsection

one I might able to ask lots of questions and I hopefully I'll get an answer here at the table. We'll see. Um so uh one question that came up just uh just today uh with respect to outstanding council resolutions. I'd like to ask if there's any way to get a measure added to this report going forward where um since council inherits decisions made by previous councils. Um uh I have vague memories um uh of uh addressing things like uh oh I don't know gas powered um uh uh uh items uh gas powered initiatives to uh reduce uh parks of American cultures um equipment. I'm just wondering whether uh that list of outstanding council resolutions could be included in here in a measure along the lines of we were able to close these much we were able to maintain these those or we able to action these ones as a measure which from a point of view of the public we could see whether you're just simply passing resolutions but not actually acting actioning them which is a measure or or whether you're actually seeing them right through to completion

or whether you're simply just closing off. So I I'll just say I don't know if it's possible. We can certainly take it away and look at it. We do have a very we do post that information uh on our website and we do track it. It is very public. Uh it is a very large report so adding it in here may may cause some issues but we can certainly take it away as a suggestion. Mr. I wasn't able to find that list but I'll I'll certainly do my best to search the website a bit better. Thank you. Um another question then um on another aspect with respect to this report and I am asking specifics to this report. Um uh and sometimes there's things in here and sometimes I'm asking about things that are not in here and want to ask really why. So let me start with um uh uh states of emergency. I I have vague vague memories that there's there's at least two states of emergency in uh in effect today uh in the district of Oak

Bay. One has to do with housing and one has to do with with um the environment. Uh states of emergency that were passed by previous councils. I think one may have been passed by this council. I'm not sure. Uh there's no mention of that in this report. Um with respect to measures um so let me ask the first question. Are those states of emergency still in effect? Don't I you're stretching my memory here Mr. Zulka. I don't think there were any states of emergency. I think there's like declaring of a climate emergency which is not the same thing as declaring a state of emergency. Thank you for better wording. Yes. Exactly.

Don't know we don't typically Um, you're right. It's an interesting suggestion that that those declarations could include part of it. They certainly form part of the the priorities. Well, with since it's not mentioned in this report and and it seemed relevant as as a as a measure of of of a motivator for the district, I'm just wondering if those um not state of emergency, what did we call them then? What was the word for it used that we had passed? Um, a declaration of a of a high level of concern. And I believe the word emergency was used for both housing and also for the environment. So just wondering are they are those high level often referred to as emergencies still in effect?

Yeah, I don't recall think this council ever passed a housing emergency resolution. Okay. So so we don't or we only have one? We don't have any states of emergency, Mr. Zelka. We just have the one declaration. So it we'll take your point. It could be included in here as as a as a statement. All right. So with respect to the declaration of emergency around environment, what are the measures that maybe could be added to this report to indicate the the what has been done, what has been not done, and what is the criteria for ending that state of emergency? Yeah. Declaration, whatever the word is.

Sure. I'll take your point. I'm not going to answer the question because I don't know the answer to that question. Very much appreciate that because I couldn't find anything in here about that. But I do I do hear hear people refer to it that it's still in effect but I just don't have any information about it. Thank you very much. Appreciate about that. Um I noticed the report makes reference uh to uh professional uh archaeologists uh with respect to public uh public works and my question has to do with um I couldn't find any cost mentioned about this. I couldn't find any sort of where place where this has been done. I understand of course it's being used with respect to archaeological um known archaeological sites within the the uh district and also for those chance finds when digging up pipes and finding instead uh something that's more 5,000 years old that needs to be obviously respected uh known as a skeleton. Um and especially in the Uplands area which uh uh if I remember correctly there's been

an estimate that the Uplands uh if if Uplands was was declared a cemetery it would be the largest cemetery in all of Victoria because of the number of interaments there for the number of thousands of years. Um so the question I wanted to ask with respect to cost and those sort of things where would the cost of that be shown in in in the uh in the documents and and is there any way that that there's a measure with respect to reconciliation because these of course are related to uh protocols and and works that's been done with first nations. Again interesting question uh we don't currently have any metric again metrics in terms of meetings I guess and things of that nature are possible in terms of reconciliation relationships. Um obviously hard to put into a report quantification of relationships. Um and no we don't currently track the costs specific to archaeological.

I can say that uh we are bound by the requirements of the heritage act which is also undergoing a review right now by the province which might change those costs. Um and they are not insignificant. We are required to if we are doing any digging in any known places to have archaeological oversight. So I can leave it there. I don't uh it's something that we might consider as a as a as a piece to track in our annual report. Um plus as something to contribute to uh to to to um uh uh direct physical evidence of of how we we uh we uh we work with reconciliation in a tangible way uh to show that respect and those protocols that are now that I understand are in place and that I commend staff uh for the delicacy and and the um respect they bring to that to to that work that has to be done.

Uh next question please. Uh with respect to um parks, wreck and culture, I recall approximately 10 years ago we um uh the the district was able to achieve approximately 80 to 85% um um uh recovery from the gate if you know what I mean. And in terms of the total expenses uh um u um of of running parks, recon culture operations was covered by approximately 80% of the take at the gate. the uh the cost of the the money collected for programming, the money collected for um for uh drop in classes, those sorts of things about 10 10 years ago was about 80 to 85% if I recall correctly. Um and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but that number seems seems to uh sort of be there. This document and from just a bit of calculations appears to show we're only getting about 55% of our overall costs covered. Um first of all, is that number accurate? And follow question is as a

measure um uh why why not question covering more so I don't I don't know the exact percentages Mr. Zulk my apologies it has gone down over the years absolutely uh maybe possible to have Mr. come and speak to that to a degree. Um I will say that like for instance um there is always an effort to keep our our use of our facilities somewhat affordable but we have increase the uh the gate increases this year to try and make up some of that that slip. Uh certainly we were prevented from increasing those numbers during co for example for getting some of our funding. We were required excuse me we were required to freeze a number of our uh admission costs and so forth. But Mr. Julia, perhaps you can talk at a bigger picture about the the generalized trends and we and just confirmation, I don't believe we we show the recovery rate sort of holistically across years as part of our annual report. Is that correct?

Yes. Uh that's correct. And I think we've had this discussion uh in the context of the financial plan as well. Um so a few um points on this. Uh I first of all I'm not totally sure what was in the calculation that's being referred to and if that included um non-E revenue generating uh elements of the operation or not. Um certainly with the aging infrastructure that we have uh additional costs are being expended um than they would have been say 101 15 years ago on on facilities um when it comes to the maintenance. So um when we look at the revenue generating operations um those would be higher than 50 or 60%. Those are uh up in that se high7s probably in the 80s. Um we haven't done analysis on a site by sight um uh calculation in terms of recovery per recreation facility. Um I understand that at some point in the past that was something that was done, but um this is a conversation that we've had with council about identifying um you know what would be included in in that type

of uh calculation and uh establishing uh a formula and monitoring that going forward. So in the context of the uh annual report here, Mr. Zulka, uh we don't track that over time and it's something we might want to look at at doing. Um, thank you. And and I I really I'd like to request that uh that that be considered going forward because that's a very valuable um metric that could help the public and help with transparency and also uh uh report out how well we're doing to the province with respect to measures. Uh it's great to know that the number of physical people are have gone up uh since since last year and it's great to see uh the pool open till 10 pm now every single day of the week. Wow, this is fantastic.

This is good progress. I'm still looking forward to it being at the same service levels as it was before the pandemic uh up till 1 in the morning if I recall, but I'm looking forward to that one day since I I'm I'm more of a night owl. Um so the last question I have for you before I hopefully there's lots more people to hold your feet to the the fire on this one since we can ask about anything uh related to this report. Uh FOI um requests. I see uh the numbers are actually showing here in terms of the total numbers of FOI requests and that's great. um uh that as a measure it'd be great to know also the cost um to the district of those FOIs number one and um is there a place where one can go where if all that work's been done where the public can actually see the results of those FOYS as many other local authorities and uh other levels of government provide that information

because again for transparency and for for um uh uh since the work's been done just wondering whether that's available to us all of those wonderful I see 19 levels of of FOI done in 2023 uh requests and 49 done in 2025. I might pass the question about posting it to our director of corporate services, Miss Anderson. Uh is that a we don't know if we do it now or not? I don't think we do. And uh are we able to do that? Uh at this time there Thank you through the mayor. At this time there isn't a plan to do an open source data or FOI request. Um you can see we're trending upwards and so we're focusing on completing our FOI requests in legislated time and the time it takes to do those FOIs. We haven't had an opportunity to have a plan to put them on the website.

And just a secondary question on the on the question of cost. My understanding if they're within a certain number a couple of hours of work it's free and if it takes over that there's essentially a formulaic model that we for recovery of those costs. Is that correct? Yes, there is. And in addition to that, we are currently tracking the amount of hours even when we don't bill for FOIs just so we do have some metrics in the future for how much resource that it is taking up to process the FOIs. Thank you. Yeah, and thank you very much appreciate that. I mean it it it tends to not look good with uh with with count the public needing to do 49 this year versus 19 two years ago. Uh that implies things. So, so to avoid that implication, having it available to the public might actually get that number down and might also get the cost down because I'm sure some of those FYIs are probably repetitions and

that would be such a shame to know that people have to ask multiple times for the same information. Anyway, thank you very much. I really appreciate this. Thank you. Well done. Does anybody else have any questions for council or comments for council on item 7.2, the annual report? I don't see any hands online. So now I will come back to this table. Uh council green you wish indicated you wish to make their move the recommendation that we approve the annual report for 2025. Move seconded discussion councelor Patterson. Yeah thank you mayor. I I do have a comment about it. Um there was only one real feature in the annual report that I found a little disappointing and that was the performance on sidewalks with less than 1% of them being replaced in the community. They were high on the the community survey of uh uh and in fact of residents wanting them done. 31% of residents said they were dissatisfied.

So that's one area that uh I continue to um advocate for improvement on. But other than that, I would say um because I do always read one against the previous year to see how our performance has gone and I I must commend staff. The staff performance on this annual report against the stated goals in the previous report is overall very good. Staff have delivered on stated goals and uh largely completed all that they uh said that they would do. And of course, we did have um a clean audit in the finance department, too. And there so there was a lot of work on that. And so I I really want to commend staff on uh on achieving such a high level of completion of the stated goals from the prior year. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councelor Patterson. Councelor Green. I don't think I'll have to motivate to get people to support this motion, but I too would like to thank staff for an excellent report. I also think the format is much improved and it continues to improve year-over-year. I think the information is much easier for the public to access and read. Uh there is a lot of information contained in the report. Um and I would encourage people to read it and then if you have questions by all means um you know bring the questions to us or to staff and they will help interpret. But I think this was a an excellent report and I want to thank staff in particular corporate services. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that. Seeing no other hands, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you. Uh we now move to the next item on the agenda which is section 8. Um these sessions do not this session does not have public input uh directly on these applications. Uh so the first order is the uh zoning bylaw amendment uh for 2579 Cadbury Bay Road. Mr. Green. Um [clears throat] good evening worship members of council. I would just like to obviously introduce our new planner Serena Claver who started with us in March who will be introducing this item. So thank you very much and I'll hand over to Serena to walk you through this application that she is the file manager for. Great. Thank you. Welcome Miss Clever.

Thank you. Um, thank you, Brian, and thank you, mayor and council. Um, the application before council this evening concerns a proposed zoning amendment to permit a sightspecific cannabis retail store at 2579 Cadaro Bay Road, a commercially zoned property that currently operates, says Liquor Plus. The site is surrounded by a mix of commercial services including the old farm market, Achie Sushi, Slater's Meats, and 49 Below Ice Cream, as well as residential uses and parts uh and forms part of an established pedestrian oriented neighborhood node at Cadbur Bay Road and Estavon Avenue. Council's consideration this evening is focused specifically on whether the proposed use is appropriate at this location and whether the application satisfies the district's policy framework, land use objectives, and design expectations. The proposal is generally consistent with commercial function of the neighborhood village designation. The application would occupy an existing commercial space liquor plus storefront which is um 150 square ft and would not introduce changes to building masses, scale or site layout. Only a new storefront sign and interior layout changes are

proposed. The advisory planning commission considered the application on May 20th, 2026. Consideration being given to the visual exterior design of the proposed storefront. Should council proceed with the application as recommended, notices of the bylaw would be given and an amendment of the bylaw would return to council for further consideration in accordance with the local government act. The proposed retail use is also subject to provincial cannabis licensing requirements through the liquor and cannabis rec regulation branch. Um applica applicants Dold Smith and Brett Large are here in the audience um to provide a presentation um which is attached to the agenda if you wish and to answer questions from council staff are also happy to answer any additional questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much uh Miss Cleaver. I uh certainly um I'll leave it if there are questions for the applicant. We have the presentation in our in our agenda package. I think anybody who's interested should should have a look at that. But just in the interest of time, we're a little behind our schedule tonight and I think unless there's I'll just seek if there's go to questions first. Um it's quite likely that there will be some questions that the applicant needs to answer. Uh please go ahead, Council Braithweight. Uh thanks very much, Mayor. Um yeah, I was trying to figure out what we're actually deciding on this one. um and whether we're deciding um if cannabis should be legal in Oak Bay or if we're deciding whether Oak Bay residents should continue purchas purchasing it elsewhere since it's legal everywhere in Canada. So, when I read the report, I kind of looked at it and I thought there's a couple of things that I that do jump out to me and I I I would like to know if um staff can provide um the

distance um between the proposed cannabis retail location and Willows Elementary School and and indicate perhaps how that compares to other jurisdictions. Thank you. Absolutely. through the the mayor. Um staff did uh take this in consideration. Um and I think from measurement of lot line to lot line starting from the entrance of the existing liquor plus to the the closest proximity of the lot line to Willows Elementary was approximately 160 m. um walking distance uh if you were to take what a someone on foot would be able to travel was uh over a kilometer. So, uh depending on how you you you ran um measurements, but [snorts] um most municipalities within the CRD that have council uh policies that actually speak to location to either elementary, high school, middle school, or daycarees is um a minimum of 200 meters, if I may, mayor. And so that's just from the lot line. That's not from the front door of the school because from the front door of the school it would be much further distance. Correct.

Thank you. Um, and then my next question if I may. Um, uh, if, uh, council approves this application, does staff envision bringing forward a broader cannabis retail policy for Oak Bay? Is that something that's on the agenda for us? I'll lean to our deputy director that through worship to Gre that would only be if that's the the will of council to direct staff to uh, bring forward a broader amendment to the district zoning bylaw. But as Miss Claver explained, this is a sight specific zoning amendment specifically for 2579 Cover Bay Road, I guess. And then it since this is the first one that's come forward and I know that in our municipality we have approximately 18,000 people and I think in uh one of the districts that I looked at, they have 17,000 people and they have six stores and we have no stores in our no cannabis stores in our jurisdiction. So, um I wonder um if this if we do we know yet if we approve one

if this went ahead and and was approved uh would we then continue to look for allow other stores to be opened up within the municipality or I guess that's something that would come from a report. So I've answered my own question. So thank you. All right. Go ahead councelor Green Watson. Thank you uh very much and through you to staff and thank you for the report um and welcome. Um you have recommended that um in in the recommendation that we wave the requirement to hold a public hearing. Can I just understand the rationale for that recommendation? Thank you. Miss Clever, if I may, I might lean on our deputy director to speak to that decision.

Sure, Mr. Green. I guess the legislation was amended in I guess 2025 in relation to public hearing. So whilst this uh application council is not prohibited from holding a public hearing hearing, council could still wave a public hearing from staff's perspective. We generally find that this proposal is consistent with the OCP. However, it is ultimately a council decision whether council wants to have a public hearing for this or not. And there is therefore some options accordingly in terms of giving notice. If council wishes to have a public hearing then council would need to give first and second reading to a bylaw. There are some slightly different processes associated with which avenue council wishes to go down. Thank you very much.

You move to councelor Watson. Um thank you. I have a couple of questions about the the application in its context. One is in the report it suggests or it um says that there will be 10 security cameras installed on site and I just wondered what on site meant and who they will be surveilling. It's probably a question for the applicant for the mayor. Yes. I may ask our applicant Duggal Smith to come in uh and speak to the broader uh provincial uh regulatory uh licensing requirements which uh directly correlates with um security and and and video cameras on site. Yeah, thank you and uh welcome. You're Mr. Smith. Yeah, hi Doo Smith. Welcome.

Yeah, so um yeah, I'm here representing the proponent. I'm a former deputy general manager of the liquor and cannabis regulation branch. So the provincial legislation is very prescriptive in terms of uh of CCTVs within the store, how the cannabis is stored, how it's locked up. So, uh, the inclusion of the 10, um, 10 cameras is a, uh, security provision, uh, that's through the licensing and the terms of the, uh, of the, uh, of the license. So, it's it's, uh, it's not an external community camera. It's for folks who uh, decide to go in and and uh, buy cannabis at the store. there is uh provisions within the the um provincial legislation to have closed circuit TVs. Thank you, Councelor Watson.

Yeah, thank you. The next question may Oh, yeah. I guess it's maybe for the applicant, too. Um uh in your presentation package, you showed another example of a store. Um maybe it was in Sanich, which is a completely blank face to the street. And I wondered if that's an is that in other municipalities an applicant choice or has that been um a regulatory requirements of other places that you would have a street frontage that is so um closed off. Mr. Smith. Yeah. The uh inclusion of that is to show the um the branding and in the specific location where that store is just the configuration of the store um it has limited uh street front um exposure. So, but the the best practice is to have um to have the uh inside of the store visible from the street and certainly the um some of the mockups uh of the the proposed store up on Cabra Bay Road would uh would have uh you know

a transparent glass for the top half and probably some translucent glass on the bottom half that has the uh the Cana Canop plus branding on it. So, uh, there were there were formerly regulations that, uh, uh, required stores to be to be, uh, opaque and closed from the street, but those were appealed soon after cannabis legalization, I think in probably 2019 19 or 2020 on the recommendations of police. So, this store would would be very transparent to the street. Uh, notwithstanding, the federal regulations don't allow for cannabis to actually be shown in like a a store window or something like that. It has to be back from the uh from the uh from the window to the store.

Thank you. And uh just one final question and I guess it's for the applicant too because you've got the experience but um clearly this is going into like a little neighborhood commercial um uh zone in our community and uh we want those places to be animated and we want shopping activity and we want the public out and about. How how will if you could comment on how your your if you were licensed and in that location, how you would serve that purpose by being there in that location like animating the the the businesses and and and kind of creating adding to that um I guess um ambience.

Maybe helpful as well to compare since you have experience with both the marijuana and liquor. It's currently a liquor store. Yeah, it's currently a liquor store. Um, so you know, in terms of in terms of the signage and the branding, it's consistent with the Cana Cana Plus brand, which is, I think, a very, you know, it's got a very pleasant appeal to it in terms of uh the types of uh um advertising. Uh, Health Canada, who is the federal regulator of cannabis, has very strict rules about um signage, promotions, and advertising. So any cannabis store operating in Canada is constrained in how they present their sort of street side appeal based on those federal regulations. And in in in many ways the federal regulations are aimed at making sure that cannabis isn't sold in a way that is made appealing to children. So it sort of goes back to that issue around schools. Uh, one of the ways that that uh uh regulators mitigate the uh potential risk to uh to youth is by

being um quite strict and making sure that um Bugs Bunny isn't selling cannabis or anything like that. It's it's quite prescriptive in that sense. Council, anything else? Oh, sure. Mr. Bull. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. If I may add to the uh to the answer on this question, I think the other element that uh is asked about what is the contribution to the the atmosphere and the in the neighborhood so to say or in this particular shopping area and I think I would like to mention that just like currently the liquor store uh customers come in to do their errands uh there's also a grocery store close by and some other businesses. So this is uh in staff view pretty similar. It's just a different type of product, but it's all retail. It brings people to this area and they'll have an opportunity to buy their various products that they're looking for. Thanks.

Thank you, Councelor Smart. Then Patterson, and I'll seek a motion. Uh, thank you. um uh through your merit the applicant. Um most of my questions were answered thanks to my colleagues, but my remaining answer was just with regards to we had a resident write in concerned about people potentially smoking in front of and behind the establishment on the private property. And I just wondered if you could comment about whether smoking would be permitted on the plaza site if if you're aware of that and the regulations. Thank you. Um I think importantly this is a retail store and um cannabis is packaged in a manner that's regulated by the federal government. Uh so this is these are are goods that people purchase and the expectation is it's put in a bag and they walk home with it. And it's not uh it's not my experience uh in my regulatory uh background that uh people would go into these stores and then promptly um consume the product in the street uh in

front of them or in alleyways behind them just as people don't um you know drink their their Chardonnay in the parking lot. Typically it's a it's a it's a a product that's purchased and and taken away somewhere else. So I I think that's I don't think I don't think that's a risk that is is a is a real practical one. Thank you. I have councelor SM sorry councelor Patterson and then into my speaking list. Yes. Thank you. Uh, one question for the applicant that I I we this did come to the APC and they were supportive and and I think the applicant has answered all of the the concerns that the the committee had and that was really about the uh the visual element on the public space um because they didn't want to see just a blank wall. But one question that I'm I'm not sure that we uh we asked at that time uh is whether or not the this uh this shop will be also doing delivery home delivery of cannabis.

I I don't think there's any plan to do home delivery of cannabis. Um I know that that cannabis retail store licenses there are provisions for that but uh my understanding having spoken to pe people in the industry that that many shops don't do it because they have to keep a driver on site and the uh the costs to do that are not um are not uh feasible. So you can get delivery from uh uh I know that the uh the BC provincial cannabis store does delivery. So some people acquire their cannabis that way. Thank you. Don't see other Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Through the mayor. Um just to add, uh we do have the owner present and he did confirm that they're not planning to do um home delivery. Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Um, we have uh we have the report in front of us. See no other questions. So, I'll make a motion that council direct staff to proceed with zoning bylaw amendment of application Z0069 for the property located at 2579 Cabra Bay Road and wave the requirement to hold a public hearing. Second. Seconded. Is there any further discussion on this counc? Yeah, I think um it my question was really if if Oak Bay is eventually going to allow one cannabis store, is this the right location? And I'm I'm I I was a little worried about the proximity to the to the elementary school, but then when I read the staff report, it really makes a strong case that it's in a in an existing commercial location. It's replacing a liquor store. It's a regulated operator. Police have no objection, and it really aligns with the OCP. And again, I think, as I said before, we we need to um we're not trying to decide whether it's legal.

We're trying to decide whether or not Oak Bay residents should continue purchasing purchasing it elsewhere and I think there'd be a good opportunity for our residents to be able to purchase it within um Oak Bay. So, I'm quite supportive of this. Thank you. Question just cognitive times. Keep your comments mutably short. Councelor Watson. Yes. I just wanted to say I do support this. I I was um um appreciated the um applicants answers to the questions. I do note this is I if this business were arriving for the first time and being built, it would be subject to our commercial mixeduse DPA which specifically asks in commercial areas um that there be a maximum amount of glazing on the facade of buildings and well- definfined entries oriented towards the dominant street. And those guidelines are there because we're trying to create animated spaces in Oak Bay in our in our neighborhood village areas. And so that was my primary concern with this application. And as long as my council colleagues are convinced or feel that the arguments are strong enough that it will do that, then

I don't see any issues with approving this application. Yes, I'll speak briefly. I was I appreciated the resident's concerns. They were raised about the school age children and also the ice cream shop which attracts families, but um really it's it's no different than a liquor store, frankly. And it is legal in Canada. And I remember eight years ago, I believe it was 2018, uh, when I was reelected. We had an application come forward and I think I was the only one that voted to approve it. And so, we've come a long way in eight years. Did you as well? Yeah. So, um, I'm pleased that this is going to be an opportunity for the owners and I do appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. See no other hands. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. That carries. Thank you very much and thank you. Good luck to the applicant. Uh we now move on to uh item number 8.2 which is uh 960 Fowl Bay Road Heritage Revitalization and Development Permit. Uh Mr. Green, over to you. I think there's probably a fair bit of interest in the galley for gallery for this one. Uh and certainly online. Uh please go ahead. Thank you, worship. Uh this item relates to an official community plan heritage revitalization agreement and a development permit application for the property located at 965 road that council originally considered on April the 27th of this year. At that meeting, council referred the application back to staff and for the applicant to address a number of issues. The applicant has now made a number of revisions to the proposed developments that are summarized in the staff report. The applicant and their consultants are here this evening and they do have a short

presentation that provides an overview of the changes in response to council's direction from April the 27th and to answer any questions that council may have on the revisions. I'm happy to also answer any questions that council may have on the application. Certainly, I'm I think uh I did see the the presentation. It's really just a summary of the changes that have been brought forward. So, I think it's worth doing that. I'm going to ask the applicant to keep the presentation fairly short, which it is, which is great. Uh, and then we'll get to questions because I would like to make sure that we're giving some clear direction here tonight. So, um, I think what I'll do is I'll let I'll let you introduce yourself, uh, go into the presentation, then we'll get to questions from council.

Just Yeah, put them perfect. And state your name, municipality. Uh, good evening your worship and members of council. My name is Jennifer Travelby and I am a resident of Oak Bay. I'm joined this evening by my colleague Russ Collins from Zebra Design and Katiekumer from Kumer Heritage Consulting. I would like to begin by thanking council for the feedback and direction provided in April and for the opportunity to return this evening with a revised proposal. Our team has undertaken a comprehensive review of the application and carefully considered each of the seven areas identified for further refinement. The proposal before you this evening is the result of that work. We have responded directly to each item through design revisions, additional commitments, and further investment in the propo in the project.

Collectively, these changes strengthen the prominence of the Lawson residents, improve accessibility and housing diversity, reduce environmental impacts, enhance resident amenity spaces, and further support the long-term stewardship of this important heritage property. This evening, I will briefly walk through each of the seven directions and demonstrate how the revised application responds. I'll begin with the streetscape along Brighton Avenue and what was originally proposed as a row of seven town homes now amended to a duplex and an SSMU type forplex with additional landscape open sight space. This revised arrangement creates a thoughtful transition in built form from the surrounding single family neighborhood to the duplex to the forplex and ultimately to the Lawson residence resulting in a more graduated streetscape and increased open space throughout the site. The duplex has been intentionally designed with distinct architectural detailing to reinforce its residential character, helping it read more like a single family dwelling and further strengthening this transition between existing neighborhood character and new housing form.

In response to feedback regarding building form and character, the west elevation has been carefully redesigned to create a more articulated and and residential expression, incorporating a dining room bay window, clear story windows that introduce natural light while preserving privacy, and dedicated exterior access to the studio suite. As shown on the previous two slides, the flat roof portions of all town home buildings have been lowered by one meter. The red line shown here illustrates the previously proposed roof height and highlights the significant reduction in overall building mass. Although already set back from the loss in residence in the original proposal, the two tone town homes closest to it along Fowl Bay Road have been moved a further half meter away from the heritage home. Combined with the reduced building heights, these changes increase the visual prominence of the Lawson residence and reinforce its role as the defining architectural character of the site.

In response to council's direction to explore a greater diversity of unit types, each side of the new duplex has been designed with two bedrooms on the upper floor and an optional lockoff studio suite on the entry level, a feature incorporated at staff's suggestion. These flexible studio suites broaden the range of housing opportunities within the development by allowing the homes to function as either two-bedroom residences, three-bedroom residences, or homes with a separate rental suite. This flexibility supports a wider range of housing types and provides opportunities for rental accommodation. Our tenant assistant plan reflects an agreement made with our tenants in 2024 and complies with all requirements of the residential tenency act. From the outset, our objective has been to work collaboratively and respectfully with the existing tenants throughout the redevelopment process. The tenant assistant plan formalizes that commitment and provides clarity for all parties moving forward with financial compensation, relocation assistance, and flexible moveout options for all tenants.

In response to council's direction, the revised proposal reduces impermeable surface coverage from 72 to 49%. A significant improvement in the overall environmental performance of the site. This reduction was achieved through a combination of fewer dwelling units, fewer surface parking spaces, expanded landscape areas, and increased setbacks to the south and to the east. In addition, all proposed asphalt surfaces have been replaced with permeable paving stones, utilizing a mix of complimentary tones to define parking areas and pedestrian routes while adding visual interest to the site design. The result is substantially more green space, improved storm water infiltration, and a more generous landscape setting that further enhances the prominence and character of the Lawson residents.

We have created new shared amenity space for future residents, including two new communal gathering areas within the development. These spaces have been carefully integrated into the landscape design to encourage resident interaction, informal gathering, and a stronger sense of community. The first is a shared picnic area beneath a vine covered pergola loc located in front of the Lawson residence. and the second is a small community gathering space featuring a bench and a lending library situated beneath a new Gary Oak within the center of the site. Together, these spaces provide opportunities for residents to connect, to relax, and to enjoy the landscape beyond their private outdoor space.

In response to council's excuse [clears throat] me direction regarding accessibility infrastructure has now been incorporated to support future platform lifts at the main entrance of the and at the three lower level suites within the Lawson residence. These provisions will be secured through the heritage revitalization agreement allowing future residents to install platform lifts without a heritage alteration permit combined with the elevator already proposed to serve the two upper floors. These improvements create a clear pathway to wheelchair accessibility for all eight units within the Lawson residence. Beyond physical access, these suite layouts have been refined to incorporate a range of adaptable design features that support aging in place and evolving mobility needs.

This includes curbless showers, reinforced walls for grab bars, lever style hardware and plumbing fixtures, and minimize floor transitions. In consideration of window materials for the loss and residents, we evaluated the issue through a broader lens than just heritage appearance alone. Considering long-term durability, maintenance requirements, building envelope resilience, and the practical realities of securing comprehensive home warranty coverage for multif family heritage conversion and the overall financial viability of the project. While wood windows may be preferable from a heritage perspective, they also introduce long-term maintenance obligations that would ultimately ultimately become the responsibility of future residents and the strata. We also explored aluminum clad wood alternatives. However, the associated costs were not financially viable given the extensive heritage restoration, seismic upgrading, accessibility improvements, and other investments already being made in the Lawson residence.

As a result, we are proposing custom color matched high-performance vinyl windows that carefully replicate the appearance and proportions of traditional painted wood windows while providing superior durability, energy performance, weather resistance, and significantly reduce maintenance costs. The application before you this evening reflects a great amount of thought and consideration in response to council's direction and feedback, including reduced density, increased open space, enhanced accessibility, a comprehensive tenant assistance plan, additional housing diversity, and further further refinements to support the prominence of the Lawson residents. This proposal preserves more heritage, retains more trees, delivers more housing diversity, and creates more public benefit than any likely alternative, and we believe that this is exactly the kind of balanced outcome we all envision for our community. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Miss Travel. Um, I'm going to assume there are some questions here for members of council. Uh, so I'm happy to go to members of council with any questions. I'll go to councelor Smart uh Braithweight and Patterson to start with. Thank you um through Mayor to the applicant. My first question is just with regards to accessibility um and I appreciate the the picture of the lift provided the looking at the language of it potentially being a future item. I guess I'm just from day one the current proposal is is basically suggesting that there wouldn't actually be any accessibility from day one. How do you imagine the future accessibility um playing out? Is is there a budget for that or is that just um something that may not materialize? If you could just clarify. Thank you.

Thank you through you, Mayor. Um our intention was to uh build all of the infrastructure, meaning that all of the electrical conduit is there for specs that we will provide to the strata. And if that is something the strata wishes to proceed with, we can absolutely do that from day one for them. For the lifts that are going to the three uh lower suites, those the infrastructure will also be there. we just thought that may not be um appropriate at the time. It would really depend on ultimately the purchaser. So, should any purchaser in the building want those uh lifts installed, we as the developer would absolutely do that from day one um when they move in. Um but if there is not a resident at that time that is interested in having those the lift installed, then everything they need, including the reinforced uh wall for the lift to move up and down, will be there. And like I mentioned, um I've discussed with staff and the provision for that lift will be

included in the HR so that a heritage alteration permit would not need to be uh sought should any future residents move forward with installing the lifts. Please continue. Thank you um mayor then to the applicant. So um just to clarify, so my understanding correctly that the lifts for the lower units would be included in this proposal as a cost, but the lift to the upper units would be an additional um cost that is not provided with this proposal. Mr. Mayor, sorry for the uh confusion. The infrastructure for all four lifts will be there, the wiring, the conduit, the reinforced uh wall for the lifts to be moved. We will in uh happily install the lifts if purchasers do want them installed at the time of completion, but we were not planning to uh install the lift particularly at the main door um unless that is a wish of the future purchasers.

Please go ahead. Thank you. I just had um one further question. Pardon me. Uh our heritage consultant would like to add to that. Sorry, I completely forgot the heritage reasoning behind that. My apologies. Can you hear me? Okay. Uh Katie CR, City of Victoria, heritage consultant on the project. Um yes. So part of the logic with this, so I could see you. Um this was a bit of a heritage quandry and conundrum because typically these types of facilities you have it at the rear of the building, but that wasn't really an option for this. So having it at the front from a heritage perspective is not necessarily as ideal as it could be. But I thought this was a really thoughtful compromise to allow it as an option. But if no one was in need of it, it meant that it didn't have to be there day one when you know everything is fresh and new and looks wonderful from the street.

You could still see it in its full glory. Um but then there is this wonderful option that if there is someone in need, it could still be put on. That was kind of the logic. I hope that makes sense. Thank you. Thank you, Miss CR. Please go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Um uh three mayor to the applicant. My next question is just with regards to um the lowering of the massing of the buildings that are not the Lawson residents. Um, uh, the advisory planning commission suggested a potential strategy of lowering the the top floor wall heights, coving the ceilings and opening up the top floor vaulted ceilings as a way of bringing the overall massing down um, including the peaked roof lines to really um, again do everything we could to let the loss and residents shine. I'm just wondering if if that strategy was explored um and if it's still an option from the applicant's um point of view or if it was ruled out. Thank you, Mr. Collins. Yes, we we actually explored that idea.

Um because it's a hip roof around most of the building, it makes it very difficult to lower all the walls to that level. And then we considered just lowering the gables, but then they're they're so close to windows like the overhang would hit windows that are proposed and also they wouldn't align with the other overhangs like the other gutters. So we decided just to lower the main roof and leave the the gables the way they were. It wasn't really any other way of lowering it other than to lower it in like the entire grade, which we're concerned about because we've got trees off property that we want to try and save. We don't want to affect the root systems of those trees. So lowering the whole all the buildings I don't think would work very well.

Councelor Smart. Thank you through Mayor um Mr. Collins. Just to follow up on that, we did have a um letter writer write in suggesting that the height change might not be perceivable. And I just wondered from your design perspective if you feel like this change is is going to have a noticeable um perceptional impact from somebody standing on the street. Oh, I I think it will, but I also think that from the street, the height of the gables of the main house are pretty really pretty really close to the same height as the ones we're proposing. So, I don't really think anyone's going to stand back and go, "Oh, it's overpowering the Heritage House." I think the Heritage House is now like dominant in the front. It's further forward and it's what people are going to see more and that other buildings are set back and I think that's going to really help make the Heritage House stand out.

Next on my speaking list, councelor Brieweight then Patterson. Uh thanks very much Mayor and Shriu. Um I think at the April referral direction was was fairly clear. We were asking for reduced massing, reduced height, reduced number of town houses, greater heritage prominence and I think from what I can read the responses basically being that we have 16 house town houses reduced to 15. Two studio suites were added so the total count actually increased by two. Um, the building heights are largely unchanged. I know you say there's a meter difference, but they're largely unchanged. The roof form is modified a little bit and one building has been split into two. So, I'm wondering and and this probably goes to staff. Um, when we referred this application back, did you interpret our intent um, council's intent as achieving a materially smaller development or simply exploring design changes? And in your opinion is the overall scale of development has it been materially reduced?

Counc I will note that is ultimately our call. Uh but back to staff on that question through your worship to council brief you know the specific direction from council which was explor exploration of design solutions and so u from staff's perspective we do think the applicant has made some effort to reduce the overall massing and building height acknowledging that that uh overall roof height is generally the same and that's how the way we measure roof height is to the tallest uh part of a building and so the overall roof height hasn't changed per se. However, as the applicant has explained, the middle part of the building has been reduced by a meter and therefore also providing overall greater prominence to the law residents which was also probably the fundamental uh part of staff's recommendation to council last time was to try and give the pro the lawsome residents more pre prominence within the site which I think has been achieved to some extent.

Yeah. and through you mayor. Um and is the 23 units um is that the amount of density necessary to preserve the loss on residents or have we analyzeed whether a smaller project could res achieve the same um outcome if not I'll give it to Mr. Green but you can give it to the applicant. Sure. I think that is one for the applicant to answer. Obviously staff doesn't have any policies that require staff to look at the economic feasibility of a project and to understand how many market town houses are required to upgrade the laws and that is essentially a uh an issue for the applicants and ultimately a consideration for council to to to take into account.

Thank you Mr. Travel. Uh thank you through U Mayor Council Braithweight. Uh yes, we believe that the difference in the number of town homes uh that we are proposing is three versus the uh 12 that could be built on site as is. Um so we do believe that that is a reasonable number to offset the exceptional cost that is going to um we're going to be facing with regard to the restoration of the loss and residents. So just to follow up to that verify I can count. So you're saying that um to to the for the project to remain financially viable you need the 23 seat suites. Is that what you're saying? Our numbers do suggest that. Yes.

Uh thanks. Um so I my next question uh would be um I think this is going to go to staff um because in uh that in the staff report staff state that the proposal doesn't align with the land use framework adopted in 2025. and yet it's recommending these OCP amendments. So I'm wondering um what um perhaps if you can explain what makes this application exceptional to what we've recently adopted as our land use framework to our OCP for your worship to council braith the reason there's an OCP amendment is that this site is still designated residential and therefore to put town houses on this site requires a change to that land use framework in schedule B i.e. changing the land use designation from residential to essentially a multi-unit residential or ter to a townhouse designation that we now have.

Um that being said, we do have a specific policy within CP that talks about where heritage objectives are achieved. The district will consider those applications through a heritage revitalization agreement onwards to the TAT effect. I can quote the specific policy, but that was referenced in in my staff report of April the 27th where we talk about the uh uh essentia the OCP framework and the specific policy that uh terms of attachment 17. If you take the OCP review from attachment 17, we do have a specific policy Yeah, policy CF7 specific says that consider variations to provisions of the land use framework including height, build, farm and density without requiring amendment in circum including but not limited to the following to achieve heritage conservation objectives where significant community amenities are being provided or where below market or non-market housing units are provided. So there is some policy support whilst this is a a change to the land use framework there are still policies within the OCB that talk about applications of this nature that could be supported.

Thank you and if I may um I'm wondering uh and this would I think go to you Mr. travel. Um, if you can outline what consultation has has occurred with adjacent neighbors uh neighbors following council's referral last time or if if there's been any travel. Uh, thank you for the question through you mayor. Um, with regard to the neighbors that have written into council, no, there has not been any further count uh, consultation with those neighbors. I have heard their concerns loud and clear. they have articulated them very clearly to I think myself and yourselves and unfortunately we are just not able uh to further those discussions. We're not able to bend any uh further than we have. However, they're all there are um other adjacent neighbors to the project that discussions are ongoing uh with them. I think they are a little less vocal and perhaps um too nervous, uncomfortable to express their support publicly, but there certainly is conversations ongoing between myself directly uh with neighbors in the area across the road and such. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Um and then I'm wondering um if staff has analyzed the shadowing and livability impacts of building B on the Larsson residence units and common spaces with the new proposal. Mr. Green through your worship two kinds of prayer that we haven't required or requested a shadowing study from this development given given that the the scale of this these buildings are proposed to be three stories and generally the shadows would be either cast across Farrell Bay Road or would be cast to the north onto the either to the Lawson onto the building gate i.e either Lawson residence or into the U area along Brighton Avenue, but generally a three-story building. We wouldn't require or request a shadowing study for a three-story building.

Thank you. I'll I'll actually pass it along to others and I'll if I can come back the second time if there's time. Thanks. Thank you. I have in my speaking list uh Patterson Watson. Thank you, Mayor. and uh through you I think these are probably for the applicant and and one for one for staff but I'd like to come back to the uh the accessibility of the building the uh the uh advisory design panel were quite strong in their in their recommendations for accessibility um on the on the heritage property and so I we we have talked about the provisions for uh for the building to be adapted should it be required and that the applicant would initiate that immediately if if um if there was a person interested that required those.

We talked about the chair lifts. I'm wondering if the applicant would also uh comment on the door systems and the so the entrance door systems. I mean the lift is one thing but you have to have the follow through of the the uh electronically operated door systems also. Sure. Mr. Trouble. Uh thank you for the question through you mayor. Uh certainly if uh we have not made provisions for that in this current iteration but we would be happy to add it um and certainly install uh the electric uh door systems um at the time. Councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you for uh confirming that information. Um and perhaps staff could help me here. If this if this building becomes we are displacing nine nine tenants who are right now in lowerc cost housing and so I I take that quite seriously. It's unlikely they will find housing within this development. But for for persons who require accessibility um and we received the comments from the applicant that the the strata could do that at a later date.

I I'm wondering if staff or even the applicant could speak about the legal issues around that. So if if if I require accessibility to the building, it is not there today and I want it installed. What process is required to in fact achieve that for a prospective um building occupant? I'm not sure if we have anybody here ready to answer that question or able to as a legal portion of that question, but this would fall to the strata ultimately. Mr. Green. Yeah, all I can yeah through your worship to council passes and all I can say is that through this process we would incorporate within the H if council moves forward this application we would incorporate that uh that notion of those potential for uh the main entrance to be accessible through a chair lift. uh that it wouldn't require a heritage observation permit that they could simply install that lift without any uh uh heritage observation permits going through heritage commission and council.

Yes, thank you. I I guess what I'm looking for is if there is any knowledge in the room about I mean could a could a strata council refuse to incur those costs as a strata and in fact um demand that the prospective occupant pay the costs of of modifications to the building. I don't understand what the provincial law is right now, right? The stratas and what what they can and can't do with accessibility. I'm going to suggest we leave that question a little hanging in the air. We're really looking at the the merits of the application as a whole and we can maybe get that question answered later if it progresses. Um I'll Yeah, Miss CR, it is apologies. Thank you through the mayor. Um it is also something that I will capture in my heritage conservation plan acknowledging this aspect which then again becomes part of the bylaw connected to the HR. So there is some legal mechanism at least in that to say

this has been agreed upon for this heritage building and therefore if requested it should be allowed. I'm not sure on the financing side. It's a very good question but at least on the legal side. Thank you. Sorry. That's good. Thank you. I move now to councelor Watson. Uh yes. Thank you very much. I just one further question about accessibility because we've used the word lift but I just wanted to confirm that looking at the floor plans there is actually an elevator in the building right okay and it goes from main floor above grade all three units but not below grade correct okay so we have an elevator and then a possibility of four lifts um I um okay that that was important for me to understand and I I just wanted to go back to I I do understand the difficulty of taking a heritage building and trying to make it accessible from the front and meeting the design challenges of doing that. Particularly in this case, it's got a very very short frontage. So,

ramping will be very like ramping will make the design of the front very very difficult. I can see that. But I but I I I do wonder about um to what extent you had time to investigate other lift solutions that might be different. And I don't know what's out in the market, but um but I I did I to the extent that the building is accessible, I think it's wonderful if it could be accessible now. And I just wondered if there was any alternatives other than the particular one you illustrated that you put up that might u be also a practical solution at at the beginning at the onset as opposed to making it something that somebody has to come and ask for which doesn't feel very accessible to me. It sounds like they're having to make a request for their own their own particular need which is a very common need. So anyway, that's my first question.

Moby. Okay. Uh thank you for the question through you mayor. Um I think [clears throat] that we did explore ramping. Of course that was not um to Katie's um I don't want to say expectations but um realistic in terms of a heritage preservation. However, recognizing that accessibility, you know, should really be seen as more important than aesthetics, um, even though they're heritage, we did explore the ramping option and it's not feasible. It's just too steep. Um, so we settled on the lift. Now, the specifications of that specific list or sorry, excuse me, lift um, was specked by our architect. So, I'm not certain of other options that he explored. However, if it is, you know, council's direction to ensure that the main entry lift is ready on day one, then we would certainly be open to that. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, and my other uh question relates to the new proposal for reduced um imperialable surface. There's quite an improvement suggested or indicated here from 72 down to 49%. And I just this may be for staff or maybe it's for the applicant, but I guess think it is for the applicant. Miss Travelby, you talked about having uh complimentary surface materials to differentiate zones. It's hard to read that on the plan. What kinds of things were anticipated and how many zones are you trying to differentiate between with those materials? Mr. Travel. Thank you uh through you, Mayor. Um that's a conversation that I've had in depth with uh Brian uh Mr. Green about um how we can improve not just the visual appearance but also make things safer for pedestrians and residents moving around. And so I completely appreciate it is not clear on that site plan. That site plan is getting very overwhelmed with edits and changes. So I apologize. Our intention is to have

walkways, so those uh servicing um the back of town homes and also the Lawson residence be made out of concrete and uh the rest of the interior surface parking parking spaces and drive aisle be uh permeable pavers and those are envisioned to be two shades of gray, one being a medium gray for the main portion and then some detail around the surface parking spaces outlining the width of said parking spaces including the two spaces that are now designated accessible spots as well as the surf surface parking spaces uh that are in front of building C. Um again add adding visual interest but also making it clear where it's safe for pedestrians to walk and where uh particular uh widths of specific parking spaces are.

Thank you. And as I understand it, staff, you are I think there was a note in the report that you were looking for more detail or you would be asking for more detail about that. Could you just clarify? Yeah, through your worship to councelor Wilson, I think what we're trying to from my perspective trying to sort of de delineate the the drive aisles from the parking stalls from the walkways rather than using either white paint or signage to do that job. So just distinguishing the the different types of materials to to delineate those particular spaces in the development. So um yeah the applicant whilst not prescriptively shown that on the plans that is definitely the intent that we was as has you know this won't require a development permit in due course should council move forward with the HR rate and therefore that development permit stage that's where we will be wanting some further details for uh for our review as well as council review when council may ultimately u be determining that development permit application.

Thank you. And I have one final question. It's about the the sort of the the sort of semi-public amenity space that's um now showing at least in we're we're getting it in elevation or kind of renderings. Um [clears throat] is there any other space on the site to add more of that or to expand what's actually there? I given the number of residents and the size of the lot I I I think both things proposed are are very attractive but certainly just the single bench seems small and I wondered if it could be a more social area if there is any scope for that on the site.

M trouble. Thank you through you mayor. Um we have um there is another space between uh the new proposed duplex and the forplex along Brighton Avenue although we were concerned a bit of shading uh in that aisle. So not quite certain what would work there and although the idea of having it all permeable pavers in there was tossed around. I didn't really see that as the goal we were all trying to achieve by adding more green space. So certainly something could be programmed in there. Uh we've spoken to our landscape architect about possibly a rain garden or bio swale, but that's not really achieving the community gathering aspect that I think you're aiming for.

Um by increasing the setback to the south, those yards have gotten quite large. Um both um the buildings along uh Brighton have a 6 m setback from the large boulevard. So it's quite a large space. Um, so we've really gone the route of making the yard spaces larger. Uh, in this revised plan, we've done so on building C as well, which is facing the south property line. Those yards are now around 6 mters, I believe, or just over. Um, so we've really put a lot of effort into expanding those private yard spaces as to some of the other developments in the area we've seen. Um, but to answer your question, other than that space between the duplex and the forplex facing Brighton, that's really our only other vacant space at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Those are all my questions.

Thank you very much for that. Are there any other questions for the applicant or for staff? Go ahead, councelor Smart. I think councelor Braithweight, you indicate you had other questions, but I might ask a question as well. Go ahead, councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you um mayor to the applicant. My other question was just with regards to um we've received a lot of letters with regards to the impact on the the west property line and I just wondered if you could speak a little bit um to maybe some of the considerations that you looked at there with regards to reducing impact. I wonder, for instance, if um you explored doing only two stories um for the for the units on that West property line to kind of step down into the the neighborhood um where you could, you know, essentially have surface parking as opposed to garage parking in order to sort of facilitate those units, but to really create a bit more of um transition there. And I wondered if you could just speak to anything that you explored um that would be helpful. Thank you, Miss Jalby.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, we did add um some articulation to the building. Uh we've done a bump out in the living room or pardon me, the dining room of a bay window. We've added clear story windows up onto the third floor. Um because there were, you know, feedback that it was just a a a dark gray wall, which initially that was our approach to um you know, ensure privacy. So responding to that feedback meant the addition of windows um clear story meeting up high on the third floor and a a bumpout bay on the main floor. Um just in keeping with the design and our goal of having a family oriented housing, the three-story approach really uh is best suited to a family. Although surface parking can work in some instances and we think it's a great fit for the Lawson residents for the town homes, we really feel that enclosed parking um is the right answer and and realistically it's not for cars or just cars. It's also bikes, cargo bikes, camping equipment, kayaks, etc.

Sports gear. So, I think that uh enclosed garage space is really important and um making the change to a duplex rather than a block of seven town homes we thought was a great solution to uh really um gently transitioning from those single family homes into the project. Um the duplex, as I mentioned, is designed to look more of like a single family dwelling. So, we thought that really improved the streetscape um along Brighton. And previously, which was included in the original proposal, we had done all the preliminary uh route work um hand digging out the root sections uh by the arborist to confirm that we could maintain a number of horse chestnuts along that west property line.

um which not only improves privacy um from both lots, it ensures that the trees on the neighboring properties uh can be maintained as well because their root systems and canopies are both intertwined. Thank you. Uh I think first time speakers, I'll go to councelor Green for questions and then come back to councelor. Yes, I just threw you to the applicant. Will there be blasting on the site to accommodate any of the garages? Thank you. At this time, it's not our intention to uh proceed with any blasting. Okay. Thank you very much, Councelor Smart. Sorry, Councelor Brieweight. Thank you, Mayor. Um, and one of the letter writers talked a little bit about the southboundary walkway and they had a concern that a pedestrian access corridor runs directly beside the neighboring rear yards um, and with potential issues for privacy, noise, lighting, um, and security perceptions.

And so I'm wondering um, has a CPTED review been undertaken and did it examine that southside pedestrian access arrangement? Please. Thank you. Thank you for the question through you, mayor. Um we haven't had a formal CPT study completed. Um however that is one of the improvements uh since we were last before you. Um we have expanded that um setback by I can't remember probably a good um at least a meter 5t six feet. So it's now I believe just over uh 6 meter set back from that south property line plus the walkway. So we could certainly um it is our intention as all neighbors know on both the south and west boundary to completely rebuild the fence at our expense um for both those property lines and they will all be screened with significant landscape plantings.

One more mayor. Um I know we've talked a little bit about the number of units that you feel that you need to have on there, but it was suggested by our heritage commission that you go from 15 town houses down to 12. And I'm wondering, do you have any other um uh projects where you have to significantly reduce your density um and still achieve project viability? Travel be uh well, one that will hopefully be forthcoming to all of you soon. Yes. Um in Oak Bay, of course, that's always an option, but I do not have a current uh project where there is a heritage um asset that is proposed to be revitalized. I certainly have one where the heritage asset is remaining untouched. Um, but as I think we've spoken about before given the size of the lot. I think it's important to remember that as as things stand now, 12 town homes could be built on this lot as is. And I think it would be a true shame to um impact the heritage home. That's

not my intention. It never has been. And I truly feel um that we would be hardressed to find a proposal in greater Victoria that offers as much as we are in terms of accessibility, heritage protection, diversity of unit mix, two bedrooms, service with an elevator as well as family housing and a very large community benefit that I feel is on the table here that we are more than happy to put forward. Thank you. Thank you. Um do I have any other speakers at this time for questions? Uh, I think all of my questions have been answered. I maybe I'll just uh I'll just going to tease apart something that councelor Smart was was touching on. I think the one area I do struggle with is similarly the the west side. Um, it's the most sort of I appreciate the changes that have been made uh to the articulation. I think the design changes have been excellent. I think those those have addressed those pieces, but they're still a fairly large uh entity. Uh you know, it depends on how that would look.

Uh I I I acknowledge if the if the street adders was Brighton, it would have we'd be allowed to sort of 5t of that of that side lot. Um but if it was facing if the frontage was on Fowl Road, you'd [clears throat] be 25 ft or more back from there. And so just um I I think that one particularly the one corner uh in the southwest corner uh is is a little difficult for me to kind of uh stick with just because I think of all of those little pieces and to councelor Smart's point like is there anything perhaps there that could be done at that back corner just to even if it was just to bring down the roof height to that so there's more light coming into the yard to the to the west um um or removal of that. I appreciate you you've got a performer based on a on on on on a number of units. Um but just sort of consideration of of that. So just maybe just walk walk through that with me a little bit because I do think that there would be significant benefit

to the to the neighbors to be able to kind of to to reduce the massing at that corner. I think the massing here is in many ways the one kind of remaining um well not one but it's it's one of the the key things that are still sort of sitting out there. Certainly. Thank you for the question. Um, we do have a different type of foundation, a floating foundation, uh, going into that end unit there to ensure that tree roots will not be disturbed. That is part of our explorator, excuse me, exploratory work we did last summer with our arborist. Um, so a lot of care and attention has gone on gone into that specific corner to ensure that um, trees there's a significantly large tree on our property in that corner that will be retained. And um likewise, as I mentioned before, uh both the canopy and root systems um are intertwined with off-site trees. So that's an important um adjustment we've made to that particular end unit. Um further, we have completed a canopy survey for that area

and confirmed that the roof heights of those buildings um will not impact the existing tree canopy. Um, and I think further it's important to remember that, you know, I I appreciate that those are single family homes, but they are for all intents and purposes zoning wise in the city of Victoria where a far larger uh taller structure could be built at any time. Okay, thank you. Um, so you since there's no other questions in the in the questions uh speakers list here, we have uh options in front of us right now. we can give some further direction for for revisions before it and then have it go at at at that point to a public hearing. We can move it forward as is to a public hearing to get more broad public input onto this. Uh we can decline it. Um uh there's number of options here. The recommendation from staff is to move it forward as is, but certainly from uh there's multiple options in the report. I just point that out uh as to what the next steps are.

I'm going to ask just the interest of time somebody put something on the floor. I probably prefer that we consider the um uh the recommendation but because it lets us talk to to that piece but we uh if there's general feeling here that we need a few more changes uh before that that uh recommendation to to to the development of the bylaws and sending to public hearing and certainly u take council's will. Uh so I'll seek direction from council as to what the uh from terms of a motion. Please go ahead, Councelor Watson. Thank you. I would like to actually move the the motions under option two that u we um refer the application uh back to staff for a little further work with the applicant to address some specific things and we would have a list and I think that um there are some of us around the table who would put some things on that list. I would certainly have an item that I would put on it and and that in addition to that that option also includes and that it's subject to completion of those revisions the

applicant to the satisfaction of our building officials that the u the necessary bylaws would be prepared. So that's what I'm proposing to put on the table. Well, I am moving that. So, what I'm going to do here is just uh the option two, which is to send it back with some recommendations, I think, because um we we run the risk of getting into very nerdy uh microscopic wording pieces here that may or may not see the outcome. So, I think what I'll do is if there's a second for option two, I'll just take option two. Then what I'll do is I will just entertain a conversation around the table for ideas of things that might uh be requested to come back. Um we can if I can [clears throat] ask staff to just kind of capture someone to sort of capture some of those uh those high level pieces we can just read them back if we have sort of agreement on those.

I'll call the question on those aspects. Uh essentially what we had last time was sort of a list of the seven. We we did have a starting point with staff last time. We don't this time. So if uh that's is there a seconder for the motion? Sorry. Seconded. So go ahead councelor Watson if there's uh something you would like to be specific about asking for. Yes. Very very specifically, I would like to ask the applicant to take a second look at accessibility to the Lawson building from on completion of the project on completion of the renovation of the Lawson house as part of this project. So that that exists on day one uh in a fashion that's an attractive and amenable. So I that's certainly something I would like to see happen.

All right. Thank you. I have a I have a question on that. I probably should have asked it because there's uh so you know I'm of two minds on this one and one of them is it makes seems to me makes sense total sense to put those lifts and everything in day one. I also recognize that outdoor equipment like that probably has a relatively short lifespan and so if it's installed without need and assistant for 10 years by the time someone moves in and needs it it may very well have to be replaced. Um so I'm just curious about just that. I'm sort of weighing those two options in my mind as to as to the best way of moving it forward. So perhaps you could just touch on that because I'm supportive of the intention that it's as ready to go as possible, but I also sort of am afraid we're forcing investment in things that may not be needed right away.

Certainly, which was only our uh reservation of installing it right away. I think, you know, if it's really um the suggestion of council that they're sorry, the direction of council that they would like to see the the front door entry one, I think, you know, we could certainly consider that. I am not familiar with what the warranty and sort of life uh expectation is of mechanical like that. Um, I think it's reasonable to consider the front door one. I would suggest that perhaps the three lower one, that's a very specific buyer. Um, so I would suggest that perhaps those three aren't uh a good idea because it would also take up a lot of patio space for those units to have that vertical lift because that's that's different than the one going up the front stairs.

They're straight down. Um, and I think it's it's an expense that really should be more thoughtfully considered. And it would be my envision that those three um lower unit lifts would be at the expense of the purchaser or future purchaser. Of course, we can absolutely install them if it's a day one purchaser, but the likelihood of that, you know, for me is unknown. So, I think it's reasonable um to consider the front door main entry lift, but I would uh suggest that we reserve uh the three lower suite lifts for future purpose purchasers to install on their own accord. Council, I was only suggesting the main entrance for the building because that brings you into a building that has what, eight units and and an elevator. So, I think that's very good accessibility given the other things that are going on in the building. Um and then for spec specificity including the front stair lift.

So in that just to clarify that would access five units. Yeah. Okay. Great. Okay. Um uh I don't think I don't think it's necessary at this time. So we're just going to we have a motion on the floor. Not really a motion. Sorry a suggestion. So is there any other discussion on that suggestion of of having the front door lift and and the front door uh uh included on day one? Okay. It's probably not. Okay. So, just keep a note of that. Anything else? Councelor Watson. That's all for the moment. Councelor Smart, you indicated that you may have something? Not yet. Okay. Councelor Green. Thank you. Um there is no obligation or commitment to consult with with all the neighbors, but I have to tell you we received overwhelming and compelling um written concerns about you know about the uh this development generally and I I haven't seen that much correspondence in quite a long time. I would encourage you to sit down with the people that you don't want to sit down with right now. I think it would be informative. I think it would be important. I think um

everyone has a voice, not just those who agree with us. So I think it would be important to do that. I would encourage that. I would I I hope that happens between now and then, whatever then looks like. But I would I would really encourage you to do that because I was certainly moved by a lot of that correspondence. Thank you. Thank you, Council. I will ask that just all just comments made through through me just because some it's intimidating looking down at people. No, it's okay. That wasn't you're not speaking intimidatingly, but just it's always good practice. So, thank you. No, no. Um yeah, go ahead. Cer smart.

Yeah, thank you. Um uh I'm just trying to figure out how to word this motion with the most flexibility. And so don't I'm just comment just your intent and we can talk to it then. I really appreciate all the letters that we received from residents in the in the community and um uh you know I'm I really just want to address the concern that I'm hearing from the community about the the impact of the massings of buildings C and E on the neighboring properties. And so I think I would just almost leave it at that is reducing the impact of the massing because there's various different ways that could happen. It could be a slightly larger setback or it could be reducing the height right next to the west um property line. Um but the impact of the the massing right now is is quite significant at that transition line. Um and I think we're just hearing that widely from the community. the the uncomfortableness of that um of what feels like um you know it feels to a lot

of people like a four-story building um next to single family residences and so um with what right now is a 3 meter um setback. So um yeah, I think I'll just leave that for other people to comment on. Sure. the other the thoughts for people councelor Watson I I just am cognizant of the fact that we have two planning jurisdictions that abut each other at this point and I I think Miss Travel B made the comment that what is actually the potential development on the the immediately joining lots is very similar to what's there and we we see those kinds of juositions all over the place so it's just a a political reality but not an actual physical environment reality that we would then be asking those amendments for. So I I'm not so sure that I I I think that that's necessarily a good idea. I mean I understand I do understand the issue, but we could then ask for amendments that in fact in two years were not necessary because we have

a completely different adjacent built environment. other discussion on this. I I I can just call these as as questions individually so we can have a a quick chat. I'm I'm going to just speak briefly to support that. I I do think this is worth exploring. I I appreciate that it's true that those but those houses may also be there for another 50 years and I think we have an obligation to to keep uh this as a respectful piece and I don't know what the right solution is on this one either. But I think if there's anything we can do to kind of soften the impact of that masking on the back yards uh on that west facing side, I think that's the one area that doesn't feel like I know that work has been done on it and I'm quite satisfied with the other setback pieces that have been done, but that one piece for me I I agree with that assessment. I think if there's more

that could be done that would be that would be beneficial. Councelor Green on this idea. I really appreciate this um suggestion. I think it's important. I think it's the essence of of part of this application and and and the concerns around it. Um and I I would say that given that um none of us faces having to live in that neighborhood at this point, it's it's it's not easy to imagine the impacts, but I I think that's what the neighbors are trying to ask us to do. And so that we will be sensitive to trying to reduce the massing and scale and impact on them. And I think that is a responsibility. So I appreciate the comments. Thank you, Councelor Smart.

Uh any other any other comments on this or any other suggestions? But go ahead, councelor Braithman. Yeah, other suggestions. I I'm still really struggling with what we asked for in April that I don't feel actually was met, which is the reduced massing, the reduced height, the reduced number of town houses, and the greater heritage prominence. And so I would like to see all of those put back on the table um in some way, shape, or form. repeat those those fours. So the seven I have is heritage prominence, unit diversity, tenant support, environmental impact, community space accessibility and heritage materials. Right? So reduced massing, reduced height, reduced number of town houses and greater heritage prominence would be the ones that I would look for.

I think we'll probably go with that step by step if that's that's part of the the ask. I speak to that, councelor Smart. Yeah, I was I was just going to um um bring up some of the conversations that happened at the advisory design panel, I guess, around all of these issues and and the conversation really, you know, at the end came down to every project can't have everything. And um I think you know we're there's there's a lot of things being provided in this application as we've been talked about you know family housing housing um close to the village um variety of housing heritage um restoration um there were even things like for instance the uh the wood windows that were discussed and decided to not put forward in a recommendation to council because they didn't want to throw in everything in the kitchen sink and have the project not go forward. Um, so I I I I I don't dis agree um with many of the items that have been brought up that

maybe they're only, you know, 70 or 80% of what I would love to see. Um, but every project can't have 100% of everything. Um, and so I'd prefer that we really focus on um the most critical things uh to make this project have good neighborhood fit um and be willing to compromise on on some things. Okay. I don't see any other suggestions at this piece. So if this option two goes forward, it'll go back for some additional tweaks. Um can't remember the exact wording. would then essentially be the staff would would go forward with drafting the bylaws uh with with the changes to staff satisfaction and those would come back for consideration at the future council meeting. Is that and then at that point it would go to a public hearing for broader public input. Is that is that our our process here Mr.

Green? Yes. If council gave first and second reading to those bylaws when they come back then yes then at that time a public hearing would be scheduled and my apologies I'm just trying to sketch through my my agenda package uh here in the right thing. Uh there we go. Sorry got it here. Yeah. So that's that's that's the process. If uh so what we have right now is the just going to turn around the table and just so one of the asks is to include uh include the front lift and a front accessible front door on the Lawson residence. Does anybody have any concerns with that as an ask? Okay. So let's consider that to be an ask. Um the other piece was uh uh asking staff to work with the applicant to look at reducing the impact of the the massing impact on the west side of the buildings. Um so that's left very general um because I think we as pointed out it could be architectural, it could

be setbacks, it could be roof lines, it could be things but just to look at that as a massing impact on the west. So okay I'm getting nods around the table on that one. And then I think what I don't have council braith is uh from from yours which is that those sort of like reduction of units specifically is that the yeah I'd like it to go what as the heritage commission has suggested going down to 12 town houses rather than 15. So looking at reducing the number of town houses. Okay. Is there support for that direct for that direction? Okay. not getting not done.

Council, I I would support that suggestion because I was at the heritage commission meeting. I'm the liaison and they they give a very thoughtful recommendation and a very thoughtful conversation. So, um yes, I would support that. Okay. So, what I'll do then is I'm just going to do this by way of motion. I'm I'm still going to keep the language clean. So we have option two and so I'm going to just uh so the first motion I'll take is just the direction to include the lift and doorway. So moved and seconded. Okay. Uh any other discussion on that? Sorry. Sorry. Can I ask a question? Please go ahead.

So if we're in doing on these individually, I mean what about the overall motion? If we're going to be against the overall motion, um I don't want to be voting against all of these things because my feeling is is that I'm going to be in the minority here. Um but I don't want to be voting against these things moving forward because um so I'm going to have to vote for these to move forward even though I'm voting against the whole entire motion. Uh so anybody's [clears throat] choice is completely their own. I I like giving the advice that uh I think it's good if we can make the the application as good as possible and even if you don't support the overall um that I would recommend that sometimes people though politically can not do that and then the hopes that the whole thing is not supportable and won't go through it all.

So there's there's different ways of looking at it but yes that's your your call on those ones. So the motion on the floor is is related to the lift in the doorway which seems to have universal support. Uh so I call the question all those in favor any opposed? None opposed. And then the ex second one was direction to work to reduce the impact of the masking on the west side of the buildings. Mover and a seconder might as well use my motions at this point. Is there mover and a seconder for that sort? I think you move that and there's a seconder for this [clears throat] is specifically for asking staff to work with the applicant on the west side. Okay. Thank you. Uh is there any further discussion on that?

Ask seeing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And then I have a motion just to reduce the number of unit of townhouse units from 15 to 12. It was moved and seconded. Any other discussion? So I'm just very speaking very briefly. I I mean I my my love for this would that would be the case. Losing one or two of these units would probably would give enough green space all the way around to make everybody happy. Um, I do take into the order that uh it is difficult to make these things work just with town houses these days and with the with the heritage revitalization agreement. We're always somewhat working within a a framework of what's viable. I I'm not comfortable with that, but I'm very comfortable with looking at the massing. So I just because I don't like speaking or voting against something without speaking to it. So councelor Patterson. Yeah, I I certainly appreciate this and my preference would be to reduce the number of units also and have more green space, but I I would

rather leave it to the applicant if we can reduce the massing on that west side, however that is done. And I and I I won't uh I won't uh entertain any ideas for how to do that, but reducing the massing on that side could in fact h have the same benefit perhaps as overall you you know reducing the number of units. So I I don't I don't want to say reduce them and then I I would rather I would rather let them to come back with the the perhaps the mitigation to the the massing on that west side. Thank you worship. I'll I'll oppose the motion for similar reasons to what councelor Patterson has articulated. I think we want to be focused on outcome here. I think we want to respond to what the community has told us about sort of the overall scale and massing of the project and specific areas of massing around the project and I think that that's eminently doable but I think that it would not behoove us to prescribe a certain number of units in order to achieve that. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to call the question. So on the motion to include the specific reduction in units. All those in favor? Those opposed? Patterson, Smart, Appleton, Watson, Green, and sorry, not Green, Watson, and myself if that does not carry. Did you wish to make another motion? Okay. I don't see any other motion. So, the motion right now is option two, which would include those two changes. Um, staff will work with the applicant procedurally here. I think for the benefit of the public, I just uh this is I haven't called the question on the main motion. Um, but just procedurally here, so we're all understanding what's being moved here. What's being moved is option two, which is to send this back for applicant to work with staff to address a couple of these key issues.

Staff will then come back uh take those changes that they were able to get, bring that back. They'll be in the form of bylaws. So there's a bit more specificity than what we have right now. Uh council will review those. If council feels that those have sufficient merit to proceed, then they will go we would do first and second reading. it would go to a public hearing and we would seek broader public input into this application to understand any existing continuing or new concerns um or things that people like within the application. So that's the process and then following the public hearing council would consider uh whether or not to adopt the the plans is put forward. So what's on the floor for us right now is a motion to advance it in that way to work for staff to work with the applicant. But what will come back is essentially bylaws to address the concerns that are raised here. Council Green and this is speaking now to the overall motion.

Yes. And I [clears throat] will support the motion and and the only problem is that I I I forgot to mention the idea of public consultation with the neighborhood. I know that can't be prescribed. So that's probably not possible. I was going to point out so procedurally here is really important that we do follow on land use applications our process and and that is we [clears throat] do this. We have lots of public input, but it's the it's the public hearing at this point that's going to be our official thing. The applicant can absolutely work with the neighbors and they can talk to them about how they might achieve massing changes and these other things, but consultation at this point really is public hearing.

I understand that, but I'm just saying it's it's a strong suggestion of mine. Thank you. Uh go ahead, councelor briefly. Uh thanks. Um I going to be voting against the motion. Uh I just want to be clear that my concerns are not whether this uh site should be redeveloped. I support redevelopment, additional housing and the preservation of the loss and residents. The question before us is whether this particular proposal is the right proposal for this site. When council considered this application previously, we provided clear feedback regarding massing height, neighborhood fit, and the prominence of the heritage house. Looking at the revised proposal, I'm not convinced that those concerns have been sufficiently addressed. While changes have been made, they appear incremental rather than substantive. I don't believe the revised proposal reflects the degree of redesign that council was seeking, at least not me.

One of my greatest concerns is a relationship between this application and an official community plan. The OCP was developed through extensive public consultation and adopted only recently. It represents the community's collective vision for growth and change. If council is prepared to amend the OCP so soon after its adoption, I believe there must be a compelling planning rationale and I haven't been persuaded that such a rationale has been demonstrated here. I appreciate the effort to retain and restore the Lshen Lawson residence. However, heritage conservation is not simply about keeping a building standing. The heritage building should remain the focal point of the site. I remain concerned that the scale and prominence of the new development continues to compete with rather than complement the heritage resource. I understand that the purpose of an HR is to permit depart uh is to permit departures from zoning. The RFO zone RFO zone um allows a maximum of 80% F and this proposal is at about 120% F and I

wonder if that is the increase is justified by the heritage benefit. One of the key tests for any development is whether it fits comfortably within its context. I continue to have concerns about the overall massing height setbacks in relationship to the neighboring properties. In my view, there remains an opportunity to do better better balance housing objectives with compatibility and and neighborhood character. Oak Bay residents consistently tell us that that mature trees and green space are among the defining characteristics of our community. And while we re redevelopment inevitably involves trade-offs, I'm not satisfied that enough has been done to reduce impacts on existing trees and the site's green character. Once mature trees are removed, they cannot simply be replaced in the short term. It takes decades to rec recreate that canopy and council decisions establish expectations for future applications. If we're prepared to support significant departures from recently adopted policies in this case, we need to consider how we respond when similar requests come forward elsewhere in the municipality.

Consistency in our decision-m is important for both residents and applicants, and I recognize that the effort has gone into this application, and I I appreciate the applicant's willingness to preserve the Heritage House. I re I really do appreciate that. However, on balance, I'm not persuaded that the proposal before us adequately addresses uh the concerns previously raised by council, the heritage commission, and many residents. The question for me is not whether the site should change. It's whether the applicant has demonstrated enough change in response to the direction council already provided. And I don't think that's happened. And so, for those reasons, I'm unable to support the application in its current form. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, any other first- time speakers to the motion? As is I'll thank you councelor P. Just after I let other people speak for the first time and I'll come back to you for a second time on the motion. Councelor Watson, thank you. I'll be voting to support the motion. I guess I moved it. That makes sense. But, uh, I I think that, um, all in all, I I take to heart what the point that councelor Smart has made about how you can't get everything. I remember the advice when buying our first home. If you've got an item of you've got a list of 10 things you really want, you should be satisfied if you can find seven of them. And I think that's actually good.

That advice also applies to to major redevelopments like this. And I do note that there was no way to do this unless you had an OCP amendment. So the fact that we had just adopted our OCP in December, I do think is actually really irrelevant to this discussion. In order to do town houses here, which we have been saying we want in our community, it required both an OCP and an HA. So I think that that moving forward here what we've seen is an is yes I would say I agree with uh councelor Braithweight that that this is an iteration this has been an iterative change from the last proposal but it has significantly it has addressed our list of things in in a considered way um we don't understand the economics of it so we leave that to the development community to figure out it's their money at risk I think this development holds a lot of the things that we're really asking for and wanting our in our community. And I do think in

particular with this development now, the frontage along Fowl Bay Road with the Lawson House moved to the corner and that other building is very attractive in in a in a part of our community um where there's lots of pedestrian traffic, there's great transit, we're trying to support our village. So, I am uh really pleased that we'll be able to I hope with the votes uh get this to go back to staff for some further tweaking and an opportunity to take um a refined proposal out to the public for for further input. So, I will be voting to support option two with the amendments we've made.

Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion? First time speakers, go ahead councelor SM and then I'll go back to Council Green for a second time with an Apple. Yeah, thank you. Um, I can understand our community's concern about feeling like this doesn't address our current OCP, but I I think you can actually look at it from another perspective in that the H is really the right approach for this for this lot. Um, and um, we actually our OCP does actually address the opportunities of corner lots for townhouse developments. I think if you imagine, you know, this project potentially playing out according to the existing rules and imagine that they divided the lot into three R4 lots and put four town houses on on each each with their own individual driveway.

Perhaps those town houses would be turned sideways to the lot. Um, a lot more um, you know, driveway coverage. or maybe the town houses would have individual accesses all along Brighton in Fowl Bay. The opportunity of this project is that it's a comprehensive zone and that it's being explored with the additional benefit of a heritage revitalization. So, I think the approach is is right and the I do think that the approach is aligned with our our OCP and I and I think that we really are um gaining, you know, a new little community hub potentially um uh that is close to the village center that's going to provide a lot of different housing options that I hear regularly from the community that they want more opportunities to have different housing typologies. So, I think I think we're really lucky with a lot of aspects of what we have in this project and I do feel um you know that the few revisions that we're sending back are going to make the project even better.

Um my speaker's list is now uh councelor Appleton. Thank you, worship. So, speaking to the speaking in favor of the motion on the floor, I don't have sorry I'm going to organize my thoughts here. didn't come pre didn't have a a pre-prepared thing here, but um I'm going to continue to support this project just because it provides, you know, a broad range of housing options in in a really optimal location. Uh we we really want to not lose track of all the the the potential benefits that this specific type of development affords. As has been mentioned, a heritage conservation agreement and the development associated with that will invariably require some degree of sight specific zoning and will require a deviation from what typical zoning on that lot might require. Uh, as we've been informed and as we have reviewed over the course of evaluating this proposal and as has been alluded to here, uh, a potential subdivision and subsequent development of those lots into forplexes, which are allowed by Wright under legis under provincial legislation and by our own zoning bylaw,

is going to result in a nearly equivalent total square footage, potentially more lot coverage, uh, potentially the loss of more trees, and has has been uh alluded to potentially a even greater impact or an impact on the Brighton Greenway and the access and the potential street improvements that are proposed in this project. So, we've heard time and time again that folks want to see developments that uh do not create parking uh and traffic issues. The only way to practically do that in the municipality is to allow people to purchase a home and to move into a development that is accessible to transit and amenities that and this provides exactly those things. There's very few locations in the community that afford a better opportunity for a redevelopment that allows people to reside in a walkable location and have that access to those amenities. So I I hear loud and clear that folks are concerned about this the scale of the development and the massing. I ask the community overall to consider the

benefits to uh lifestyle to people's ability to be able to be carike to be able to access amenities without the use of a car. to be able to uh have a variety and a diversity of housing choices and really consider all of the potential benefits that might acrue to the Brighton greenway itself through streetscape improvements and uh just the variety of housing that it offers. So um there is as has been mentioned uh difficulty in achieving 100% uh success with any development and compromises and trade-offs are are implicit and that is what is for us to consider. So I'm happy to see this moving forward your worship.

Thank you councelor Appleton. Councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you, mayor. And um I I you know, I I I do agree with most of the comments that have been made around the table and certainly all of the input from residents is is also important. It's a community they live in and um I appreciate that they certainly they want to see it improved, but they don't want to see it destroyed either. And but I'm I'm very mindful that we we are there will be nine tenants that will be displaced from the building and many of these may be the exactly the kind of people that we are want we're wanting to encourage to be in Oak Bay um for in our missing middle housing and we we are not yet achieving that. Um and so that I mean that that's that's been disappointing in in for I think a lot of residents in Oak Bay and certainly for myself. Um and we also in the uh the application that is presented tonight, we're not really achieving the

accessibility in the true form of accessibility where people don't have to ask for it again where it exists and it's possible today for them to look at a building and understand that it can suit their needs. So that that is that is really important. But um I I live close to the village. I seldom drive a vehicle and uh I do use public transit and I frequent the Brighton Greenway. So I do understand this area and I think that uh the improvement along that Brighton greenway will be appreciated by everyone in in that area and it will be of benefit to the community. Um, with respect to the the heritage house, heritage conversions um and HAS are are certainly worthy of merit, but they can be hard to achieve and too frequently they're lost because uh perhaps you of a refusal to yield in any way. So, you know, I think it it is it will be a tradeoff. Um but I think our our um design panel has our design committee has made some good

recommendation. The heritage commission has made some good recommendations and hopefully um with the comments made tonight it will go back to the applicant and what we see come back to us. uh it may not give us everything we want, but I think that if we can certainly achieve um some mitigation of the massing and uh and a way forward on this, it would be um a successful project for the entire community's benefit. So, you know, I'm optimistic. Thank you very much, Councelor Briwe. Councelor Green, Ray Patterson, see it's time to time for me to extend the thing, but go ahead, Council Green. Thank you very much. I will not be sub uh supporting the motion and believe me, I I would love to. Um, but I think the the changes that were asked for haven't gone far enough and I am sufficiently moved by the the amount of correspondence and and the comments um that that have been made by the public. Furthermore, um this is about context.

It's not just about um a a development per se. It's a it's a contextual decision. Um I don't disagree with a lot of the comments that have been made tonight and I would like to see something developed that that will be compatible with the neighborhood and the established neighborhood. Absolutely. I do. Um and I've listened to a lot of comments and conversations at the Heritage Commission table and so on. But I also can't deal in hypotheticals. I'm dealing with what's in front of me. Um, yes, it's possible there could be um four forplexes on that property, but that's a hypothetical. Um, I'm hoping that this will be a successful application. Um, but it's difficult at the moment to um approve the motion that is made. I think one of the most articulate letters that we received and there were many of them was from an an architect and he very cogently and very articulately listed where the shortcomings are and all of them can be conceivably addressed appropriately. So

if if we think about it in that way um I'm hoping for something much better and something that will be compatible with the neighborhood. And I am really hoping, and I've said it now, this will be the third time. I'm hoping that the developer will actually sit down with the neighbors that are are most vocal and and are most concerned. Thank you. Uh thank you everyone. I'm going to just ask for a motion to extend the meeting for till 11 just because I think we're going to need that much time. Moved. Seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. In the spirit of that, I'm going to keep my comments short. Um, you know, I'm supportive of the motion. Um, I do think this needs to get out and and do these final tweaks and have uh proper public input. Uh, have a public hearing. Let's understand the pros and the cons and and get to that. That is our process. I I I do

recognize and I think the only thing that hasn't been said here so far is that um we don't get the ultimately don't get to kind of design these things. we are always in the position of having to weigh applicants and or applications and then determine if it's good enough uh in those in those contexts. And so um I think we benefit from that. We benefited from the from the feedback from the public. Uh we benefited from the conversations with the applicant and with staff. Um I think with these additional changes it's getting close uh to supportable. And I just want to acknowledge that this has been a project that's been on the books um gosh now for probably nine or 10 years. that's gone back and forth. It started off as a as a H process into single family homes beside it. That was approved at the time. There were some comments about it probably deserves more than just single family homes. Um we're back here now. We have this ultimately it'll be up to this body whether it's good enough and and we'll we'll get there. But I do think without any, you

know, I think with these changes and with the with the approach taken from council, I feel like we're getting closer and I definitely want to be getting to the point where we have a very firm set of bylaws that we can talk to and understand all the ramifications, what's included in the HRA agreement itself and the public can comment on the facts that are that are all included in that. So I'm supportive of getting to that that process. Just just one point of clarification, it's it's not nine years with the same applicant, though. I think that's important to note that well in fact I think there's been nine years of owners same owner uh different applicants but in fact much longer than that in terms of the house sitting there on a on a lot that is underutilized and and not terribly wellmaintained and in a house that is starting to fall apart and I think we you know we we the options here are not necessarily perfection or this it's it's you know we've had a status quo for a long time and we're trying to

find a path forward so I do think it's always important to keep that context in the mind. Um, with that I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? Councilor Braithweight and Green opposed. That will come back to this table for consideration and then if it passes there, it'll go to public hearing. Thank you everybody who's here for this this item. You're welcome to stick around uh for the other items. I'm going to ask that everybody stay in place. We just stand up, move uh okay, people are leaving. I'm going to call a threem minute recess and then we'll re restart.

We'll start again in about 30 seconds.

Yes, counselor.

All right, I'm going to call the meeting back to order. Um, Councelor West will join us in just a second. Um, our next item of business is item 9.1. Uh, make sure I get that right. 9.1, 3250 Norfolk Road. This is for an upland sighting and design. We have Mr. Hadfield here uh to do the introduction. Welcome, Mr. Hatfield. Thank you, your worship. The district has received an application for an upland sighting design permit for the property located at 3250 Norfolk Road to allow for changes to the doors and windows located on the front and rear faces of the existing building. The application was presented to the advisory design panel on May 12th, 2026, who recommended the application be approved. Staff review of the application finds that the designs conform to the district's upland design guidelines and are therefore supportable. The materials proposed are minor in nature, consistent with the building's original design concept, and are not visible from the street.

Planning staff are happy to answer any questions on the application, and the land owner, Eric Bowman, is in attendance over Zoom today to answer any questions council might have. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for council to staff or the applicant? Seeing none, there's no public input, so perhaps someone can put the motion on the floor. I'll move that council approve Upland Sighting and Design application ADP 00202 for the property located at 3250 Norfolk Road. Second. Seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? Unos. I will say to the applicants and to future applicants, we are working to find a way to delegate some of these more straightforward uh upland setting and design because I think the intention here is to look at larger things, not just the window changes. We move now to item number 9.2. Uh 22 Oh, yep. Uh I'll just introduce it and uh which is 2253 through McNeil Avenue. Councelor Smart, you needed to recuse yourself.

Yes. I'd like to recuse myself from this application due to a perceived conflict of interest as I recently volunteered with the architect on this project with my building equity and architecture group. Thank you. Thank you. Let you leave the room. This is another item that is uh well it's bylaws uh by the nature of the bylaw asks we are precluded from having a public hearing. So we have uh are here to take consideration of this application in and of itself. Uh with that Mr. Hatfield you're back on the deck. Thank you your worship. The district has received a zoning bylaw amendment application for the property located at 2253 McNeel Avenue to facilitate the addition of a secondary suite to the existing building on the property constructed in 1945. The application was presented to the advisory planning commission on May 20th, 2026, who recommended the application be approved.

Staff find the proposal to be in alignment with OCP goals and policies and the variances to be similar in scale to the increases normally granted to accessory dwelling units. The application has chosen to or the applicant rather has chosen to pursue a secondary suite addition rather than an accessory dwelling unit in large part to reduce the impact of the mature beach tree at the rear of the property. Staff are happy to answer any questions in the application and we also have the uh project team and landowner in attendance uh in person today to do the same. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. I'm not sure how many questions we'll have. We'll find out. Are there any questions from council on this application? Please go ahead, councelor Braithweight. Um yeah, I'm just wondering um about the 36% lot coverage and and whether that is really required or if there could be something done that would reduce that lot coverage.

Thank you. Mr. Helfield, do you should I give that over to the applicant or are you prepared to answer that? Uh yeah, perhaps just a clarification on whether you're talking about the design aspects to, you know, reduce the overall lot coverage or the um bylaw amendment that we're proposing for 36%. uh both perfect I'll I'll speak to the second and then I'll put the uh first to the applicants so through the chair um in terms of the 36% figure you know they're proposing 35.3 we provide a buffer to make sure that essentially minor you know uh changes to the application during the building permit process don't result in the application needing to be rerouted to council perhaps due to a a building inspector ctor's request for for one thing or another. And then if I could ask uh Heather Spinny to come to the front.

Welcome. You spent the whole night here, so you might as well come up and speak for briefly on this. Well, you just introduce your just your name for the record. Good evening, everyone. My name is Heather Spinny. I'm with the Studio PA Architects. Um in regards to the uh additional coverage we're requesting, um we have the homeowner here, Emma, and then her mom, Lynn, who the addition is for. Uh so what we've done is we've really tried to incorporate as many um sort of accessibility standards that we can for future proofing of the house. So the bathroom's bigger, the kitchen's bigger, corridors are bigger. Um so we've sort of been forced to superersize everything just to make it so that in the future she can continue living there. Great. Thank you.

Thank you for the answer to the Y almost always requires the applicant to answer the question. Um [snorts] I don't see any other hands uh up here on this one. So perhaps I'll come back to the table to give some direction. I can move the recommendation that zoning bylaw number 3531 1986 amendment bylaw number 49672026 be read a first and second time. Moved and seconded. This is the opportunity for debate or discussion. Oh, go ahead, councelor Patterson. I Yes. Thank you, mayor. I will just add that the advisory planning committee did review this application. They were very supportive of it. The applicant did go through it in detail with the committee members and and we were all quite supportive as I am for the application coming to council.

Thank you. I will call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Please continue. I'll move that the zoning bylaw number 3531 1986 amendment bylaw number 4967 2026 be read a third time. Seconded. Uh there's a debate on third reading. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And I'll move that zoning bylaw number 3531 1986 amendment bylaw number 4967 2026 be adopted. Moved and seconded. Thank you. Uh again last chance for debate. Seeing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Good luck with the project. It's very thoughtful and uh it should be very very I hope that's hope that works out well for you.

Uh with and you're welcome to stick around for the rest of the meeting if you wish. But nine Can someone grab this council? That's councelor Smart. Uh, moving then to 9.32560 Dorset Road Upland Sighting and Design application. Miss Cleaver, welcome back. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Um, this application pertains to an upland sighting and design permit application for infill development involving four units, one duplex and two accessory dwelling units at 2560 Dorset Road, a site that is currently measured at just under an acre at point 0.71 acres uh zoned residential 2, which is also adjacent to Upland's Park. My apologies. On May 12th, 2026, the advisory design panel considered and commented on the subject application and the ADP passed the following motion that the ADP recommend to council that sighting up sighting and design permit ADP0000203 for 2560 Dorset Road be approved with the following consideration to incorporate additional landscaping to soften the visual corridor and enhance the access to the proposed development from Dorset Road. So following the ADP

meeting, the applicants have updated their landscape plan to address the panel's recommendation and this has also been evaluated that by the district's parks department. The proposal departs from previous Upland's development patterns where prominent large single family buildings have been the norm. Staff have reviewed the proposed site and building plans and supporting documents and have determined that the project aligns with the district's infill housing regulations, which allow up to four buildings per lot in the R1 and R2 zones. The proposal is consistent with the district's inhill housing regulations and is in alignment with the district's OCP housing objectives and policies and fully conforms with the residential R2 zoning of the property.

The development development also conforms to the upland's design guidelines and is therefore supportable. The applicants Ryan Hoy of Hoy Design owners from Pacific Beach Investments and landscape designer from Biophilia Design Collective are present in the audience to answer any questions and staff are also happy to answer any additional questions. Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Claver. Um we don't have a presentation on this tonight but we have a very comprehensive uh uh uh application package. So what I'll do here upetting and design does not have public input. We have had we have received some written input which is uh welcome but tonight we're just considering the application in front of us. Um at this point I'm I'll invite if the applicants wish to say anything you can but I I'm happy just to get to questions if there's questions from council to you. Is there anything you'd like to add?

We're happy just to defer to council questions. Great. Thank you. Are there questions to the applicants? Councelor Patterson and then Appleton. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. And uh I'm quite familiar with this lot. I walk by it almost every day. Um, but just uh if the applicant could speak to the choice of the ashva proposed for the driveway rather than a permeable paver and what I'll do just ask you to just state your name uh before you speak just so that we have it on the record. Thank you. Sure. Um through the mayor uh my name is Bianca um Bodley. I'm from Bhilia Design Collective, the landscape designer for this project. And uh to speak to your question, um we have uh specified uh a mixture of um ashalt and permeable papers. So permeable papers is the sense of entry when you're um coming off of the road um to enhance that that app the curb appeal. And then uh ashvalts with the main drive ale. Um it's just a very forgiving surface um to for for turning

and um it's it it it's just a preferential um materiality um that's been chosen for the driveway. Um and it's a very large surface area. So doing it all in perial pavers of course would be uh quite an investment. But um we we've decided to do a mixture of two different materials. So, we'll have permeable pavers for the front entries, for the patios, and for the entry of the driveway itself. Thank you. I next have councelor Appleton, then Braithweight. Thank you, worship. I think my I've got two questions and I think the first one is actually for staff. So I just wanted to really just be just for the purposes and I think staff have kind of explained this but just for clarity for the purposes of the public when we refer some of the correspondence has been received on the application. um a lot of folks that are writing in or a number of folks that have written in because uh the forplex concept is still relatively

new to Uplands and I think uh folks are not necessarily residents are not necessarily uh the fact that Upland's residential lots are being treated the same as every other residential lot in the district with respect to the forplex prescription is I think new to some folks uh as far as looking at an uplands and of course it's a new design to uplands. So because of that I think mi misunderstanding and I it's a justified misunderstanding because it's a new building form for the uplands uh it's been referred to in some of the correspondents as a subdivision but this is not in fact a subdivision. So, I just wanted to make that really clear for the, you know, just to confirm that with staff and uh and essentially that the layout, no, it's not proposed to be a subdivision and nor does the layout of the lot and the proposed development that's proposed here actually lend itself very well to subsequent subdivision.

M Claver, Mr. green uh through your worship to uh council. Yes, this is not a subdivision where somebody is amending the minimum lot size to create a fee simple subdivision. However, the applicant's intent I believe is to do a uh a building strata uh which is a essentially a form of subdivision but it has the district has no involvement in the creation of a building strata is simply a process that takes place between the applicant uh and land titles surveying authority LTSA uh that must be completed within 12 months of receiving occupancy from the district's building official. Thank you Mr. B. Thanks. And I would like to add that indeed uplands like other neighborhoods uh four units per lot is now allowed specifically in R1 and R2 the larger lots. We also allow for four residential buildings. So that is uh outright allowed on the zoning bylaw and that is a new form but that is one of the forms that is being considered across the district in those larger zones. Thanks.

Thank you very much through to your worship. Thank you to staff. I think my second question I think is probably for the applicants. I think um as developers are are starting to get a sense of uh what redevelopment scenarios might uh look like for the Uplands in the context of the Upland citing and design guidelines. Um I see a design here that and and there have been concerns raised in the community and you'll see that reflected in some of the correspondence just in terms of uh that historical development patterns are sort of centered on the large singular you know the large sort of uh uh manor style or larger single family residences. So, um, I potentially see here a little bit of a design that's indicating with a duplex with sort of a closely associated second building that reads a little bit more like a individual large individual building or a large single building. And I'm just wondering whether that was a design choice and whether there was a sort of an effort made to have the form

reflect more of a single building appearance with an out building. Uh, sure. All comment. First of all, my name is Ryan Hoy from the Hoy Design Company and I'm the project designer and applicant on behalf of Pacific Beach Investments. Uh, obviously on a site here, um, we looked at all sorts of different forms. Um, being mindful and and understanding the single family form was obviously predominant in the uplands. Uh, certainly on this site, uh, the building envelope lent well to focusing the massing in this sort of larger section of the site on the south side. orienting the buildings facing south was optimal from a sun standpoint.

Um, and it sort of abuts against the only real neighbor that we have, which is the neighbor to uh to the south. So, uh, the form worked well in all those capacities. It has very little street presence. It will probably not look too different along that south side from one single family home. Uh certainly from a scale standpoint overall um the massing size is equivalent to what you would see in a single family home. There's no additional density sought here. Uh it's broken up into a slightly different form, but overall the scale is reflective of what could could have been built um from a single family standpoint as far as footprint. Um but it's certainly very much in sync with what's happening around. Most of the homes immediately adjacent and around here are not the largest uplands homes you'll see. They're actually some of the smaller singlestory and uh bungalows. Um so certainly the scale of what we're proposing we feel is very commensurate with what is surrounding.

Mr. Ho uh counc um you know I think if this proposal was on any other lot anywhere I know bay it would be a slam dunk but it's not just any other lot. Um, this parcel sits at the entrance to At Upland's Park. It's one of the most visible gateways to Upland's. I'm very, very familiar with this site. Um, it's within the Upland's National Historic Site landscape and it's an adjacent to one of um, Oak Bay's most environmentally significant public spaces and because of that, I think that we are justified in applying a maybe a higher level of scrutiny than would be applied to a typical in infill project.

Um so my question uh one of my questions would be what features of this proposal specifically reinforce the national historic site values of uplands beyond compliance with the zoning? Mr. Hoy. So I think you touched on it. This is certainly a unique property in the uplands. Um it's probably the blankst slate you will find in the uplands. So, I think um one of the the real wins here is taking a property that has almost zero landscape value um integrating four new units of housing here and also adding a huge value of of landscape to actually bring any sort of park-like setting back to a property where there is an absence of that right now. So, it's a win on both uh both sides. for adding tasteful infill housing, um increasing the environmental and biological um features of this site to really take a property that has no um real merits to align with the current uplands design guidelines or goals of the Uplands right now and really improves it to to something that certainly does reflect a lot of the characters of the Uplands.

U Thank you. Um, did you ever consider just a three-unit proposal rather than a four-unit proposal? Certainly everything was on the table at the time of um analyzing what the site would hold. Um, and then can you touch and maybe this goes to staff. Um, just remind me what the site coverage is of this uh proposal and the hard surface coverage and um, are there any variances there? I can't remember off hand. disclaimer uh through the mayor. Um I can refer to the exact technical uh details, but there were no uh requested variances nor the need for any. So it did meet uh the allowable lot coverage, F setbacks, height restrictions, um massing um etc. um as well as for the requirements for hard the the maximum for hard servicing as well as the minimum for live landscaping and um actually tree canopy coverage uh was uh substantially over the the minimum requirement.

I can speak specifically to the hard surface numbers uh allowances of 25% for both front and rear. Our front percent, our proposed is 13% and our rear proposed is4%. Thank you, Councelor Watson. Thank you. And thank you for the applicants for being here this evening so late to discuss this with us. Um, as as the applicants know, I was at the advisory design panel on on the day it was discussed by them and I I was particularly looking for their commentary on on a couple of features and I'd like to come back to one of them because they did I asked them specifically for their perspectives with respect to the the sighting and design guidance with respect to the driveway and its prominence from from the street and I understand in the staff report that some adjustments have been made to that but I just wondered if you could comment on homes and whether there's I guess a a design concern with specifically with respect to the the guideline for parking and driveways to provide adequate vehicle circulation and parking areas on site screened from the

street screened from the street with landscaped walls and other enclosures using narrow landscape driveways. And I guess I have a concern that from the street it mostly what you see is just a driveway and that that is re I'm not sure how well that really does the design solution does uh address the particular guidelines. So if you've made changes I wonder if you could just speak to those and why you picked the driveway with you did in the driveway location. Sure Mr. White. Thank you. Uh so speaking to the driveway, one point that I think is important to understand, this is the existing driveway that's currently there that we are essentially retaining. Um I think one of the winds here is currently you look down the driveway and you see the front of a house and you see a big garage facing the street. The orientation of the new buildings um presents an open drive aisle with sight lines all the way through to the park.

By orienting all of the garages for the buildings 90 degrees to the street, we've screened all of our parking. Each of these units has a two-car garage that can conceal two vehicles. The additional on-site parking is in behind the buildings, so that's screened from the street. So, I think a lot of that um is actually a win and a benefit in a sense. Um really opening up that sighteline of the park is huge. As far as the landscaping and um measures taken, there was some discussion as far as retaining a pedestrian thoroughfare along the front boulevard as a lot of people walking down the road use that boulevard to access into the park. So, our design all along has balanced maintaining access through there, but also providing some landscaping for both interest and privacy and screening. So, it's been a bit of a balanced effort there. I'll let Bianca add further. Sure.

Just to speak to the landscaping enhancements that were requested at that meeting. Um the previous uh landscaped area u surrounding the driveway, we've we've tripled that in size and flirted out with a rock wall on the outside edge um which should make it look um quite prominent and uh attractive um as you drive by. And then as you look down the drive aisle, as um as was mentioned, you can you can see all the way through to the park, but also there's um there's a series of trees of magnolia trees which um when they're when they're leafed out and in full canopy is going to is going to interrupt your view as well. So you're going to see a combination of trees and then the park beyond. And as Ryan was mentioning, the the buildings are are offset from the the large hedge that's in front that's existing that we're maintaining. So you're going to see a layer of new landscaping hedging and then magnolia trees and then the

park beyond and only the only the narrowest view of the buildings from the from the sides. Thank you. That was my only question. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Uh any other first time questions and I'll go back to second time. Go ahead counc. Thank you. So just going on that because I just pulled up that picture. Um those rocks that that you have there right right now there's no sidewalk there. Um, but the rocks that you have, are they not on municipal land? The rocks that you have all the way down the driveway? Yes. Uh, through the mayor, the the landscaping on the boulevard is all on the boulevard. Everything this side of the hedge is is on the boulevard. Yes.

Just and I would go to staff and ask, um, are are we in the do we normally allow rocks of that size along our our boulevard that would really prevent people from walking along there? Mr. B. Thank you, Mayor. Through you. Um, it depends. Sometimes we receive concerns from residents about rocks, mainly if there's a attempt to block parking. Um, those get dealt with case by case. So, in this case, um, I'm not aware of any concerns, but the landscaping, the landscape plan itself would be focused on the onsite um, of this particular lot. Uh, and that's what I think our review would focus on. Thanks.

Um, thank you. And then, um, I'm just wondering, um, did you I'm wondering through the to the applicants, did you have any meetings with residents before submitting the application? And if you did, um, did you make any changes to the design that you were looking at? Um, because of those meetings, Mr. Hoy, uh, so meetings prior to the application. Um, no, we have had meeting a meeting sort of impromptu with um, effectively the only neighbor to the south that uh, happened to attend the advisory planning meeting and we had a very productive conversation with them and have uh, opened the lines of communication as far as some landscaping that could be mutually beneficial. So, that's in the works. Um, beyond that, really, as as mentioned, there's really only one adjacent direct neighbor there that and and based on the scale of the buildings, um, we're confident that we're not going to be imposing on those across the street and beyond.

Thank you. And just, yeah, I was just going to say, push the button. Yeah. Hi, uh, Brad McAdams, Pacific Beach Investments. I also contacted the neighbor that's adjacent to us. I left him a phone message to talk. Um, he hadn't called me back. Uh, but again, I left it open for him to call me if he had any concerns. And I actually knocked across. There's another neighbor across the street. I knocked on the door. Uh, no one's home. There was a lock box on the house, so I'm assuming um they're not around, but uh again, I tried to get in contact with them as well.

And uh both myself and Darren uh had a meeting with uh Evan Brown at the site uh about a week or so ago and we just went over his concerns and what we were what we were proposing and we agreed to disagree on certain things, but it was a productive meeting. Thank you. Yeah, because there is a lot of as you I'm sure you've noticed correspondence um in regards to this development. Thank you. Uh, are there any other questions for the applicant? Okay, I'm going to bring it back to this table then. Um, we have a proposed recommendation here that council approve upland sitting and design application, but I'll take it. I will make that motion your seconded.

Okay. Thank you. discussion councly motivate your worship there's a couple of things and it I appreciate this coming forward and I think it has a lot of upside uh when we consider further to my comments earlier when we consider applications under upland sighting and design uh you know obviously we refer to the upland sighting and design guidelines and and I appreciate the intentionality in this case to particularly like in terms of because obviously the lots in Uplands can by just by their size can can actually accommodate very large structures and very large buildings and there are some historical buildings that are quite large. Um, I think in in accordance the the the the approach in accordance with the Upland Sighting and Design guidelines in this particular case to take a a lower approach and to try to mirror what you know those types of buildings that are surrounding it I think is in keeping with Upland Sighting and Design and obviously uh yeah an a

bit of an unusual lot in terms of its sort of lack of landscaping. So, I appreciate the, you know, sort of intention to further the park-like setting by really uh being uh creative and uh expansive with the landscape piece as well. So, I feel like there's a number of sort of significant things that respond directly to Upland sighting and design. Um I I know I recognize very clearly that it does represent a different type of housing form as it's really important for the community to understand. again four structures available on the site and Upland's uh lots do because of their size do lend themselves to these types of developments. I I know that that's uh a change for folks. So I want to recognize that. So I think it is really important that we le lean really heavily and we we're very uh focused on the language of the upland sighting and design guidelines when we review these types of properties. So and I think that this does fairly well in that regard. Thank

you worship. Thank you, councelor Watson. And then briefly, yes, and I just add to councelor Appleton's comments as the secondary of the motion. I think that um the applicant has um basically taken over what when the house is demolished is in effect a moonscape and uh made some real improvements. I have to say that um um I I I think that the applicant has done a very thorough job of addressing each guideline. I did have some concerns that were part of the discussion. the advisory design panel about whether that driveway access and that kind of that that particular element was addressed properly and I think there have been some modifications that really helped there and I I also we haven't discussed it tonight but I did have some concerns about the hedge and how that enclosed nature of the site uh was maybe not reflective of what was going on in the park-like setting of the uplands but I spent the weekend actually exploring the uplands and uh this kind of enclosed landscape keeping is actually much more

prominent than we say it should be. So I I I couldn't really find and I understood the rationale the vegetation was there and we should keep it. So I think I I am satisfied that this application in fact does address all the things that we asked to be addressed and has done it in a lovely modern form which is very much in keeping with the flat lot. So I think that it's got a lovely design sensibility and uh uh um and will be a lovely addition to that street and replacing what's there right now. So I'm happy to move this for support this briefly. Uh thanks so much. Um I want to thank staff and the applicant and the advisory design panel and the members of the public who have taken the time to provide their comments um on this application because I think it's really important. I was so excited when this when I heard that an application was coming forward for this site because as I said I I'm I'm around this site a lot.

Um so I I do want to acknowledge that it's a thoughtfully prepared proposal. Um you've really clearly invested considerable effort into the design landscaping and the overall presentation of the project. And I really appreciate staff's thorough analysis and the work that's gone into reviewing this application. Um I do support the need for additional housing in Oak Bay and I recognize that our official community plan and current zoning permit um a wider range of housing forms that as councelor um Appleton has pointed out that have um historically not extoidly historically consist uh existed in the uplands. My decision this evening is not based on opposition to housing or based on a belief that no additional housing should ever be considered within the uplands because I think it should. But my concern is really with this specific site. As I've mentioned before, this site um occupies one of the most prominent and sensitive locations in the municipality. In my opinion, it sits at the entrance um to Upland's Park and forms part of the landscape setting of one of Canada's his national historic

sites. And for many residents and visitors, this property serves as a gateway into both the Uplands neighborhood and to the park itself. So the question for council is not simply whether the proposal complies with zoning. The question is whether the proposal reinforces the unique landscape character, spaciousness, and park-like setting that define the uplands and which the uplands design guidelines seek to protect. And while I appreciate the efforts made by the applicant to enhance landscaping and increase tree canopy, I'm not really persuaded that four dwellings units on this highly visible site adequately reflect the historic development pattern and landscape landscape character that make the uplands unique. I'm I'm really particularly concerned about the cumulative effect of decisions such as this. Uh we've talked about this a little bit around this table. Um while any single application may appear modest modest in isolation, we have to also consider what message approval sends for future applications on other large properties within the uplands. And once a precedent is established, it becomes increasingly difficult to explain why

similar proposals should not be considered elsewhere. So my decision is therefore not a reflection on the quality of the application because I think it's a great application or the intentions of the applicant. It's based on my view that this site warrants an exceptionally high level of protection and that the proposed development does not sufficiently demonstrate compatibility with the unique heritage landscape and gateway character of this location. So sadly I'm unable to support this application and I just wish it could be a little bit different. Thank you. Thank you. Um Greg, Councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. Um I'll be um supporting um the motion. Um at a glance you could look at this and and at first see it and think, "Oh, that's that's a house in the uplands. That looks like a large single family house with a garage." Um and then to discover that it's a duplex um with uh two additional housing units to me just makes it more beautiful. the fact that there would be potentially four families um living here

in in a very beautiful setting in our community. Uh I do feel like the project is very sensitively designed um with um um between the landscape and the buildings uh and a lot of thought has gone into this and the quality of the architecture is is very nice. Uh, and I I loved reading, and I understand our community is conflicted about this, but I did love hearing some of the comments in the letters from residents about being excited about, oh, seniors downsizing, ideal location for new housing, opportunity for young families, and I was just excited to see an outpouring of of some letters about people just getting really excited about welcoming new people to our community.

Um, so I am I am in support of this application. Um, uh, thanks, Thank you. Any other comment about councelor Patterson? Yes, thank you, mayor. Um, I too will support this application. I think that this um this lot speaks well to the fact that all parts of Oak Bay vary street by street and and um and I I certainly appreciate all of the letters that came in both for and against. I know that um because I do walk the area frequently. Uh there are a lot of neighboring properties that actually look forward to seeing this done. This is one of the most unusual properties I think in Uplands in that it is it is quite barren. It is um and it has been for well as long I have been in Oak Bay.

So it is very barren and yet it is um as councelor Watson said something of a gateway to Upland's Park and so certainly that that is important. Um but I I I think that the what I like about the application is is the the housing is not so dominant that it and the the added vegetation the added planting in that I I see in this application actually at least in my mind does reinforce the um the desire of Uplands to maintain very much a park-like um experience for users. I think it can be um quite compatible with the walkway system into Upland's Park and I I don't I have never really liked the um the large driveway going through and and and you see mostly that but it does end at the house. So I I take into consideration certainly the what the the landscape architect um is saying about the plantings softening the the visual aspects of it a lot and actually enhancing the view both from the street

from Dorset um and actually from the park also. Uh certainly the addition of Gary Oaks will be welcomed and I think that uh the plantings will attract certainly the wildlife that uh is very prominent in that area and the housing while it is more modest, it is in keeping with housing forms in the area both in size um in the in the type of the housing and so in years to come hopefully the the landscaping especially especially with the large trees will will be dominant over the housing. And so I see it as being supportive of of what we are attempting to have an uplands and that is uh strengthening the park-like um uh setting of Uplands. And while I know that there is concern that every every application that is approved sets precedence, I I don't believe that.

But I think that we do have to look at each application that comes forward as an individual application. Look at where it's it's it's situated um and and what is around it and go forward on that basis. It it's almost impossible with a unique um part of the community as Uplands is to have one-sizefits-all. it it really does need greater attention and and so for that I'm glad that we do have uh the uh the design panel to to review this also. So I will be supporting the application as it's presented tonight. Thank you. Any other speakers? I'll speak very briefly to this. Uh it's a sighting and design application. It's nice sighting and it's nice design.

Uh [snorts] not much more to say to it. I think the key parts for me was the interface to the park and to the street. Um the street I struggled with a bit with sort of the dominance of the sidewalk, the driveway as I've heard others, but I really appreciate the comment and I think the option to that is a is a large house that you're looking at as opposed to the greenery and so they get a chance to look at the landscaping. Um I think really what I really appreciate here is the um is the sighting and design particularly from the park. Uh, and I think you know there's it's very easy to build large sort of looming two-story buildings, the articulation of the second story, the setbacks that they've used incorporated in that that the landscaping I think all very thoughtful in terms of how it interfaces with the park. Uh, and again uh you can compare it to I don't know uh

something else in your mind or you can compare it to what's there now. Uh either way I think uh it's it's a great design. certainly a massive improvement over what's there currently. And so really appreciate the thoughtfulness that's gone into this approach. Um and just to address the the point I think that's raised by many people which is the question of subdivision in the uplands which this is not but I appreciate that that's a concern. Um and the idea of this of not having multiple units on lots in the uplands again the whole point of the uplands that every lot is different. It's all very unique.

you need to look at this in the case by case and I would just say that if if if the will is to not allow that in the uplands and we need to address our zoning not our setting and design guidelines um it's a tool but it's not the ideal tool so I just want to say thank you to the applicants I think it's a very very thoughtful design very well laid out um I think it's uh it'll it'll it'll be a real asset to the community when it's built so I'll leave it there council green thank you very much and I've I've been um listening very carefully to all the comments around the table. Um I think my comments and and my concerns echo those of councelor Braithweight and that again is is it is about setting a precedent in the uplands. Um and it is about the concerns of um many many people about that kind of u development but it is a very good development. The design is

excellent. Um my concern though is uh shared I think by by others um not around the table but certainly in the community um that this is um maybe the thin edge of the wedge for that area and it is up against a park. Um and I think that's a concern as well. So um construction impacts um and other impacts might be um concerning for this these amount of homes. But I um I mean it's a very good application and I appreciate it. But um it's for me it's in the wrong location. Thank you. All right. I think that's all the speakers. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? Counc opposed. That carries.

Good luck with the project. Yeah. We move to the per 1151 St. David. [laughter] We are here with her. Go ahead. I I do need to recuse myself due to friendship with the applicant. Okay, sounds good. With that, I'm going maybe if Yeah, we keep the voices down out there. Uh so over to uh Miss Claver again. Busy night. [laughter] Lucky you. Thank you again, mayor and council. Uh I'll make this uh fairly short and sweet. Uh the district has received um another zoning bylaw amendment uh application for the property located at 1151 St. David Street. The property is zoned R5 uh a residential use and contains a non-conforming single family dwelling that was constructed in 1921.

Um, overall staff find the proposal to be in alignment with OCP goals and policies, enhancing the livability of a house of historic value and therefore uh find it supportable. Staff are recommending that council give three readings and adopt the amended bylaw. Um the applicant Sarah Donald is still here from Hansenbuilt um is present in the audience to answer any questions as well as I'm also present uh to have happy to answer any additional questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um are there any questions for members of council to staff on this? Please go ahead council briefly. Thanks. Sorry, I just noticed um on page five um under the denial, not that I'm saying we're going to deny this, uh but it refers to Zo N00000068 rather than Zoom N000070.

So, if that motion is moved, we'll make sure we correct it in the reading. Yeah, my apologies. Thank you for No worries. Noticing that. But I'm happy to make the motion if nobody else has any questions. I'll look around the table. No questions. Go ahead. Then I will move that the zoning bylaw number 3531 1986 amendment bylaw number 4974 2026 be read a first and second time moved and seconded. Any debate? Speak if you're opposed. Okay. All those in favor? Any opposed? Opposed? And I'll move that zoning by number 3531 1986 amendment bylaw number 4974 2026 be read a third time. Seconded. Thank you. All those in favor?

Any opposed? opposed and I'll move that zoning by number 3531 1986 amendment by law number 4974 2026 be adopted second move and seconded any discussion on adoption seeing none all those in favor any opposed and opposed that is concluded that was a long time to wait it's just how it fits into the agenda unfortunately so thank you very much for that [snorts] um welcome back councelor Smart we move now to 9.5 parks wreck and culture fees and charges bylaw is Mr. Sulie, you're still here. Did we let him go? Oh, thank you. That's very kind. Move that uh the parks, reconculture, fees, and charges by number 4777, 2021 amendment by law number 4969 2026 be adopted.

Just seconded. Could we just call them just for fun? Just can we? No. Um [laughter] any discussion on adoption? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. The 9.6 Six. I'll move that municipal ticket information bylaw number 4946 2023 amendment by law number 4970 2026 be adopted. Moved and seconded. Thank you. Uh any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? Opposed? Is there any new business? I think we have a notice of motion counces. Yeah, I want to just the uh the motion is that council direct the mayor to send a letter to the province and local MLAs outlining the need for continued local government climate action program funding and share this letter with the capital regional district board of directors and other BC municipal elected officials.

I'm I'm happy to address it today if um I'll move that motion.