Council approved the Carnarvon Park redevelopment funding plan, despite a sharp split over the project’s scale and the risk of proceeding before an $11.3 million federal grant is confirmed. The plan carries a projected 1.39% property-tax impact—about $70 a year for an average household—and work is expected to start in mid-2027 and take at least three years. Council also advanced home-based business bylaws, adding a lower seasonal fee option for urban agriculture and requesting an earlier report on how the changes are working. A proposed policy on single-stair buildings exposed a divide between fire-service capacity and the potential housing and design benefits; Council directed staff to draft a policy. Uplands residents urged Council to protect the neighbourhood’s historic landscape, and a councillor read a notice of motion seeking a report on options for doing so while allowing appropriate housing.
Generated from the recording's captions and the agenda (minutes not yet published by the council).
Seven members of the public spoke, mainly about the Uplands and a neighbourhood association proposal to add housing while limiting changes to the area’s historic, park-like character. Speakers raised concerns about subdivision and large new buildings, and about the effect of development on green space and the nationally recognized landscape plan. Some supported the association’s proposal as a balance between more housing and preservation; one speaker from outside the Uplands also objected to the scale of a proposed development on Lansdowne Road. The Mayor clarified that a notice of motion could be read later in the meeting but would not be debated that night.
Agreement
Speakers agreed that the Uplands’ landscape and historic character are important community assets.
Several speakers acknowledged housing pressures while urging Council to consider how new housing could fit the neighbourhood.
Disagreement
Speakers differed on how much housing change the Uplands should accommodate and whether subdivision or larger new buildings would undermine its character.
Some speakers backed the Uplands Neighbourhood Association proposal as a balance; others emphasized resisting development that could alter the existing landscape.
6.1 Heritage Foundation
community services1 public speaker32:35 Watch · Read
The Oak Bay Heritage Foundation presented draft constitution and bylaw changes for information, not approval. The proposed structure would let members elect directors instead of having Council appoint them, and would open membership to the public. It would also separate municipal grant funding for designated heritage properties from the Foundation’s own fundraising for education and other community-benefit projects. The Foundation suggested a modest annual membership fee of about $20 to $25 and said it hoped Council would continue to appoint a liaison.
Agreement
Council members praised the Foundation’s heritage talks, plaques, research help and other community work.
The Foundation and Council members saw value in clearer roles and greater independence for the organization.
Disagreement
A councillor questioned whether municipal grants might need to grow if the Foundation expanded its work; the Foundation said it expected to continue seeking its usual grant and fundraise separately for other activities.
A councillor asked whether public funds for grants to individual heritage properties could draw scrutiny; the Foundation said those grants support designated properties, while separate fundraising would cover broader educational projects.
7.1 Project Update - Carnarvon Park Redevelopment Project
Staff sought approval for a revised funding plan and direction to include it in the 2027–2031 Financial Plan. The estimated project cost remained consistent with the financial plan; the proposed funding mix included $15.1 million from the infrastructure renewal reserve, debt and development-related contributions. Without the pending $11.3 million federal grant, staff projected $5.1 million would remain in that reserve by 2030; with the grant, the projection rose to $10.8 million. The projected tax impact was 1.39%, or about $70 a year for an average household, and would carry forward rather than rise by that amount every year. Staff expected construction to begin in mid-2027 and take at least three years. Council approved the staff recommendation on a 4–3 vote.
Agreement
Councillors agreed Carnarvon Park needs significant improvements and that doing nothing was not a suitable option.
Councillors recognized the project’s value as a recreation facility for Oak Bay and the wider region.
Staff said a construction manager would help manage procurement and risk, and that the project would be phased.
Disagreement
Some councillors supported advancing the full plan now, citing long waits for improvements, rising construction costs and the risk of further delay.
Other councillors opposed committing to the current scope before the grant decision, citing financial risk, pressure on reserves and a lack of clarity about the project’s place among the District’s wider recreation and infrastructure needs.
Councillors also differed on whether parts of the park could proceed separately while the building or grant funding was reconsidered.
8.1 Housing Supply Act - Interim Housing Target Order Report (April 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026)
Staff presented the required quarterly report for the province. Oak Bay had recorded 73 net new dwelling units by the end of the reporting period, compared with a target of 258 by the end of the third year of the order. Staff said the pipeline of larger applications had slowed after the updated Official Community Plan and development-permit requirements. They offered to report next year on completed infill homes and, where possible, who is living in them. Council directed staff to send the report to the Minister by September 15, 2026.
Agreement
Council supported submitting the required report by the provincial deadline.
Staff and councillors saw value in a future update on infill housing and the people moving into those homes.
Disagreement
A councillor questioned whether counting new units showed that the homes were being occupied and whether the supply matched local needs; staff replied that setting land-use rules is the District’s role, while builders determine price and whether units are sold or rented.
8.2 Award of Tender 2026022 Sewer Lift Station Upgrades: Radcliffe Lane and King George Terrace
Staff recommended awarding the sewer lift station upgrade tender to Hazelwood Construction Services Inc. for $845,198.75 plus goods and services tax. The work at Radcliffe Lane and King George Terrace follows assessments that found safety, access and compliance upgrades were needed as well as electrical replacements. Staff said the two stations would be upgraded one at a time, with contractor bypass plans to maintain service. King George Terrace work may affect driving and parking; staff identified Baler station and other sewer upgrades as upcoming work. Council approved the award.
Agreement
Councillors supported proceeding with the required station upgrades and noted the tender was within the approved project budget.
Staff said work would be staged to reduce service risk and avoid working on both stations at once.
Disagreement
No disagreement about the tender award was evident. Councillors asked questions about procurement criteria, the budget and how sewer service would be maintained during construction.
The Fire Chief and planning staff reviewed the risks and implications of single-egress-stair buildings, which have one stairway for residents to enter and leave. The Fire Chief said Oak Bay’s current fire staffing, training and equipment could not support the response assumptions behind the provincial building-code provisions, and pointed to risks if the stairwell or building safety systems failed. Some councillors argued that the report did not sufficiently examine potential benefits such as smaller, more human-scaled buildings, or show how modern fire protections might address the risks. Council directed staff to draft a policy for future consideration; the Mayor urged staff to include possible conditions for future flexibility as well as the safety concerns.
Agreement
Councillors agreed the topic raises a difficult balance between fire-service capacity and opportunities for housing.
Staff and councillors recognized that the policy could be revisited as research, building codes or local fire-service capacity change.
Disagreement
Some councillors supported a policy setting out that Oak Bay cannot currently support these buildings, given the Fire Chief’s account of response limits.
Other councillors opposed drafting a policy at this stage, arguing it could close off innovation and housing options before Council had considered a fuller range of designs and safeguards.
Councillors differed on how much of the risk assessment and possible building-design benefits the report had adequately covered.
Staff reported that the Glenlyon Norfolk School property at 825 Foul Bay Road would receive a statutory tax exemption for 2027, so it no longer needed a permissive exemption in the bylaw. Council removed the property from the proposed schedule, gave the bylaw third reading as amended and approved an exemption for municipal office space leased at Athlone Court. Staff confirmed the lease requires the full tax savings to be passed on to the District.
Agreement
Council accepted that a statutory exemption made a separate permissive exemption for the school unnecessary.
Staff confirmed the Athlone Court lease passes the full property-tax exemption benefit to the District.
9.2 Council Priority Project #98 - Home-Based Business Regulations - Updated Bylaw
zoning development1 public speaker2:48:36 Watch · Read
Council advanced amendments covering zoning, business licences, parking, signs and ticketing for home-based businesses. The rules include limits on non-resident employees and rely largely on business-owner declarations and complaint-based enforcement. Council added a lower seasonal licence option for seasonal urban agriculture, then gave the related bylaws third reading; the changes still require final adoption. It also directed staff to report in the second quarter of 2028 on the effects of the changes, including where licensed businesses are located in relation to village areas. One local business owner warned that home-based businesses could affect village businesses; several councillors supported proceeding while seeking information, while others wanted more consultation or a closer look at village protections.
Agreement
Councillors agreed the rules should be reviewed after they have been in effect and data is available.
Council supported encouraging urban agriculture; it added a seasonal licence option at the lower seasonal fee.
Staff said enforcement would remain largely complaint-based and could be handled with existing resources.
Disagreement
Some councillors argued that possible effects on village businesses and the limited consultation warranted more study before the rules advanced.
Other councillors said pausing the changes without evidence of harm would be premature, and supported moving ahead while gathering data.
Councillors differed on whether a report should examine exclusion zones around villages or instead focus on business locations and return to policy questions later.
A councillor read a notice of motion seeking a future staff report on options to update the Uplands regulation bylaw and related land-use rules. The proposed report would examine the District’s authority under the Oak Bay Special Powers Act and other legislation, ways to regulate further subdivision, and possible limits on the number of principal buildings on Uplands properties. The Mayor said it would return for consideration at the next meeting; it was not debated at this meeting.
Decisions
Oak Bay has not published the minutes for this meeting yet. Councils post minutes only after a later meeting adopts them, usually two to six weeks afterwards. We check weekly. We last checked Fri, Oct 2, 2026. Votes and decisions are taken only from the official minutes, so this section fills in once Oak Bay publishes them. Anything above about motions comes from the recording and is preliminary.