Transcript: Council Meeting - 21 Sep 2026

Just final check for the audio.

Good evening everyone and welcome to our regularly scheduled council meeting for uh August 21st. Uh our first order of business is a call to order and we just like to start by acknowledging that we gather on the traditional territories of the coast and street salish peoples specifically recognize lungans speaking people known today as the song and casapsum or squamalt nations and their history and connections to these lands Canadians to this day. Uh next is approval of the agenda. Can I have a mover and a second for the agenda? Moved seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? We have three sets of minutes from October 6th and September 8th. Moved seconded. Any discussion, changes, amendments to those? Not seeing any. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Then we have receipt of a number of 4.1 to 4.5 of external committee minutes and public hearing reports. Uh moved receipt. Seconded. Thank you. Um we don't change them. We just received them. So I'm going to call the question.

All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. Um mayor's remarks. Uh yes, very strange just having our uh our last council meeting here for this term. Um uh but I won't I won't go on at length. Uh by uh so just want to recognize UBCM, a unit of BC municipalities conference happened last week. A number of members of council were able to attend. We had five ministry meetings. Uh we met on matters as diverse as healthc care and ecom rates and deer. Uh so this sort of beffits the stranges of municipal government. um did appreciate that the UBCM membership supported our resolution on soil uh chlorine levels which has had a significant financial impact to all of the coastal communities as the uh this relates to changes in regulations that suddenly made all of our soil non-compliant um and therefore very expensive to discard of. Um so very appreciative of that and I know that uh spoke to a number of other coastal communities that were thankful for us bringing that resolution forward. Um I

would encourage people if they haven't to watch the EBCM president address uh which highlighted some significant issues u that uh we've had to deal with as a as a province in the last few years. Uh there was also an emergency resolution um reacting to the the strong and not yet subsided rumors of a of a very soon to be called impending snap election call uh requesting the province not overlap the provincial and local government elections uh which received rather overwhelming support. Um uh I do want to acknowledge that the uh province uh released a statement that they were supporting the ongoing work on the Oak Bay Lodge. Uh that being said, I think there is most of that work is going to happen at the hospital district and uh and u island health level. Uh but certainly hope that that statement will uh result in some some uh funding commitments as well. Uh obviously the election and possibly the overlapping provincial election will dominate attention in the next month or so. I

just wanted to highlight there are a number of community events that are coming up and people might be want to be aware of them. Um we have the Arts Alive story walk which is opening this week on September 25th and running through to October 2nd. Um the first go by bike week welcome station in front of the hall this fall will be happening 7 to 11:00 a.m. this coming Friday. Uh the BC Law Enforcement Memorial Day is coming up on September 27th. Uh the Victoria Foundation uh is celebrating their 90th year uh with some events coming up in the next month month. Uh the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation uh is happening on September 30th uh with Oak Bay and other municipalities participating in the South Island Powow.

Uh it is National Senior's Day on October 1st. Uh the Royal Victoria Marathon which always brings out a lot of happiness and some snarled traffic uh as happening on October the 11th. And we have, of course, the election dates of October 7th, 14th, and 17th. So, I just want to encourage everyone to vote. No matter who you want to vote for, get out and vote. Uh this is the last scheduled meeting of uh this council before the election and the swearing in of a new council. I would just like to take a minute to acknowledge the service of this council, and I'll do it uh uh uh pretty briefly. Um before I get into any specifics, I just want to thank everyone sitting around this table for what you do here. It's a uh it's a pleasure to work with all of you in this chamber week in and week out. Uh every week all of you come fully prepared which is not always the case in some some uh

councils. Uh you've all read the materials thoroughly. You come with a thoughtful approach. Um some of our agenda packages are hundreds and hundreds of pages long. So it's no small thing for people to do the work at this table. Um I also just want to acknowledge uh the tone of professionalism and respect that that dominates our discussions. It's not always there in public debate. Uh and I'm very grateful for that. Uh I know that it's everyone at this table and has over the last four years helped earn the trust and respect to the community um by demonstrating behavior uh at this table but also out in the community.

Uh and also just going to take a a minute or two just to recognize we have three counselors at this table who are not running standing again for office. Uh so I just wanted to just say a few words of thanks to all of you and I'll do this in order of of time of service. Uh so first, Councelor Appleton. Um councelor Appleton was elected in 2018 and has served two terms on council. Uh despite holding down a full-time job with the province, he's taken on a number of local and regional responsibilities, including prior work as lesson to Oak Bay business improvement association, uh the CRD intermunicipal climate action steering committee, leazison to both the heritage committee and heritage foundation over time and leazison to the University of Victoria. Uh starting way back in 2018, I asked councelor Appleton uh to take over from me as the representative on the greater Victoria Public Library board and I want to really take a moment to especially thank you thank him for uh his diligent work on that board over the

last eight years. Um he has served in that role in multiple ways as chairs of different committees and working on different committees but uh also stood as the board chair uh for the maximum time allowed and um through that helped select a new CEO at the library with the retirement of Marine Sawa. So, um, we're really indebted to him, uh, and indebted to you, uh, Andrew, uh, for your contributions to the library and to Oak Bay, uh, over these last eight years. So, thank you for your for your time and service. Uh, next, I'm going to recognize councelor Smart. Councelor Smart has served for one term, uh, which is four years of work in the public interest. Uh, I would like to specifically acknowledge councelor Smart's work at the CRD arts committee and the CRD intermunicipal climate action committee. I know two areas which he has incredible passion um and done great work. Uh I'd also like to acknowledge the diligent work done as less onto higher education both to UIC and to Kimosen College. Um I also just wanted to acknowledge that councelor

Smart has served as alternate on a number of committees uh and has been called up uh ready uh many times to actually serve as on those. And uh it's no small thing to step in and have to get up to speed on these on these different committees on short notice uh and do that just always prepared and um so uh especially want to acknowledge that it's spent an extended time doing at the Bay Heritage Commission advisory design panel uh and that work. So u on behalf of council in the community, thank you very much councelor Smart for your service. Uh and last and certainly not least, we have councelor Watson. um uh like the others I'm mentioning here tonight uh her four years on council she served on a wide range of committees and boards uh internally she served as less onto archives the heritage commission and advisory design panel externally she served on the CRD regional housing trust fund but I just want to acknowledge in

particular her work as municipal representative with the south island prosperity partnership for which she has a great passion for economic development um SIP as is known is the economic development body for the region and councelor Smart has been our representative there and uh done great work. So, thank you for that. Um uh well, not just that, all of the things that you've done on behalf of the community. So, uh yeah, for all of those things and many more I don't have I I could spend half an hour, but I think we have other work to do um uh to list off all of the pieces. just know that all three of these counselors spend an enormous amount of time really with the focus only of serving the community uh which is the really I think a hallmark of the councils that have of all the councils I've had to work with but really want to express my appreciation to councilors Aston Martin and Watson for all that you've done on behalf of

the community. So, and best of luck on your next adventures, whatever those take you. Uh, on that happy note, we'll get on to real business. But, uh, that concludes the, uh, my mayoral address, which is longer than I usually have, but obviously it's a significant day. Um, so, uh, for those of you who aren't familiar both online and in person, uh, if those uh, anybody wishes to address council, we have items on the agenda for which we will invite members of the public to speak to. So, don't speak to us on on specific items on the agenda here, but we have a we always allow space for people who just have items of interest to the community, to Oak Bay, um that aren't on the agenda that people may want to raise. So, uh this is an open chance. Sometimes we have a long lineup and sometimes we have nobody. So, tonight we have at least one hand, so why don't you come forward? We

all at the table know who you are, but you can help demonstrate the process uh by pushing the button in the middle of the microphone. Uh you just have to state your full name and just your municipality of residence. You don't have to give addresses or anything else. Uh and then you have up to three minutes to speak to council. Thank you very much. Um my name is Aaron Gavagan. I'm a resident of Sanich, but I work and spend the majority of my daylight hours in Oak Bay. Um good evening everyone. Um, I'm the managing director of the Canadian Heritage Arts Society, which operates the Canadian College of Performing Arts, which is just around the corner on Elgen Road.

We're very proud to be part of Oak Bay and are grateful for the district's support for our community engagement work. Um, and it has been really wonderful to see so many of you at our different performances and engagement events throughout our years. Our college has been part of Oak Bay since 1998. And over 28 years, we've come to see how much potential there is for the relationship between our artisan students, our audiences, and our local community. The Oak Bay Village has effectively become our students campus. They live here, they eat here, they shop here, and they contribute to the community. There is of course no scientific evidence for this, but we hear rumors that beer sales at both the Oaks and the Penny Farthing have gone up since our faculty and our students moved into the neighborhood.

But seriously, there there is an opportunity, we see an opportunity to build on our uh relationship with Oak Bay in a much more intentional way. And I know that we're heading into an election, so I'm not here to ask for anything today, but I'm here to plant a seed. After the election, I'd like to come back with my board chair and explore the possibility of a deeper partnership that links the district, the Canadian Heritage Arts Society, and the creative and business community of Oak Bay. We'd like to see our society become a bit of a creative hub for Oak Bay. We have an extraordinary concentration of creative expertise in one roof. We have performers, directors, designers, technicians, musicians. We've got choreographers, educators, producers, and administrators.

We already bring that capacity into our community. We produce a concert of remembrance, the day they've done it annually. We take it into local care homes and communities across the whole region. We perform holiday music events in the cons in the community. We host reconciliation events, movie nights, and other creative activities, but we see these not as isolated projects, but roots into the community and the beginning of something that could have a greater impact. Imagining a yearround arts activity across Oak Bay, developed with local artists, community organizations, and residents, and supported by creative resources that are brought together in a collaborative centralized hub. This isn't about producing more events. It's about bringing creativity into a place where people already live, work, and gather.

And it could mean more community dance and music events, neighborhood writing and storytelling, pop-up murals, workshops, performances, and creative families that are intergenerational. It could mean working with local artists and residents to animate public space, neighborhood, celebrate neighborhood identity, and create places where people want to stop and gather because we believe the arts and culture can do more than entertain. They can make a place feel like a community. This opportunity is the idea to create a stronger system for connecting all of our artists, residents, and businesses uh to use creativity as a tool for placemaking, participation, and civic life. For Oak Bay, that would mean more opportunities for residents to participate, greater visibility for local artists, more vibrant public spaces, and new opportunities for business. And for us, it would create an opportunity to contribute more deeply to the local community. and to teach these young performing artists what it means to to connect to the community in which they live and work. So after the

election, I'd love to return and explore uh what a formal more formal creative partnership could look like and we think that Oak Bay is a wonderful place to be. We spend a lot of time here, but we also think we could animate it with [clears throat] more. Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Gavagan, and thank you for all that your organization does in our community already. So it's it's a great it's a great partner. Is there anybody else who wishes to come forward? Yes, please come forward. So you learned the process, but I'll repeat it anyway. Just uh turn the microphone on in the middle, just your full name and uh your municipality resident, and then you have up to three minutes. Thank you. My name is Claire Gilchrist. I am a resident of Oak Bay.

Um, and I'm here with a concern about pedestrian and bike safety. So, recently the intersection uh near where I live at Henderson and Allen was changed from a four-way to a two-way stop uh as part of an expansion of a bike route. And I know that people have spoken about this to you before from our community. Um, I know that the community plan talks about creating those safe spaces for everyone. And the fact is that this intersection is right at Cararban Park. Um at this point, um Cararvin Park doesn't have any safe way for anyone who lives west of the park to cross to the park. There is no speed bumps. There are no crosswalks.

There are no four-way stops. There are there is a fiveb block section that is flat and wide um and is very dangerous for pedestrians and bikes and all the users of the parks. So my daughter was almost hit the other day by a car and I started to create a petition and talk to my neighbors. I did just two blocks of Allen B Street on either side of Henderson and I have it here, but I have five different people who had close calls in the last two months, including an elderly neighbor who um was almost hit by a car and um a teenager who uh admitted she had her earbuds in. Um but still uh and this does feel to me like it I know it's election and I know you have I mean I'm a former principal of a school. I definitely know the nature of having many many things to be concerned about. I'm just really concerned um of the lack of followup after someone else from our neighborhood talked to the

council and that there was no email follow-up or anything and I'm kind of worried that there will be some sort of serious incident um that happens before we act because winter is coming. Um there are many children who use that street. They're shown actually by the Oak Bay Police that that is the route to school. And with the forplexes that have been approved on that intersection, there are eight new um houses going in. People are parked right to the stop sign and there is really no visibility. So I am hoping that the council can consider either reinstating a four-way, which is probably more complicated than I imagine. It's probably not just putting the stop signs back up, but um there are other trafficcoming measures that could help. Um speed bumps, more signage.

There's only one sign that says to slow down on that fiveb block stretch. It's it's really terrible. I could imagine um a crosswalk maybe or anything. Um but I feel like this is a very urgent issue for that community. There are of I moved a year ago um to that street and I already know 30 children. Um it's just like the kids come outside um they ride their bikes together. They're all friends kind of like I imagine from my childhood it was. And I would just hate for a tragedy to mar our sweet community. So that's all I wanted to say and uh thank you very much for listening.

Thank you very much much miss. I do know that that intersection is being looked at by engineering and uh assessments being going on to make sure that doing some more enforcement about the parking close to the stop signs and so forth and it may well ultimately merit more more of a four-way stop or some other treatments. But I can assure you it is being actively looked at with those changes. So, I don't have a timeline for you for any of those changes coming, but yeah. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do I turn it off again? You probably should. Yeah. Thank you. Is there anybody else wishes to speak to council arts four-way stops? This is sort of our bread and butter here that we all the things. Yeah, please come forward.

Oh, I do. I have a I do see a speaker online. and I will come to you after this next in in person speaker. Uh no, you go ahead. Uh button, name, municipality, and then we'll listen. Perfect. My name is Josson Popoff and I live in Oak Bay. Um I just moved here this year, but what I'm starting to see is obviously now moving into this municipality is the amount of deer. And I've read over some of the council meeting minutes um and that that is um a talked about item quite often. But now living here, um, a couple days ago, actually a little while ago, I opened the door and there's a three three like a a big buck at my door, has antlers staring at me. I have a one-year-old daughter. And that's when I'm starting to wonder like how often that's happening, what's happening. And I read into a bunch of the topics. Um, and I live by the school there. I've driven down Foul Bay where it's 30 and you know

in the mornings fonds and new ones you got to watch every single way and I have my high beams on all the time. So I read into a little bit of your guys' uh planned path forward that I believe you guys had in November of last year and I just had a little bit more questions since it looked like the topic was ending. Um and some of them were more like what is Oak Bay's deer population? I couldn't really find that information. Um, and with the plan that you guys have, what is our number that we're aiming for for population for the money that we're spending?

I mean, it's a good question like what how many people are going to how many deer are going to live here? Um, along with that, um, is that expense that you guys I believe I read the number was $85,000. If we are not watching what the population is, does that continue like forever on with that $85,000 to be able to spend that and keep that number at that. Um I mean this summer I've seen so many new fawn and I've seen a lot of untagged um deers by my house. Um, I obviously don't have a fence and I get that that's a path forward, but speaking to everybody in my neighborhood who I just went and had a block party with, who I love the neighborhood, it was actually a large conversation piece. Um, some people said they gave up on this.

Um, I'm new to the community and municipality, so I'm obviously put my foot forward, but also um, what date are we expecting to see responses and will there be a reporting? I know that you've asked the contractor to do that, but will that be put into public reference and whatnot? Um, and then, um, I think those are the really only questions I really had. I know that it just started, so we won't get the answers, but just sort of some questions moving forward. Sure. Thanks, Mr. Po. I I'll give a very quick summary and certainly happy to we can provide you with some more details.

We did try and put the information on the website, but it changes. So, how many deer there are is not really knowing. We did a a count which came up with somewhere between 90 and 125 or so a number of years ago. Um that probably under counseling we we typically capture um you know public works picks up dead deer off the streets every year and we usually are somewhere between uh 50 and 80 deer that we we collect. Um so there's obviously enough population to keep the population steady and lose that many deer. Um the reality is that the bucks move around a lot. They travel many many kilometers the dose less so.

mostly the dose tend to be which is why we're targeting the dose with the imuno contraception. Um our target number is 55. Uh so that is the goal is to get to 55 dos and and apply the imun contraception. They're they're right now. I saw a big team of orange shirted uh people veterinarians and helpers doing that the other day. Um and I think we've had an overwhelming like over 100 people maybe more uh offer their backyards to do that. So there's a lot of interest. Um yes it's $85,000 this year. We just use that as we use some surplus for that. So we haven't committed long-term for that funding. We have in previous years received funding from the province to cover about half our cost. We're going to ask again even though they say there's no grants available. We'll try. Um I think that's a question for the next council is is do we want to keep funding this? It is a provincial responsibility. Um but as you

point out I mean the cost of a of a good deer fence is 20 to $30,000 now uh around a yard. So, I think there is some argument to be made as a public entity that if we can spend, you know, uh $80,000 a year and keep it manageable manageable deer population is a pretty good argument for that. Um uh I think that got most of your questions. Yeah, thank you for bringing answers forward. Yeah, no problem. I we talk about deer a lot. It was almost like it wasn't going to be a council meeting if we didn't have a question about deer. So, good to know.

Uh any other Oh, we have one on hand that was up online. Uh if that person wishes to speak, you can just unmute yourself and speak. Address council. Yeah. Go ahead. You know the process. I'm here. Yep. Please go ahead. Just say Kathleen Matthews. I live in Oak Bay. I just wanted to if you could perhaps give an update of what the next steps are for the decision around the next operator of the Oak Bay Marina at Spaywang. I had thought we were going to have a council meeting that was going to maybe make the dis the the decision. Um maybe it'll be next week, but could you just provide there's not very much online and I did phone the municipality today, but nobody phoned me back. I want to ask you know what what is going on with um your decision for the Oak Bay Marina requests for expressions of interest.

Yeah. So a decision will be made very soon and um the process will be that there will be a release uh once the decision is made and the proponents are contacted um uh and that'll become that'll become public as soon as that's done. So I don't have an exact timeline for you but in the next week or two is probably a reasonable expectation. So there's no there's no um meeting to to be present at while you're making that decision or where while you're having the discussion about that decision. Uh that's correct. We're bound under the local government act to have that conversation in camera meeting.

Okay. So then we just wait to hear what your decision is then whenever it will be. That's correct. Okay. Thanks very much. That's all I wanted to ask. Thank you, Miss Matthews. I love the range of these questions and comments is so fabulous. Um, we just need sewer now to round out the day. And [laughter] uh, sorry, I shouldn't joke. All there's all there's many things that we could talk about. Uh, is there anybody else who wishes to address council again online? You can just raise your hand in the app or in person. I don't see any other hands. So, uh, that concludes our open portion for public comment and question period.

Thank you for being here as part of that. That's the, uh, uh, that's the last one of this term. It's so weird that we're having these sort of end of end of time pieces. Um, moving then to items section 7. This section is subject to public input. So, if you wish to talk to council about item 7.1, um, the process will be as it is for all of our public input. We'll get a presentation from staff about the matter. Uh, council has an opportunity to ask clarifying questions. We then go to the public if anybody wants to talk to us about that specific item. We'll take those comments and then at the end of that we'll come back and we'll uh usually put a motion on the floor for debate and we'll have that conversation. Um so with that I'll hand this over to Mr. Renick, our director of engineering and public works.

Thank you. Uh good evening mayor and councel and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. The matter before you pertains to the operating hours of the transfer station that the district operates at the public works facility. The operating hours are set by bylaw and so that's why I am seeking a council decision. In 2026, the provincial government made the announcement that BC would no longer observe Pacific Standard Time, which means that this fall, for the first time, we will not set the clocks back by an hour. This announcement has an implication for transfer station operations because there won't be a time change. The transfer station would be scheduled to start opening at 8:00 a.m.

in December when the sun won't rise until 9:00 a.m. Because there is not adequate lighting at the transfer station, we do have a concern about having uh transfer station operations being conducted in the darkness. Therefore, I am proposing that council shift the operating hours to essentially open an hour later at 9:00 am and then close an hour later at 4:30 p.m. for the period of November 1st through March 31st. I'm seeking council's approval to enact these changes which I felt were the simplest way to address the provincial time change and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you very much, Mr. Renick. Are there any questions for Mr. Renick? Go ahead, Telsea Brie.

Thanks very much and thanks for the report, Mr. Renick. Um, just two things. We're going to be um notifying the neighbors around um there about the change in time. Uh I'm assuming um that's I and then my other question would be um just some clarifying around the parameters that would apply to the your ability to change the hours in the future because obviously we're going to have to change it back and forth as as time goes on. So, and will we will we keep that to the same dates as um what daylight savings is basically or used to be? Mr. Renick, uh through the mayor to councelor Braithweight. In response to the first question, we had proposed informing the public through a few different methods.

Um update on the website. We have a a standing ad space in the Oak Bay News that we could use. um as well as putting out some messaging on our social media and some signage at the transfer station um which we felt were probably the appropriate ways to get the word out. Uh with respect to the second question in the staff report, we are proposing bylaw amendments that would essentially delegate the authority to the director of engineering and public works to modify collection hours, which we felt was probably the most flexible way of doing it. Essentially, we would still hold that same standard of how many hours a day and how many hours per week it's open because that's the service level that's set by council, but give staff the flexibility should the province in the future say we want to abandon this experiment, go back to Pacific Standard Time, that a future council doesn't have to weigh in on it again. Thank you for that. Any other questions?

uh just for our clarification because uh I think you just touched on the point of of sort of the maintaining of service level pieces is I you know I think there would be some concern if this was interpreted say 5 years from now from somebody else that this was delegated authority that it was up it was the staff had the ability to to shrink this dramatically and so forth that that would not be the intent. So how do we make sure that the the reasonable operational things are are dealt with but service level changes would not be uh included in that delegation. Mr. Renick, uh that's a great question and thanks for asking it. So in the staff report, there's a recommendation to direct staff to bring forward bylaw amendments to the refu collection and disposal bylaw.

Essentially, the way that you ensure that staff is still meeting council's requirement would be when those bylaw amendments are drafted. Um, you know, I haven't started writing them yet, but something in there that's, you know, the director may change them subject to no reduction in hours unless approved by council or or something like that. I think we could cover that off in drafting the bylaw. Okay. I think that'd be more than sufficient for what we needed. So, that's great. Thank you. Um, I don't see other questions, so I'm going to I'm happy to go to the public. Does anybody in the public wish to speak to us about item 7.1? This is the hours of operation at the Elgen Yard, commonly known as the dump, but in fact, formerly the Peter Bun uh public works yard. And I always get it wrong. [laughter] Um I don't see any hands on line.

Anybody in the audience audience wish to speak with us about this? Okay, I'll come back to the table. The staff recommendation moved and seconded. Probably not a lot of debate on this one. Just look around the table. See none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you everyone. Um, moving on to section 8. This does not have public input uh for item 8.1. Then we will back again to 9.1. So with this 8.1, we have 543 Montterrey Avenue. This is a strata conversion. Miss Claver. Oh, Mr. Bull, sorry. Thank Thank you, Mayor. Um, just a few introductory comments before I ask Miss Claver to uh introduce the specifics. Um I just wanted to note that strata conversions are not a very common type of application becoming before you. Um and strata conversions are pretty rare but uh it's a rare example where council has decision powers related to a form of subdivision. And this power relates to the conversion of existing residential units and subdividing them into strata titles that allows this allows them to be sold separately rather than a single entity uh and a single title of land with all buildings and units combined.

And the strate property act empowers council to consider the impact on rental housing as well as maintenance costs for future owners. And council may also consider other matters if deemed relevant. And council's decision tonight is whether to allow historical conversion to take place or not. And if that's supported, the approving officer can then sign off on the documentation of the subdivision. And Miss Claver can introduce this particular application. Thanks. Thanks for that introduction. We have not had a lot of these, so it's good a reminder for both us and the public. Welcome, Miss Claver. Thank you, mayor and council. Um the application before council um as described is a strata conversion for 543 Monterey Avenue. The property is zoned R4 and is designated residential and official community plan. It contains an original single family dwelling which was constructed in 1937 and a newly constructed single family dwelling with a secondary suite. Um the applicant is seeking strata strat titling that would allow individual ownership of each of

the dwelling units. Um because the 1937 house has previously been occupied, council approve approval is required under section 242 of the strata property act um before that building could be included in the strata plan. Uh council's statutory consideration is therefore focused conversion of their previously occupied building included in the strata plan. Um, council must consider the priority of rental accommodation, tenant relocation, the life expectancy of the building, projected major maintenance costs, and any other matters council considers relevant. Council must also be satisfied that the building substantially complies with applicable bylaws and building regulations. Um, in considering rental accommodation, staff note that the existing house was owner occupied before purchase and was only rented on an interim basis. It was not purpose-built rental housing and staff do not expect the conversion to result in a net loss of long-term rental stock. The tenant has already vacated the dwelling, so no tenant relocation is assistance is required.

Um, in relation to the building condition, upgrades to the original 1937 house are being completed under um two pre pre-existing building permits. The work includes uh substantial building code improvements. Um staff can consider this these improvements to extend the useful life of the building and reduce future maintenance concerns. Um the site conforms to zoning and um applicable bylaws and um uh policy H19 specific in the OCP supports building strata conversions on infill residential lots which this one is. Uh staff find the proposal consistent with the policies and note that it provides an additional ownership housing option in Oak Bay. Uh because the building permits have not yet received final inspection. staff recommend that council uh approval be conditional on completion of uh the subject building permits. Uh once building inspections um is complete, staff confer uh staff confirm completion, the approving officer would then prepare the required documentation.

Um after which the applicant can proceed with registration of the strata plan. Um uh staff have outlined the recommendations. the applicant is here and and staff are also happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much, M. Clay, for very thorough overview. Go ahead, council brief with questions. Thanks. I have three really quick questions. Um, I'm just when I looked at the plans, I couldn't really tell how the owner of Stratalot 2 would actually access their building from Montterrey Avenue. So, with the with the There's a driveway there, but is it is that common property? Um, and what portion would be common property and what wouldn't?

Are you specifically speaking to the driveway access? Yeah, it would be shared. So, it runs from Monterey and it goes right back to the newly built um house and then there's parking that would be in between the two buildings. Okay. Thank you. And then um I I'm just wondering if fire services have reviewed the uh the proposed access arrangements especially for both buildings um including that how would they would get their emergency vehicles there to access the secondary suite. in the secondary building. I think secondary building, sir. If I do remember correctly, uh we did not do a referral to uh the fire department. However, I would imagine that needs to be considered before the building inspection uh would grant occupancy for the completion of the building permits.

Thank you. And then I'll just can I give that to Mr. B just to confirm the process? Thank you, mayor. um through you. Um yeah, for for these kind of building permits, if the access provisions comply with the bylaws, uh those are uh then they meet our standards. There's there's no concern there from fire. They have ways to either work from the road or if if need be to to maybe access the property if need be, but that's that's that's how that works. So it's it's not really a standard out check on building permits unless the standards are not followed. Thanks. And lastly, um, they just I just wanted to clarify something because the staff report refers to 543 Mterrey and then 549 and 549B Mterrey, but the applicants rationale um, talks about 543A and 543b. So, I'm just wondering if we need to get clarification on what the actual numbers will be of the of the houses uh, through the mayor. Um I will have to uh we yeah currently we've

got 543 as the primary um pre-existing original home. Um and then we've got 549 for the new build with 549B for the secondary suite. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Any other questions? I don't see any for staff or the applicant. Uh so we have a recommendation for council know. Um, do we need this read aloud into the record or are we okay to move both parts of the recommendation together? We are. So, we can just have a mover of the staff recommendation to the staff recommendation. Your worship. Seconded. Thank you. Uh, any discussion? Do we need to put the conditions in there on the building permits as well to say that or it's on in there as well? Yep. Okay. Thanks.

Um, any uh any further discussion? Not seeing any. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Good luck with the project uh Miss Miller and uh as it goes forward. Uh we now move to the section 9 which is open for public input. Um the process will be the same. We'll have a uh implementation or explanation from staff about each application. We'll have chance for questions from council opportunity for public input and then back to this table for uh for direction and further discussion. Um I believe that Mr. Hatfield is our Hatfield sorry is our introduction of 8 9.1 2465 children please go ahead.

Thank you mayor. The district has received an application for a development variance permit an upland sighting and design permit for the property located at 2465 children place to allow for an attached garage on the west face of the building to be removed and a new gym addition with a larger footprint to be constructed in its place. Variances to rear lot line setback, interior side lot line setback, and principal building lot coverage are required to enable this addition. The application was presented to the advisory design panel on September 8th, 2026, who recommended the application be approved. Staff review of the application finds that the variances are supported by OCP policy and that on balance, the design conforms to the district's uplands design guidelines and are therefore supportable. The addition has been designed in keeping with the character of the existing building, maintains building massing comparable to neighboring properties, remains screened by vegetation from nearby properties, is not affected to affect the residential park atmosphere of the neighborhood.

Planning staff as well as the applicants Sarah Bouter and Fiona Hamilton as well as their team are in attendance in person today to answer any questions council might have. Thank you. Thank you for that introduction. Um and I just for clarification I should just point out so um the upland setting and design so the design of the house itself not open for public input. Um but the variances being asked for are open for public input. So just for some clarification there uh questions from members of council. Go ahead councelor Patterson and Watson. Yes thank you mayor. Um thank you for the report. It was flagged in the report that uh the ch proposed changes uh to this plan would um in all likelihood prevent um the construction of a future accessory building on the lot? And I'm just uh would like clarification if there was a uh consideration for an accessory building, would that require a permit at the time that that was applied for?

Mr. Hel, what would be the process if that was asked for? Thank you uh through the mayor. Um yeah, it would depend on the size of the accessory building. Of course, accessory buildings under 108 square feet, 10 square meters are exempt from building code, but assuming it was larger, more substantial, um they would need to apply for both a building permit and an upland sighting design permit. So it would come back to both council and the advisory design panel at that time. Thank you. Uh councelor Watson. Uh thank you. I I just have a question with respect to um not the variances per se but the legal non-conforming status of the um uh uh front paved maximum front paved area on the property and I just wondered it apparently it's 50% I heard from staff staff reported to us separately that actually it's 50% when 25% is permitted. Can you tell me how long that negal nonconformance has been in place? Do you have any history on that?

Go ahead, Mr. Anfield. Thank you. Legal non-conforming legal non-conformance issues when it comes to kind of landscaping regulations are always a bit trickier, but um staff did conduct a scan of the building file and it does appear that you know that level of hardcaping was present. Um also in consideration of you know um you know support for variances in general and kind of the hardscaping present on the property. Um staff also conducted a review of similar culde-sacs across uh the uplands such as uh other properties on children place tarn place uplands place sharingham place. It does appear somewhat common for that amount of of front paved area to to be present on those kind of end of the culde-sac kind of corner properties. Um, yeah, hopefully that answers the question. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks for doing the research. Thank you, Councelor Watson. Uh, any other questions from members of council? I'm not seeing any. So, any members of the public wish to address the application for 2465 children, please? I'll give a moment for anybody online who wishes to comment to do so as well. Anybody in the room here to speak to 2465 children? Yeah, please come forward. So, same process as the public portion. Name, municipality of residence. You don't have to give your address and then you address council. Name is Pablo Ramirez. Um I'm a resident of Oakake. Okay. Me and my family.

Um, I brought something tonight with me. We know we know Dr. Macan's book well. Exactly. And I didn't bring it to give you a history lesson. Uh, you know this history better than than anyone and uh, you safeguard it every day. I brought it as a reminder of why this community and national heritage side was designed the way it was and the impact of this development uh variance pyramid. You have the staff reports. We talked about the staff reports and the technical figures. You know what is being requested. I want to talk about what those numbers actually mean on the ground if approved. When we approve major side and rear departures, we aren't just adjusting lines in a page.

We are crowding structural mass into the open corridors and green canopy that give our community its defining breath. We trade our park light, streetscape for excess building volume where green space belongs. But the concern isn't just this one house. It is the precedent being set. This lot is flat. regular and completely buildable today. There's no physical site hardship. With council grants exceptions purely for architectural preference, our bylaws cease to be a binding standard and they become an optional suggestion. It triggers a slow irreversible variance creep as once the bar is lowered without hardship, the next applicant uses this decision as their baseline. What starts as a single exception quietly redefineses the rules for our entire community and for our national um heritage site. So, I'm here to respectfully ask the council to uphold by law 3531.

and to protect our heritage and our community. If amendments are required for this bylaw so that we can move together towards the future, then there are appropriate processes to go through this amendments. Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments. Any other members of the public? Hey, turn the microphone off, please. Yeah. Thank you. Uh any other members, please come forward. So, just push the microphone button in the middle and name municipality and uh we're here to listen. Sure. My name is Randy Riches. I'm the project manager actually for Horizon. I'm uh been involved on the design team for eight months now and I'm from Victoria.

Um I just wanted to say a few things about this project in general. Um so number one uh the design on this on this uh addition is very intentional. So it's the best use of the exist existing home and the available space. Um we do have some some space constraints. We've got an easement on the back of the of the property which didn't let us move that that addition back. um relocating that uh would basically shrink down the the space that they're trying to add um for the purpose that they're trying to use it for. So they're we're not looking for a compromised um design. Um this but this is not an attempt to maximize the square footage of the house by any means. Um so and uh from from my research there's been no demonstrated evidence that the proposal that we're putting forward would cause any unreasonable loss of sunlight, privacy or enjoyment for the adjacent property. Um and in terms of additional square footage, uh we're

adding 4.6% 6% um over the uh 25% maximum. Um so I think it's very reasonable. Um and also keeping in mind that this approval would not rewrite any, you know, existing zoning bylaws or automatically entitle another property to the same variance. Um they'd still be, you know, future applications would still be evaluated on a case-by case basis. Um we we do respect the uh concerns that are raised and that's why we spent you know five months in the design phase on this particular project. Um so this was the the best result that we could come up with. Um as opposed to you know knocking the house down and starting over fresh which they had no intention of doing. It's just too much disruption to the neighborhood as well as their life. Um they love the neighborhood, they love their neighbors. Um so the intent is to try and you know um design a house that meets their current as well as their future needs. Um so yeah basically we we'd ask that the council assesses the actual effects of this

particular design rather than you know percentages. Um in practical terms I think this remains you know a very small addition to the house and it fits on the property very well. Um and it just happens to be on the only spot where it where it actually works. Um, that's all I wanted to say. I just have one question since you're here. Sure. Um, in the drawings it lists the uh the stories as one. So, is that it looks almost like in the drawings it looks like it could be a two-story building or uh so can you just clarify for us what is is it is it two stories or is it a onetory addition?

Um, it's it's just one. It's a it's a a raised race ceiling. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Uh any other questions? Yeah. Go ahead. Nope. Uh just you're welcome to take a seat. Uh again, just you can turn off your micro the microphone again. Thank you for your comments. Anybody else wish to come forward and speak to council. You've probably figured out the process by now. Push the button, state your name, municipality of residence, and uh welcome. Thank you, Sarah Bouter. Thank you very much for listening to our case. Um just absolutely love Oak Bay and uh love our neighborhood and just wanted to express how much we are committed to the park land um atmosphere of Uplands. We've um put an entire pollinator garden in our backyard. We've planted trees and um this addition because of where it's situated, it's it can't be seen from the road and because of the unique shape of our property. The side variance that we're requesting is actually the backyards of other people. And there's still a complete um vegetation line

between us and our neighbors. Um, our neighbors actually have buildings next to that run closer to the uh to the corridor than ours will. So, but there's still the vegetation in between and the um the expansion takes up some of our driveway, our current driveway. So, we've done our best to um minimize the amount of green space it's taking up. So, it's taking up a tiny uh bit of our driveway, the side path that went alongside the garage, and very minimal grass in behind. Um, but we'll still have our our beautiful uh pollinator garden and oak trees and um I'm an avid gardener, so there is uh there's not much that's going to take away from the green space we're committed to.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody else wish to address council on this matter? Again, this is for 2465 children in place on the variances being requested. Don't see any other hands being raised. So, I'm going to come back to this table. Sorry, Council Watson. I wanted to move a motion if I could if there's no more questions or um public comment. Motions are in order. Uh but if there's any one more question, just a very quick question if you don't mind. Yeah. Um just just to clarify um that so right now the the current building is at 25% of the lot coverage and this would add an additional approximately 5% but if this wasn't on the building it could be as a accessory dwelling building it could be as as that 5% somewhere else on the property. Is that correct, Headfield?

Thank you, city mayor. Yes, that is correct. Unlike the R4 and R5 zones, the R1, R2, and R3 zones still have principal building, accessory building, accessory structure, lot coverage separated. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification, Council Watson. Uh, yes. I would uh like to move a motion that council approve development variant per permit develop development variance permit DVP 00197 for the property located at 2465 children place subject to landscaping and improvements to the front yard and driveway equal to 1% of the lot to that's 213 square ft to increase the vegetation and reduce the impermeable surface. Second. You're going to have to repeat that.

Okay. I have it written down. And I can do you want it really slowly? Slowly just repeat it. So it's the first part then subject to landscaping and improvements to the front yard and driveway equal to 1% of the lot area and I calculated that as 213 square ft to increase the vegetation and reduce impermeable surface. And that would be um I haven't written it down but subject to staff's review. I wasn't anticipating that would come back to council. Okay, this was moved uh and seconded. Okay, thank you. So, so I'm happy to um explain my rationale for this and motivate a little bit. So, this application was at the last advisory design uh panel meeting and um although they could speak to the design elements of the building, they are excluded from really um discussing the variances at all. So, that was outside their scope.

So this did not come up in the context of their deliberation but um I am familiar with the project and I have visited the site um and I just for a little context um in the in the um Upland's design guidelines and review and the review form which the applicant was required to submit and present to us. I just want to flag uh three elements within that that I think speak to my motion. Um, one is that overall the goal for the uplands are right there at the front. And council Wson, before you I'll let you continue procedurally here because you read it in there's two there's two sections to this that the DVP and approval of sighting and design since you're speaking to the sighting and design. Can I get you to read the second half as well into the into the record?

Oh yes. Um, if you don't have it handy, it's just that council approved upland sighting and design application ADP 00205 for the property located at 2465 children please. Well, I guess that I'm well, it's would be with I'm not quite sure because um yes, I guess I am, but they're a package, so I'm not quite sure how to do that. No, [laughter] no, you can do you can do the two together. Because you want to speak to both. So, I I'll also move that council approve upland setting design application ADP. Is there a secondary? Same secondary. Okay. All right. Thank you. They're on the floor. Thank you. I understand. Um yes. So the the um the first of all it refers to the overall um um objectives or the goals for the uplands and the first one is to maintain and reinforce a residential park atmosphere. Later on in the guidelines on um um we're um page oh on the bullet points the the official the upland's

official community plan policies. One of them is that um um um improvements or work in the upland should respect and abide by combination of sensitive sighting design and use of materials. Um and this includes uh design solutions significant landscape areas between home, neighbor and street. Um so I just flag that and later on design the space leading to the main entrance of the house as a special landscape space providing a transition from street to home. And finally, and amongst all the other things, there is also uh um two comments uh within the guidelines or two um um design guidelines that speak to both um uh where am I finding overlook and privacy.

Which page should I be on? Overlook and privacy. Oh, why can I not find this? Over transition between private and public. Am I on the wrong page? Oh yes, sorry. Overlook and privacy. Maybe it's the page above. Can anybody help me out? Oh yes, here we go. Sorry, I was on the wrong page. Um, overlook and privacy. So, uh, buildings and landscaping should be designed to reduce opportunities for overlook with significant landscaped areas between home, neighbor, and street. And I guess I'm putting italics on street. And then right below that, transition between private and public space. um designed the space leading to the main entrance of the house as a special landscaped space partially screening homes from direct view from the street street. So I would um in this particular case and I'm really speaking to the variances now there's three I would say fairly significant requests for variances when there's no in my view particular hardship and I think that we also are looking at a a situation here where we have a non-conforming front yard paved

area where the limit would be 25% and it's double that at 50%. And I understand staff's calculation that that's kind of been made up elsewhere on the property, but with respect to the way this particular home addresses the street in the Uplands neighborhood, it does not really meet the kind of standard or design guidelines that we are aspiring to and which we know we've heard from in many letters on a different item that's going to be discussed at council tonight are are of real value in the community. So I'm suggesting this 1% adjustment to actually how the front addresses the street as a small way to sort of compensate for the variance requests which I think are significant and the fact that at the moment the the front of this home really does not meet our expectations for what an upland how an uplands lot should be developed. I don't think it's asking a lot. It's 200 square ft, but I think it would make an appreciable improvement and it would move us to this idea of actually that

we're not just um maintaining, but we're reinforcing a residential park atmosphere in the uplands. So, that's the reason for my motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Watson. Uh discussion on the motion on the floor. Go ahead, Councelor Brieweight. Uh thanks so much, Mayor, and I I hear what you're saying about your motion. Um, Councelor Watson, I'm wondering if it would be possible to ask the proponent whether or not that would be something that is doable in their um in their view or if it if it adds any um big cost or or anything like that to to their proposal. invite the applicant to come forward as we want to talk and I think probably just uh I think maybe some clarification because uh my visit of the site I I saw it as a fairly narrow entrance of between a couple of gates and and uh I didn't see a lot of room there for that but I'm I'm curious to hear what the applicant has thoughts on this.

Yeah, I I I agree with you, mayor. I think um we have a very private [snorts] entrance. There's there's almost no visibility to our property from the street. Um it's a a gate with a with a a small p uh you can see the paved driveway and a basketball net. We're happy to get rid of the basketball net if that's offensive. Um and just a a very small corner of the house is is visible from the street. So, um it would add costs, but you know, we're certainly willing to add some non-permeable um material there and if there's more vegetation. I mean, it's a very small street and so we're conscious of um keeping cars off the street because it's so narrow that our neighbor is also very concerned about emergency vehicles getting down the street and such. So, we're always conscious of um guests and our own cars on our property on the driveway. And so if we did remove that little bit of driveway at the beginning, I don't know where we

would park um and it would leave to a narrow street. But if that's what council wishes, I mean, we can certainly um abide by that. I'm just not sure what we're I guess I'm just trying to understand what we're because it's very very low visibility from the street. Well, I'll turn to the mover just so maybe get some clarification of the of the intent. Um the intent is actually to produce the driveway in in proportion to the front of the house. The driveway is really what predominates. That is what you see from I know it is a culde-sac but that is what you read. You read um the driveway and the house and it doesn't read at all from the public domain as in my view um as a as a um as a vegetated landscape lot. It reads as a paved access to a house. So all hard surface and I know it is tough staff did mention that it isn't a a culde-sac and

that may be a treatment that sort of um happened back in the 50s60s and 70s when some of these homes were developed but I think it would be a wonderful opportunity if that could be slightly improved because that's what we're trying what what we're trying to achieve in this precious neighborhood. So I guess I I slightly disagree with the functionality of the front area in terms of the proportion of the amount of paved area that that is actually there and the and the maneuverability that's available. Okay. Anyway, so thank you Elser Watson. Yep. Go ahead, Council Brie. Yeah. I'm looking at on page eight of our package and it looks like the house next door, the 2450 has two driveways or maybe the one driveway that's on the leftand side is going to a different house, but I I can't even see their driveway based on um unless this is their driveway here, but I don't think so.

The driveway is immediately adjacent to the driver. 2465. The two driveways are adjacent to each other. So on this side. Okay. Yes. And the neighbor's house does have two driveways going shape. Yeah. So they are they're very heavily paved. Yeah. Councelor Smart. Thank you. Um through Mayor um potentially to the applicant order to staff. I just wondered if we could just have a clarification around I I see there's a note on the drawing about replacing with permeable pavers and um could we could we just have a summary of how much area is being replaces the entire driveway or just um part of it. It just wasn't totally clear to me. I'm just looking at a note that's on page.

Mr. Hadfield, I think you're ready for the question. Go ahead. Okay. Um I'll leave it to Yeah. Yeah. Thank you to the mayor. Uh yeah, that's correct. Um um the best example that shows the area to be replaced can be found on page 47. Thank you. Um but essentially the uh replaced uh ashvalt to be replaced with permeable uh surfacing is concentrated in kind of the um northwest corner of the property rather than um the non-conforming kind of driveway um that kind of um bulges uh to the south as it um uh uh off of the property's uh entrance. Thank you. Thank you and thank you for finding the page for us. That was helpful.

Well, councelor Smart's looking for that. Any other questions for the applicant? Anything else? Councelor Smart. Um yeah, I'll just comment that I I I realize it's a slightly different issue than councelor um Watson was presenting with the park-like setting and so I'm not trying to undervalue that point, but I think it is just a consideration for the applicant um you know addressing at least some of the the drainage issues. So thank you. Okay, we have an upland setting in design and DDP in front of us. Uh the motion made uh amends it to just in include a requirement for an increase of uh landscaping of 1% of the lot size. So about 200 some square feet. Um um procedurally I actually always prefer these that we move the motion and then have an amendment. But this is a viable option too. Uh so if in support I think of uh the entirety of the proposal which is the uh to approve it but with the uh with that requirement appended the motion the vote appropriate vote would

be in favor. If you do not support the amendment portion of it or the or the application, uh it would be appropriate to vote uh in opposition. So that's we're we're considering the matter as a whole as presented which is includes the requirement for the change. Is there other discussion on this? I always like people if you're going to vote against to say something. So I'm going to say something. I um I appreciate the the argument made and and the requirement for it. I look at this as a as a couple of pieces. Um, on the overall piece, I I really do appreciate singlestory homes and and and and think that we, you know, from the variance perspective, I I see value in actually expanding out of footprint uh and retaining an existing home as opposed to seeing demolition or seeing larger massing. I think uh I think that is a trade-off that we can consider when dealing with an older home. Um and uh so I'm reasonably supportive from what I've heard of the of the DVP and and upland

setting and design. Um uh the second part of the amendment piece I don't really support. I think looking at that that design with the amount of green space and the difficulty of that frontage I I don't feel it's excessive in any way, shape or form. I I do see the point that looking at it appears to be concrete when you're looking in. um with good landscaping as even with the amounts presented there. I think it's it's very manageable and certainly in keeping with the other houses that I saw in that in that jurisdiction. So I won't support the motion that's put out forward. I do support the uh the original um or the option number one that was presented. Um so ready to call Oh, go ahead counc.

Yeah, I I would agree. I mean looking at that and looking at the picture and looking at the driveway on the other side, I would have to agree with you. So I will be in opposition of the motion as well. Thanks. Thank you. Um I I will support the motion put on the table. I I do see the opportunity that councelor Watson is is discussing and I just but I did want to just speak in general to um the application and just how fantastic it is to see an existing house so thoughtfully designed and um you know there's these opportunities where a house could have been taken down. And so, um, I just really appreciate, um, the thoughtfulness. Obviously, working with the neighbors, um, and to move forward with with keeping an existing house, um, uh, is is really commendable. Thank you, Council Patterson.

Yes, I won't belabor it. I I don't support the motion for many of the states that have been made. I think it's it is a very sensitive um, redevelopment of an existing building, which I appreciate. uh and with um quite a diversity of u planting material already on the lot. So and and it does have the support of the neighbors. So I will not support the motion as presented although I certainly appreciate the intent. Don't see any other comments. So I'm going to call the question on the motion. Uh this is a modified version of the original just clear. All those in favor and those opposed and councelor Patterson Braithway and myself opposed that carries. Uh so the requirement here is to add some some landscaping to the the design. I don't know if that not require it to come back to us. I understand that can be dealt with at a staff level for consideration of of some additional green spacing. Um okay I'm that's where we're at on this thing. So thank you very much and good luck with the project. It does look like a very

positive project. Uh we move now to item. No, we the motion was together. Uh so moving then to item 9.2. This is 2215 Baler Avenue. Uh and yes, everybody's welcome to leave after the end of these things. Thank you. Uh uh development variance permit uh and strata conversion for 2215 Baler Avenue. This is the same process. We have public input welcomed on this one. So uh Miss Cook, we have uh to introduce this item. Please. Thank you. Thank you, mayor, and good evening to yourself and council. There are two applications before you today uh for the property located at 2215 Baler Avenue. The first application is for a strata conversion of the existing duplex on the property. This is to facilitate the stratification of the duplex to provide individual titles which are to be owned by the existing residents. The second application is for a development variance permit for the existing building and site conditions including a variance to the interior side lot and secondstory setbacks for the principal building, a frontline setback for an

accessory structure which is an existing sunken patio and a variance to the rear paved yard regulation for the existing driveway and garage. The development variance permit is required to support the strata conversion due to the requirements of the strata property act which requires substantial compliance with district bylaws including the zoning bylaw. Staff have reviewed the application against the OCP and consider it to be consistent with relevant policies. Therefore, staff are recommending approval for both the DVP and the strata conversions. Thank you and happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you very much for that. Um, other questions for members of council go to councelor briefw.

Thanks very much, mayor. Um, I you kind of answered one of my questions, I think, in your explanation, but um because because there's no physical change to the building. Um, and so you've kind of said why the four variances are necessary for the strata um the strata act, I think you said. Um, but I'm just wondering whether granting those variances creates any new development rights for that property or do the development rights stay the same for that property? M Cook. Um, yeah. So, the Yes, through you, Mayor. Um, so the granting of the DBP just provides for the existing structure. So, um, yes. So for the DVP, um the condition of the development permit is tied to the plans that were submitted. So it doesn't provide them for additional development rights to the property.

Thank you. If you wish to have a seat, we we'll call for public input in just a moment, but not yet, sir. Go ahead. Uh thanks. And then my only other question was um I think this is an RM3 property but it's being assessed against R5 regulations and I'm wondering if that's normal um if whether that's normal application for that zoning bylaw. Thank you through you mayor. Yes. So, for the RM3 zone and some of our other multiple unit dwelling um zones where the lot size is under a certain size, the R5 zone um uh regulations are applied for kind of accounting for those smaller developments that may uh occur on those properties.

That clarification are there other questions for staff at this time? I don't see so uh come forward. Uh we welcome then members of the public and I believe we have the applicants here as well but uh please come forward. There's a button at the bottom bottom middle of that uh of that microphone that turns it on just right in the middle. It's a silver button in the middle. We'll get it for you. There we go. Thank you. Yeah. And please just follow the same process. just their name, municipality of residents, and you're welcome to speak to us about the development variance permit for this uh for this item.

Welcome. I just wanted to say that my wife and I Can I just get you to state your name? Sorry. Uh William Mat, 2215 Boer Avenue. My wife and I and our daughter and son-in-law are the owners of this duplex. We bought it five years ago. We made the decision to apply for strata titling for two reasons basically. The first being that we would then get two BC homeowner grants to assist with the property taxes. The second is that my wife and I are both in our 80s. Um, if we have two separate uh legal entities, that means that when I'm gone, because we all know women live longer, that she, if necessary, could apply for a a secured line of credit against the property to assist with her living costs.

Okay. Uh, I I don't think there's going to be a lot of uh discussion on this one particular item. So, I thank you for the briefing and we do have the the validator or the rationale note in front of us as well. We may call you back for some more uh answers if there's any questions that we might have. So, thank you. And I'm going to just need to make it available to the floor for members of the public to address council. Uh you can Yeah, there we go. Thank you. Uh is there any members of the council of the public that wishes to speak to us about 2215 Baler Avenue?

I don't see any. So, we'll come back to this table. I'll move um that council approve the development variance permit DBP0000201 for the property located at 2215 Boker Avenue and approve the strata conversion of the previously occupied building included in strata plan EPS2816 for the property located at 2215 Boer Avenue and authorize the approving officer to execute the necessary form T to confirm council has approved strata conversion SUV 000043. Second. Second. Thank you, Miss. Uh, we haven't called a question yet, so don't run away too fast, Miss Cook. There may still be questions. We have a motion on the floor. Are there any further questions for C? Uh, go ahead, Councelor Patterson.

Yes. I just would like to uh thank the applicants for putting this forward. It's it's on one of my regular walking routes, and it's just such a pleasant property to um pass by. It's so wellmaintained and so cheerful. So, I'm delighted to see that it's remaining there. Thank you. I don't unless there's any contrary comments. Don't want to go around the thing making a bunch of positive comments in the interest of time. Do you need you something you wish to add? Councelor Smart. Just a very quick positive comment. I just I think it's a great example of how um strata can be a really good way of promoting multigenerational living. Um so just grateful to see that here.

Thank you. Uh not to dis not to minimize the positivity of the of the thing, I just we have a lot of business to get through. So I want to call the question. Uh, all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. As I noted, I didn't see a lot of opposition to this. So, uh, that concludes congratulations and and good luck with the project. Okay. Uh, we move now to uh, item N. Sorry, that was 9.2. We move now to section 10, bylaws and permits. These are not subject to public input. Um, our first one is uh, 2851 Fowl Bay Road. This is a development permit with variances. And we have Miss Claver back to provide the introduction.

I also see the applicants in the room here. So, all right. Uh, thank you again, Mayor and Council. Um, as noted, the application before council's development permit with variance is for 2851 Fowl Bay Road. The property is zoned C2 and contains a twostory mixeduse building that was originally constructed in 1954. The proposal is a comprehensive um renovation and modernization of the existing building to accommodate a future FIG deli on the ground floor while retaining and renovating the four existing rental apartments. Um the work uh includes accessibility, seismic and life safety upgrades, uh new balcony, storefront and exterior improvements, bicycle facilities, patio seating, landscaping and modernized building services. Um, council is being asked to consider the form and character of the redevelopment under the commercial mixeduse development permit area guidelines together with the requested zoning and parking variances. Um, in respect to the development permit area guidelines, staff find the application meets their intent on balance. The project uh keeps the established building scale and street uh relationship while adding architectural detailing um finishing and

accessibility. Uh one point to note is that the storefront transparency along Fal Bay Road is reduced. Uh this is because of structural and seismic requirements with the BC building code. Um staff consider the overall proposal to maintain a strong connection between the commercial use and the street. Uh the application also includes a number of variances um largely due to the current constraints of adapting the existing 1950s mixeduse building. Um so there is uh a reduction in required parking um as you will note and we can talk through this um if you like uh with the lot lines and the required uh parking for both commercial and residential uses. So there is a reduction um uh it does on paper technically have quite a substantial reduction from 18 to two. Um happy to discuss that further. uh recognition of the existing parking that is specifically and solely on uh public property. So there is a split between private property and district-owned property. We can also talk through that when we go through the site plan if you like. Um and then there's a number of

sighting for the additions. Um so in principle staff do support the variances in the context of the existing site. The the redevelopment provides two conforming parking stalls at the rear, including an accessessible stall and add secure residential and customer bicycle parking. Um, so enhancing that active transportation option. Staff also note transit uh access along Fel Bay Road and the walk-in and active transportation function of neighborhood serving commercial uses. The advisory design panel did review the application on September 8th and recommended that council approve the development permit um as proposed. Staff find the proposal meets the intent of the commercial mixeduse development permit area guidelines um and recommend that council approve the development permit uh with variances. Um the applicant is present as well as the property owner uh and staff are also happy to answer any additional questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Miss Cleaver. Um, going to remind everybody we are adjudicating this on the mayor of the development permit, not on the quality. I heard everybody go, "Yay!" And talking about fig, so not not judging the the the occupant. We're we're judging the uh the development permit application here. Are there questions for uh the applicant or to staff? Go ahead, Council Braithweight. Thanks very much. Um, I'll try to not say anything about the actual project, but um, I'm just let's talk about the parking because I know that's probably the top thing on people's minds. Um, so there's 18 required spaces and it's two countable spaces um, and the 12 spaces shown on the site plan. I'm just wondering what exactly what parking will be physically exist after everything's completed.

Go ahead, Miss Clever. Yeah, happy to talk through that. So we do have a variance table I believe on it's technically page seven of 39 um or yeah that would be seven of uh the uh this specific report. So it does break down the requirements of residential and commercial um parking stalls. Two are solely and completely on the within the property boundaries. Um there is a number of rear parking stalls as well as uh along foul bay frontage that are pre-existing. Um so in principle there is more than two but because of how our regulations are laid out we do have to consider the dimensions and as well as what is solely within the property boundaries of that private lot.

I think just for clarification especially for the public on page 31 of the report uh you can see the five lots that are in parking spots in the back and five in the front that overlap between private and public spaces that are not counted in this uh for that reason. So I think it helps that visual really does help. So thank you for for raising that point. Councelor Braithway, please go please continue if you have. Yeah. And just my next question would just be around the um um around getting confirmation that the proposed single ingress residential configuration is is up to our safety requirements. Uh thank you and through the mayor. Um we the applicant and property owner did have a preliminary conversation with building department uh prior to the application. And we've also done uh a referral to both uh the building department and the fire department um on this note and the fire department had no issues. Um so uh I do appreciate uh

recognizing that especially because this was discussed not too long ago here at council. So but yes, it does meet the requirements and obviously as they go through the building permitting process, they would have to meet all the building permit uh building code requirements as well. Thanks. So, my last question just is around the um there's a few TDBs um around the um on the the checklist like there's some things that are going to be resolved through the building permit process and that that are going to need to be resolved or addressed before council approves the development permit. Is that correct? Or will we approve it and then those will get taken care of afterwards? Miss Cleaver.

Um through the mayor. Um, so the building hasn't been able to do the exploratory work and I'm happy to invite the applicant um, uh, to the floor if that helps to kind of enhance the explanation, but ultimately um, I think they asked today is to for approval of the development as um, requested and any additional um, amendments hopefully are minor in scale um, and would be at the discretion of the director and if they are u substant financial then it would have to come back uh to council for consideration. Thank you councelor Green. Thank you and through you. Thank you very much for the report and um it is exciting potentially this this new commercial development but my question is about the rental units. There are four of them um and my understanding is they will be retained but during the renovation phase or the construction phase is there a plan to relocate the tenants? Thank you.

Um, thank you for your question through the mayor. Um, as far as I know, and again, this might be more applicable to the applicant or property owner to respond to. Um, but in order to do the exploratory work that the the tenant that uh is pre-existing or residing there does need to vacate the premises, it's not safe for that exploratory work um to occur with that individual present. So they the the property owner has been going through that process to support the relocation of that tenant. Um does that answer your question? That helps. It's always a concern for long-term tenants about options given cost and and availability. So I was just concerned about that. Thank you.

You're welcome. Smart. Yeah. Thank you. Um just had one question around it. I really appreciate the provision of not only um bicycle parking but secure and what appears to be covered um bike parking in it. My only question was with regards to it looks like the depth of that bike parking is only enough for regular bikes and not cargo bikes that would sort of truly replace a car vehicle. And I was just wondering if consideration was given to having a communal bike room that might allow for a couple cargo bikes and some, you know, hangup racks that would, you know, potentially really accommodate that car-free um uh larger bike.

Disclaimer through the mayor. Um great question. Um I know that we have two bike um storage uh areas. one predominantly uh I guess encouraged for the residents and then one as well um for the public. There was discussion about potentially having more along um Fail Bay frontage. Um but that was obviously something that needed to be further discussed. um I may lean on the applicant um to kind of explore this conversation some more if if if that would be supportive um because that obviously was not uh designed into the existing site plan um and what is obviously being proposed today. Thank you. And I just want to make sure that I mean it's fine if if that makes if it determines whether or not to approve then we should have it. If not, I think it's done.

So, I think, you know, feedback, you know, as in the consideration of that to make sure that we're doing everything we can to support cargo bikes is always always appreciated. So, we'll leave it there. Okay. Thank you. Um, thank you. Any other questions? Um, my only question on this one is just on the south side of the building, there is space for um new patio space for seating. Um, and my question to staff is obviously that's fully within the bounds of the uh property lines of the building. um from a I'm curious about this from a uh a support of of uh commercial space if that were if like is that space available for encroachment onto the public boulevard because you know and we do it obviously on streets for things like uh patio space um and if if it is allowed like what is the process for application I'm assuming it's not part of the building permit process um thank you mayor uh wonderful question this is something that was uh quite heavily discussed with the applicant. Um

because as you can see on the site plan, the red lines outline the private property um boundaries. Um so that yeah there is the proposed seating area that is within the private property and then there is the green space that encroaches into the boulevard and so there was discussions with parks and engineering and planning and the applicant. So the the hedging um parks will not maintain. So that is up to the private property owner. Um and then the use of that green space. So there is some trees and and and foliage uh that could be enhanced. Again, that is to the discretion of the property owner because parks didn't have any issues with it. Um engineering does appreciate that there the hedging would be maintained by the property owner because that would open up the sight lines to the street and potentially be safer. Um in terms of an encroachment agreement, uh that isn't a condition of the development permit. uh could be encouraged with the property owner to have that conversation to formalize that

agreement so that hypothetically in the future uh the the district wanted to do maintenance to that green space along Allenbe that it didn't conflict with how that that area is being used by the prop private property owner. So it's an encouragement at this point. Right. That's fine. So no nothing part of the discussion today in terms of building permit process. Thank you for that clarification. sort of development permit process, not building permit. Um, any other questions for the applicant or the staff? Not seeing any. This may be easy for the applicants here. If we just get a resolution on the floor, I'll move the council approve development permit with variances DP 000 73 for the property located at 2851 Fay Road.

Is there a seconder? Thank you. Um, hearing the tone of the conversation here, I don't think we're going to get a lot of opposition. Um, is there anybody who wishes to speak in opposition to the motion then let me just say good luck with the project before I call the question. Uh, and uh, yeah, I'm looking very much forward to seeing the results of the renovation and the uh, and sort of the the restoration of that space. It's it's a really great space that serves the people of that part of the town and has been underutilized. We certainly, you know, missed it when they when we lost uh sharellis uh from that space and so this will be a great addition. So um just wish you all the best of luck. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you very much and good luck with the project.

Uh we move now to item 10.2 to 999 Beach Drive. Uh at uh and with that I Oh, I was going to turn to Mr. or Mr. Green. Uh you wish to introduce Sure. a new employee? Yes. Good evening. worship members of council. Uh I'd just like to introduce uh our our newest member of our community building and planning team. Uh Davin Contto. Davin Kto is our new planning technician. Uh joined the district just over three months ago now and previously was a development planner with the district of central Sanich. Uh Davin is also a resident of O Bay. I'm pleased to also announce as well. And so without further ado, I'll hand over to Davin who will take you through the the next three staff reports.

Very good. Um, it is KTOA. Is that how you pronounce your last name? Yes, mayor. That's correct. Okay, Mr. Kwa, please go ahead. Thank you, mayor. The district has received an application for an upland sighting and design permit for the property located at 2999 Beach Drive to allow for the sighting of a pergola sauna, outdoor shower, and hot tub structure on an existing second story patio. The application was presented to the advisory design panel on September 8th, who recommended the application be approved. A staff review of the application found that the design does conform with the district's upland design guidelines and therefore is supportable. The materials proposed are minor in nature and consists in consistent with the building's original design concept and are not visible from Beach Drive itself. Planning staff as well as the applicant are in attendance today uh to answer any questions mayor council might have. The applicant is attending virtually.

Uh very good. Um M thank you very much for that that introduction. Mr. Kto, this is of course new because you don't have upland setting and design. Uh for those who don't know, there's almost no one in the room now. 1935ish, we had a Oak Bay special powers act passed that gave setting and design controls to the council. Uh that continue to this day. And so it's a unique in British Columbia for single family residences to have setting and design controls. Not entirely unique, but unusual. Um, are there any questions to applicant or to staff on this application? I'm not seeing any. So, there's no public input on this. So, maybe I'll get someone to move the recommendation with.

I'll move the staff recommendation you worship. Seconded. Thank you. This is approval for the setting and design application. Any further discussion? Love simple ones. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. It was wise to choose that one as a non-controversial start. Mr. [laughter] U. Back to you, Mr. offer a 10.3 2657 Cranmore Road. Thank you, mayor. The district has received an application for a development permit for the property located at 2657 Cranmore Road to allow the construction of a rear yard deck located within 30 mters of the Baler Creek Water Course. The application is being presented to council due to the encroachment into the district's water courses development permit area and was presented to the advisory planning commission on September 16th who also re recommended the application be approved. A staff review of the application finds the proposal aligns with the intentions of the district's environmental DPA and respects the findings of the applicant's qualified environmental professional and is therefore supportable. Planning staff as well as the applicant are in attendance today to answer any questions council might have. Uh the applicant Sean is attending virtually today.

Very good. Uh and in fact maybe I'll just as an explanation to the public as well. So any development within 30 meters of a water course requires a development permit. Um this is a mechanism for protection of the water course area. So development doesn't happen within those areas. Um these are generally fairly routine in that they're reviewed by environmental professionals come to us for uh consideration but ultimately it's up to council to give final approval or direction. So that's the process we're under for this one and the next one. Just for people following along at home, we don't get a lot of these, so it's not that unusual to see them. Are there any questions for members of council in this?

Not seeing any questions and there's no public input. So perhaps someone would like to read the recommendation into the record. I'll move the uh that council approved development permit DP00000075 for the property located at 2657 Cranar Road. Seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing any all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And one more. 1732 Armstrong. Mr. Kto. Thank you, mayor. And again, the district has received an application for a development permit uh for the property located at 1732 Armstrong Avenue to permit the construction of again a rear yard deck located within 30 meters of Bucker Creek. The application is being presented to council due to the encroachment into the district's DPA and was presented to the advisory planning commission on the same meeting of September 16th who recommended the application also be approved. Staff review of the application finds the proposal that align with the intentions of the district's environmental development permit area and also respects the findings of the applicant's qualified environmental professional report and is therefore supportable

planning staff as well as the applicant's uh project manager dean is in attendance today to answer any questions council and mayor might have same process as last time questions. Go ahead council. Yeah, just a really quick one. I'm just wondering if the construction is going to require any access from the Velro Creek water walkway. Um, and if so, if what protections will be in place uh for the public and for the vegetation along the creek, please. Sure. Thank you, councelor Braithweight. Mr. Kwa. Absolutely. Thank you. Uh, we have confirmed that the all the works will be done from the front and the um sighting of all materials will be kept in the driveway. So nowhere near Baler Creek you any other questions? No. Uh again DPS like this do not have public input.

So let's uh back to this table for direction. I'm going to suggest we read the recommendation into the record and we can debate that. Go ahead to Smart. I'll move that council approve development permit DP 000076 for the property located at 17 Oh wait, did I skip over one? Sir, that's right. 1732 Armstrong. Yep. Perfect. Seconded. Thank you. Any other discussion? I feel like we should debate something just for your benefit here. Make this a bit more difficult. Uh not seeing any. All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. Uh we move then to 10.5 310 King George Terrace. Um this is uh to Mr. Green, our deputy director of community building and planning.

Sorry for for Yeah, for 310 King George Terrace, item number 10.5. Great. Thank you, your worship. Uh, this next item relates to a zoning amendment and a development permit for the property located at 310 King George Terrace. Council initially gave three readings to this bylaw to the zoning amendment bylaw on November 24th of 2025 and which was then amended by council on July the 27th of 2026. At that meeting, council directed staff to work with the applicant on a section 219 covenant to secure the provision of an accessible washroom in one of the suites and the provision of a fire sprinkler system in the units. The section 219 covenants has now been signed by the owner and the district and is now in the process of being registered by the district's legal council and as such council can now adopt the bylaw and approve the issuance of the develop permit. Happy to answer any questions that the council may have on the application.

Thank you very much Mr. Green. As noted, this is for adoption. Uh, and this is coming back to us with all of the pieces in place. Uh, are there any questions for staff or the applicant on this? Not seeing any. So, with that, can I guess we do need to read this into the record? There's an adoption of the zoning bylaw. Membership, I would move that council adopt zoning bylaw number 353196, amendment bylaw number 4937205 and further that council approve the issuance of development permit DP 00058 for the property at 310 King George Terrace. Thank you. Uh can we do them together? Do we have No. So we're just going to treat the first portion which is the I'll just I'll I'll separate them and I'll call the question on the first part first. Um, so any discussion? Go ahead, councelor Braithweight.

Um, yeah, Mayor, I'll be voting against both of the recommendations, um, as I have in the past, um, for the reasons that I have stated in the past, but mainly it's because I think there's too many prop too many subdivisions on this piece of property. But thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion? I appreciate this. It's been a while since it's been in front of us, so good to remind us. Any other discussion? All right. All those in favor? Any oppose? Councelor Braithweight opposed that carries. And then the second part which is the approval of the issues of the development permit. It's already been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All right. All those in favor? Any opposed?

Councelor Braithweight opposed? That carries. Uh thank you very much and good luck to the applicant with the project. I know it's been a while in the works. Um we now move to 10.6 which is the permissive tax exemptions bylaw. We've done the first three reading at a previous meeting. So can I again read into that council adopt tax exemption permissive bylaw number 4977206 moved and seconded. Is there a second? Yep. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. That carries. Uh we move then to 10.7. So the homebased business bylaw, some of which is available for public input. Uh some of it is not. Um it's just the adoption of the bylaw uh uh business license bylaw I think is not um so ono is a subject to public input but I'll certainly take any comments. So uh I think probably before we get to reading these uh I'll just open it up for any there's any questions from members of staff to the uh members of council to staff. I tell I'm getting past my bedtime uh on this item. No.

Okay. Uh I'm going to open for public input. Is anybody here wishing to speak to item 10.7 either online or in person? This is the homebased business regulation bylaws. I see no hands popping up. So, I'm going to come back to this table. I'm going to ask that they get read one at a time into the record. All right, worship. I would move that council adopt zoning bylaw number 3531-1986, homebased businesses amendment bylaw number 4978 2026 with seconded. Is there a second? Thank you. Uh discussion counc. Yeah, mayor, there's a few of these that I'll be voting against. Um, so and it's based on the same reasons that I had last time I was voting against them and that is that I would like to see a little bit more input from our BIA on some of these aspects of of this um uh bylaw. Thank you.

Thank you Green. I just I I just want to state up front. I am not against homebased businesses at all, but I really think we need to do a much deeper dive on the impacts on our our village centers and small local businesses and and and local economies. And I would like to see that study done. And I would like to move up, you know, the date sooner than Q2 2028. um a year from now would be helpful. But I mean if and I'm sure this will pass, but I really want us to be conscious of the impact on small businesses particularly now as the tariff impacts start to increase. We don't know what that will look like for small business.

So thank you. Thank you councelor Green. Any other discussion? Councelor Patterson. I won't belabor it, but I also voted against some of these originally and will be not supporting them again for the same reasons. Okay. Thank you, Counc Patterson. Uh, any other discussion before I call the question? Uh, I'm just say very briefly, I I I hear what people are are saying about this. I I would consider these to be relatively at the end of the day, a year and a half of consultation with the public and special opportunities for pieces into the from the business community. It may well be that we got some of these aspects wrong. I consider this kind of bylaw um easily amendable.

So if there were we do find unintended consequences. I was very heartened though that in the public input that we got raising some potential concerns they'd already been thought of and included in the in the bylaw. So I I do feel comfortable that these have largely captured the concerns raised by the public and the business community. And frankly they're not that hard to change in future should we find that there's unintended consequences on on that we didn't anticipate. So I am supportive of these uh these changes going forward. Um I'll leave it there. Um I'm going to call the question on the first one which is the adoption of the zoning bylaw. All those in favor and opposed. I have councelor Patterson Braithweight and Green opposed. And then for the municipal ticket information bylaw.

Uh your worship I would move that council adopt municipal ticket information bylaw number 4846 2023 amendment bylaw number 4982206. Moved and seconded. Thank you. Uh is there um uh I can't remember off the top of my head who was I know some of these were voted against by some and some were not. So I'll leave it to people to remember how they voted. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor and those opposed I have councelor Green and Braithweight opposed to that. Continue. Councelor Appleton. Thank you worship. So I would move that council adopt parking facilities bylaw number 3540 1986 amendment bylaw number 4980 2026.

Thank you. Seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? The parking facilities bylaw. Seeing none, all those in favor and those opposed and councelor Green opposed. And then the last I would move second to last. Sorry. Worship. I would move that council adopt signed bylaw number 3946 1997 amendment by number 4981 2026. Been seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor? And those opposed? Councelor Patterson and Green opposed. And the last one is the business license. I would move that council adopt business license bylaw number 3603 1988. Amendment bylaw number 49792026. Thank you. Move and seconded. Same second. Uh uh this is but I invited public input at the beginning.

Yep. Um so with that I'm going to call the question. All those in favor and those opposed have councelor Patterson, Braithweight and Green post. That carries. Um, thank you very much everybody and that's end of a fair a long amount of work. Uh, and I look forward to seeing those those come forward. Um, we now move to new business. There's two items of new business, both notices of motion. Um, the first one is the notice of motion by council of Braithweight. I don't think we need to read it into the record. I think we can have it on the piece. Um but perhaps uh you may just move it as as as shown here.

I'll move uh the motion as shown on the agenda. And then the second uh I'll give it to you to uh to speak to council. Uh thanks so much, mayor. Um yeah, for me this motion is about uh responsible stewardship and good planning. Um we've inherited something really unusual in Oak Bay. We have a neighborhood that was deliberately designed as a residential park. We have a national historic site designation. um re recognizing its planning and landscape significance and we have a provincial statute that gives this municipality specific authority over the uplands. I don't believe that we should use that authority simply because we can nor do I believe we should ignore it simply because provincial housing policy has changed. I believe we have a responsibility to understand what our options are and then make a thoughtful decision about how we balance housing with the protection of the upland's defining character. So, I want to be really clear on what I'm asking council to consider tonight. I'm not asking council to prohibit housing

in the Uplands. I'm not asking council to adopt the Uplands Neighborhood Association's proposal, and I'm not asking council to make a final decision tonight about what the future zoning of the Upland should be. I'm asking us to understand our options. The motion asks staff to examine three things. The extent of council's authority under the Oak Bay specials power act and other legislation. what options we have to regulate further subdivision and what options we have to establish limits on the number of principal buildings on upland's properties. I think those are reasonable questions for us to consider and to ask. The special powers act was created specifically to give Oak Bay powers that apply to the uplands that don't apply in the same way anywhere else. The act expresses expressly allows council to limit the number of buildings on a lot and to prohibit or regulate further subdivision. At the same time, our current official community plan recognizes the Uplands as a distinct and important neighborhood with a unique

landscape and planning history and says that it will continue to be governed by area specific standards to protect its heritage and form. An Uplands was designated a national historic site in 2019 because of its significance as an early example of a residential park designed by John Olmstead. So I think we have a responsibility to ask whether our current regulations are still accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish. Provincial housing legislation has also changed the circumstances. The province now requires municipalities to accommodate additional small-cale housing forms in areas that were previously restricted to single family or duplex use. And I find I support finding appropriate ways to accommodate housing. But I also think that there's a difference between adding housing within an existing uplands property and changing the underlining land pattern through subdivision or stratification.

On that land pattern, once that land pattern changes, it's really really difficult to restore it. The Uplands Neighborhood Association has put forward one possible approach that would allow additional housing while retrain retaining the existing lots. Again, I'm not asking council to accept that proposal tonight, but I think it deserves to be examined alongside the other options available to us. And there's been a significant public interest in this issue. The correspondence before us includes a petition with 348 signatures as well as comments from people who don't live in the Uplands but who value the neighborhood and Uplands Park. For me, this is up ultimately about responsible stewardship and good planning. We have a good neighborhood that was deliberately designed as a residential park. We have a national historic site designation and recognizing its significance. We have special statutory authority that was created specifically for this area. and we have new provincial housing requirements that have changed the planning environment. I don't think we should prejudge the answer, but I do think we should make sure we understand the question. That's what this motion asks staff to help us do. If this motion

passes, I would then like to ask staff, if possible, to provide this report at the earliest practical opportunity given that there are already uplands applications in the system and council should have this information before the current development pattern becomes further established. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you, councelor Brieweight. Going to cut you off soon just as the five minute limit, but I will uh certainly allow that. Um so we have the motion in front of us here. Uh it's so it was moved and seconded. Councelor Smart, you wish to speak? Um I just wondered if um uh it the mover would be amendable if we um separated the the three options because I am supportive of some but not all of the um three items listed in the motion.

So the one, two, three, you'd like them separated. Yeah, I tend to be amendable to that as a as a request. So thank you. I'll I'll happily call the question separately. Anything else? Um I I could just make some comments. I'm just really appreciative of the motion coming forward um that we're representing the community's um requests um and the considerate manner in which it's been presented to council. I think this is a really important conversation to have. Um and I think you know we need to talk about what's the best way to encourage like for instance potentially more housing um you know conversions um or potentially does council want to see or does the neighborhood want to see more of the character of a single family house but that still has multiple units in it. So I think it's an important conversation. I'm not in agreement with the entirety of um some of what has been outlined in in number two and three um in the motion and I can understand I do appreciate the specificness of of what's been brought forward by the community

because it really gives us something um to consider but I'm I'm just not convinced without more information at this stage that a reduction in density outright will be the solution. It might be but it might not be. Um, and I'm also I just want to highlight I am a little bit concerned about the risk that we are doing in bringing this conversation forward of bringing a bit of attention to the special powers act. Um, and the fact that it does conflict a bit with the provincial housing mandates. And so I I'm um but it's here and I think it's the right thing that we have this conversation. Um, and and I just I with regards to the subdivision comment, well again I think it's an important conversation. I don't, you know, I potentially agree with potentially banning all types of stratification being the right approach to meeting housing needs. I guess I would just worry if we um without, you know, a report and more considered information

that we're jumping to a conclusion of preventing some really great multigenerational housing options um from taking place because with only rentals of ADUs and secondary suites, uh we may see those as primarily used as guest houses and occasional short-term rentals and vacant much of the year. Um, so I think those are things we need to uh think about, which is why I'm very much in favor of of option one and just not certain yet on on option two and three. Um, or sorry, not options, but um the next uh they start with the word options, the next uh points two and three. So, I agree these are really important conversations to have and I'm supportive of the main um motion. And I just the only other thing I wanted to bring up um and I don't think we're seeing this at the time, but there was a letter writer that wrote in about timelines on this and I just I guess wanted to to express as important as this is, we have a lot of other important work at this table, including um our urban village planning, our um

tenant protection policy, our affordable housing. Um there's a lot of really important projects. Um and this is also an important project, but I wouldn't want to see um the scheduling of of this supersede some really foundational work that needs to happen in the in the planning department. Thank you. Uh any other discussion? Yeah, go ahead. Council Watson. Yes, I have a few other comments about um this particular um set. Well, I guess it's going to be three motions now. at this particular time. Um I would say that in in general I do I think that the the question of what actually is possible permissible under the special powers act and how it might be in dissonance or kind of out of sync with other things that are going on is definitely worth exploring. But at a time we have there's a case significant case in Oak Bay that's before the courts I think it's premature actually. I think it's worth waiting until that's resolved and then asking for the work um because it may actually point to a direction that we have to go in and um and staff

will have done work that then gets superseded by that. So that's my first point of caution although uh you know so that's an unknown at the moment. I do absolutely support the idea of the need to preserve the streetscape plan and layout and the landscape values that are so important in this neighborhood. But I don't support the notion which I see sort of embedded in this request that it should be treated as some kind of special place with respect to stratification or the number of units per lot. I I don't think it should. We had a wonderful example tonight of a a home on Baler that is going to be that has now got permission to be stratified um and to create uh two valuable small homes without changing anything that we see from the street or on the lot. uh and uh stratification does create viable new ownership options and I know that this has been uh councelor Braithweight acting in good faith is trying to support I think some of what's coming

forward from the community but I think you have to be careful what you ask for because it may not actually be what you want and I think that um uh uh um there are some some fallacies in what we hear about um uh using uh certainly in the request from the community or the Uplands Neighborhood Association about reducing um the um eliminating these other options because secondary suites will be uh the way to create what we need in the uplands to make their contribution to needed housing. But we know that homeowners are not are often reluctant to actually become landlords uh or create secondary suites for all sorts of reasons. one because they have to deal with tenants and potential problem tenencies. They have to um take on debt that they can't finance in order to do that work and that there are tax implications once they have tenants on their properties. Uh particularly with respect to capital gains. So I don't necessarily think that secondary suites

is going to be what happens in the uplands. I think there's all sorts of obstacles for people moving forward for that to create housing which should be contributing to our increase in housing supply in Oak Bay. So I think to a great extent the uplands is one of the best places to create meaningful housing additions through building stratification and has the lot sizes uh which support greater number of units on site without any risk to our landscape if it's done with due care. Um, so I guess my overall thing is I like part one, but I don't think it should happen now. And I'm not so sure that I support the other two. I just don't I I um I I think that's the first thing to resolve is what actually are the powers we have.

And then we go away and we think as a community about how the Uplands actually is a contributor to to uh to the need for uh whatever what are we I've lost track of the number 3,621 housing units in Oak Bay. So thank you. Thank you, Councelor Watson. I have councelor Appleton. Thank you, Worship. Yeah, and I'm I'm appreciative of this coming forward. I think it's actually uh due time for council to consider uh revised standards or or targeted standards for Uplands which respond to provincial housing legislation. You know, at the time that the housing legislation was brought in, council wrangled with this a little bit and was on a tight timeline and had to apply the similar the decision of council at that time was to apply the same essentially the same fundamental standards as with Upland's lots as with any other RS designated lots with any other residential designated lots because there was some concern around uh some of the language in the housing legislation about you know multi- larger scale lots being you know reserved for

multi-unit or that type of thing and of course that required further thought. So, but I think what is interesting to me over the time that now we've considered some new development applications in uplands in that intervening time and how the development community is responding to the larger lots in the uplands and how they interpret the upland sighting and design guidelines and certainly I've c cast my mind many times to what is the appropriate and the most rigorous application of the upland sighting and design guidelines. That's a bit of a challenge. So, I think it's it's probably time for council to consider how we use the powers available to us to uh potentially guide development towards more sort of larger scale multi-unit or heritage conversions, the types of buildings that will sort of fit with form and character in the uplands but provide for additional housing units.

And I and I can hear from the development community that in a lot lot of cases those are not necessarily the most uh desirable the most uh income generating units. However, um we need to take some charge of that. They may the the the buildings proposed will not necessarily always fit with upland sighting and design. So I think that there's and I've said as much around this table. I think there's a lot of opportunities for larger scale buildings, larger scale multi-unit buildings in the form and style that uh is in keeping with Upland's sighting and design guidelines and takes advantage of those those larger lots but actually can provide a significant amount of housing.

So I I think that the opportunity is there. I think you can create interesting multi-unit and and uh more dense developments in the uplands while completely staying within uplands car forming character guidelines. So uh but we need to uh move the conversation in that direction with the with our uh standards and guidelines worship. Thank you. Thank you very much councelor Appleton. I do rec I just want to remind we're we're the question the motion here is to ask for a report back. So, I know we're getting we're delving a little bit into the the merits of it and and that's allowed obviously, but because it does relate to whether you'll support the aspects of this, but just want to keep our conversations reasonably tight because uh it's the end of the long night. [laughter] Go ahead, councelor Patterson.

Yes, thank you, mayor. I I appreciate this coming forward and I I appreciated the comments around the table. I think though the intent of this is to actually allow us to look at the area as a whole rather than as single applications as they come to council which is a very awkward way of dealing with the uplands as as a whole part of the community. So I appreciate this coming forward and I know that it is for for a report to come back and uh we'll look forward to seeing that. Thank you. Green. Thank you. I too will support the motion. I think it's it's it is time to review practices in the Uplands and I think Upland's residents want us to do that. So I'm I'm pleased about the motion coming forward. Thank you.

Kim is very brief. Uh there's just a couple of turns of phrase I want to make sure that we're kind of clear on. There was a comment that this uh is in conflict with the uh or the [snorts] special power in conflict with the housing legislation. I would say that it's I would say it's superseded by that. So there's there's limits to what can be controlled but is not in conflict with it um per se. And there's also just a again just to turn a phrase limiting the units per lot and that wasn't what's here. It's it's a principal buildings per lot that's being considered here. So I just want to make sure that we're clear on on that because I agree limiting units per lots would be in direct contravention of the um of the recent provincial legislation. Um speaking to the motion, I think I reflect what other people have said.

think this is appropriate to have this motion come forward a consideration as part of the uh as as councelor Patterson the sort of the holistic look at the uplands and and trying to consider this uh and considering the three aspects of this I actually support all three uh I do think that understanding what the uh legal limits are is important um that being said it may well wait until after the the current legal challenges and so forth that are going on before we even have an answer to that question uh the second is I think uh the second part will clarify what are the limits of of limiting um strat type subdivisions in the uplands. It was a specific request but uh I saw that and I'm like I don't actually know if there's application of special powers act or other things were specific to those things if it's a power that we would have. So I think clarification for that for me is is important and I do think because we've

actually had applications turned down largely because of the number of principal units on the principal buildings I should say I did it again uh principal buildings on the lot I think that is a really critical question to ask is that I think it's unfair for us to have zoning that allows one thing and then decisions being made in a different way based on that. So I think it's an important question for us to ask as a community. I do also reflect that yes, there are many things that are going to be on the staff's challenge list. Um I see the advantage of this going forward asking for a report. This will be part of the of the council priorities. It comes to the next council. Council will have a look at this and a chance to triage and prioritize the importance of this work against all of the other challenges. Uh this basically kicks it in and adds it to that list for that consideration. So I I'm supportive of the of the three aspects of it at this point because I think it's worth asking the question then it puts it into the queue.

Yeah. Go ahead. Councelor Smart, thank you. Um just a question of clarification around um wording and intent. I guess um normally when uh staff comes back with the report, they give us many options which you know consider doing something, not doing something or modifying it in a certain way. The way the language is written in this motion um it it doesn't um feel like it conceptually adds room for an option which is um to not do something. And so I just wondered like so for instance with options to regulate further subdivision of Upland's properties, was it the intent of of the mover of the motion that one of those options might be to not further regulate the subdivision? Um and if so, might the mover be amendable to um a slight rewarding to make it clear? Um yeah, because that would that would really change it for me. Thanks.

And I would say because this is a direction given to staff for a report. I think if we can get clarification for the mover and agreement from the body if the language may be sufficient without changing it if but let's hear it from council brief. I I think that that for me that that is given within the the way I I have it written here. I would I would have an expectation that staff would come back with if that was an option that they would include that in the report. I don't know if it has to be specifically written down. Um, but if staff doesn't feel that that there is um that if staff feels that there's an option to not regulate further subdivision within Alman's properties, then I think that that should be in the report that comes back to us. So, so I think there's two parts there. One of them is we always council will always have the option not to make changes. Um, so that would be just status quo. Um,

uh, yeah. So I anyway I'll leave it to you councelor Smart if you think that that needs more clarification but I'm hearing from councelor Braithweight and I'm assuming the body here that that would be my expectation of all these things is that staff will look at it and and bring some things. I I will say too there's some changes I think in the approach to some of these things coming forward where we'll the intention is to have some of these things come back to council and have a more informal conversation about what are the expectations so we don't have staff necessarily going away and doing a 50-page report uh and then coming back and and all of us having a different anticipation of what that is. So I would anticipate there'll be some more clarification of that as well coming forward. That helps.

I see any other hands. So I'm going to call uh basically the same therefore be it resolved uh blank one the extent of council's authority. So I'm just going to uh uh since we it was moved is when I'm going to separate them. So the first vote I will call is uh basically a report on the extent of council's authority under the special powers act. Um so that's the first part. Happy to take any other addition discussion on that single part. Okay. All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. And the second part is options to regulate further subdivision of Upland's properties. Any further discussion on that?

That was probably the most the one I had the most of concern about. So, uh, all those in favor? Any opposed? Councelor Watson opposed. That carries. And then the third one is options to establish limits on the number of principal buildings on Upland's properties. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. That all carries. So that will come back to the next council. Um thank you for that. And our gosh, our last item of business as a council. Uh motion under from councelor Smart. Um you don't have to read it in. Um uh did you wish to move it? I'll see if there's a second and then we can discuss.

I I would like to just read in the resolved um part. I don't need to read all the whereas No, please do not read the wherees. [laughter] Um, is it okay to read it now? Yeah, go ahead. Uh, now therefore, it be resolved that Oak Bay Council supports the elect respect pledge and commits to treat others with respect in all spaces, public, private, and online. Reject and call out harassment, abuse, and personal attacks. Focus debate on ideas and policies, not personal attacks. Help build a supportive culture where people of all backgrounds feel safe to run for and hold office. Call on relevant authorities to ensure the protection of elected officials who face abuse or threats and model integrity and respect by holding one another to the highest standards of conduct and that Oak Bay Council calls on elected officials, organizations, and community members to support the elect respect campaign and sign the online pledge.

Moved and seconded. Um little procedural piece here. I'm going to use my purview as a chair to separate the last part the calling on and and I I'll very quickly explain that just that uh website referred to in there and the pledge actually does request that people sign up for ongoing communications and so forth. I think so there's a difference between that ask and the ask of the council. Um so I'll do that. Um and uh yeah the and just I just my comment here is again we we'll probably have a bit of a discussion on this but it is the end of a long night and a long council term.

Uh and I do want to just uh highlight this is a reflection of the current code of conduct that is was put in place by the last council but is here. Um so it reaffirms current policy. I just want to make sure that we're clear on that. This is not sort of establishing net new policy for anything. It's really just an affirmation. Um, and I just as I hand it over to the council, I do want to express my appreciation for this council. Um, just, you know, I find that people here have treated each other with respect and professionalism and staff as well. And I think that's really an important part of us being a, you know, a respectful workplace and a place that attracts good staff is to have that pieces. And I know, uh, council does get abuse from public sometimes and and probably council might probably refer to that. I know councelor Green had a very uh significant uh verbal attack at one point not long a few years ago. Um so it does happen and I just uh think

reaffirming our policy and making it clear that we and the next council was needs to be stewards of that responsibility is an important piece. So but just for clarity we're not doing new policy here. This is essentially reaffirmation of pieces. So not that we can't talk about it for an hour but I'd rather not. So go over to you councelor Smart and thank you for bringing this forward. Yeah. Um, through this motion, I'm I'm asking the members of our community during this election and beyond to be kind and respectful. There is harassment of elected officials in our community. And while we are lucky so far that many sentiments stay off of social media, the whisper campaigns, the targeted emails can be just as harmful to our democracy.

And the brave 11 people who put their names forward in this election, all deserve our respect. I ask for the leadership at this table today to ask the public to remember to the handy think acronym uh checklist as we all engage in communication around this election. Is it true? Is it helpful? Is it inspiring? Is it necessary? And is it kind? Everyone that considers taking on this role deserves respect and kindness while running and when in office. And these are real people with feelings and families. We should not normalize the dehumanizing of elected officials or the sentiment that they signed up for abuse and should be able to thrive in a toxic environment. If you want to continue to see a diversity of people step forward and take on this role, we as a community shape that safe place for people to serve their community one conversation at a time. Thanks.

Thank you very much, Councelor Smart. I'm minor correction. There's 11 people running for council. There's there's two Mel candidates. 12. Oh, so n is there? Sorry, there's nine. Nine. Oh, apologies. There's nine. I added two twice. [laughter] Either some person doesn't get respect or uh or we're respecting you guys. There's some some ghost floating around out there. No, that's great. Thank you for that. Um uh so yeah, I'm I'll separate the vote on these two. Is there any other discussion on the on either part of that? Go ahead, Councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. as as somebody who um dur during during the last council uh had experienced more than just verbal verbal um attacks from the uh the community. But fortunately that was only one member and so generally I think that the community is um is fairly kind and respectful and tries to be although it can get heated in the moment. I will also say just say that that elect respect campaign that came about came about because of the strong

mayor powers act that took place in Ontario and has caused a fur in many locations. Um, we don't have that here, at least not yet. And, um, our mayor still only counts as counts as one vote at the table and doesn't have any other, um, strong powers over the rest of us. So, while I appreciate this, I I um I I like to also speak on on behalf of all the good folks in the community and there there are many and they're encouraging and and I think that they many of them have have thanked me over the last while for the for the time put in and to all council members and I thank them for that. Thank you, Counc. Any other discussion?

Right. I'm going to call the question on the first part which is the the pledge language itself. All those in favor? Any opposed? none opposed. And the second part, we're just calling on the elected officials and community members to support the reflection campaign and sign the online pledge. Uh, and I'm just I'll speak briefly that I'm I'm going to vote against that part just because I I when I went to the the site to do the pledge, it required that it was one of the mandatory pieces was to sign up for contact information, share it. I was like, eh, I don't know that's comfortable. I'm not sure it should be a resolution of council to do that. So, I think the part that we control ourselves in our community, I'm supportive of, but not not the second part. So, clarification. It seems weird to vote against something. So, so kind and lovely.

I'll also be voting against it for the same reasons. Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay. [snorts] Councelor Smart. Uh, thanks. And if I can just also just take a moment to daylight that there's a a group of elected officials that have put forward a mental health toolkit for new electeds um coming in um that involves uh counseling support um as well as a whole online educational um system that's going to be made available. um so that there will be more supports coming forward to future councils. Yeah, that's that's an excellent point and a really amazing initiative. Uh councelor Green. Yes, I won't support the second part of this, but I'll also say one of the one of the most weaponized um tools in in public life now unfortunately is online um online and and website and Facebook and all of them. Um, I think we all have to be very careful about how we use those tools because they can be vicious for sure. Thank you.

Thank you. I think I'll just I'll just reiterate uh Councelor Patterson's point. There are I've certainly had no one, you know, a number of incidents in town uh with local government both both in Oak Bay and other places. But absolutely for those running for council and we have a few in the room here tonight, including one new potential new one. Um you know, my overwhelming experience has been incredibly positive. I I find that people spend way more time being thankful for your service than they are um critical of that service and so I certainly anybody who runs I hope you're finding it a positive experience and those who get elected I hope you find it a positive experience as well but there will be some tense points I think that's that comes with the territory for sure on the second part here then I'll call the question all those in favor and those opposed Patterson Braithweight myself and councelor Green opposed that does not pass uh any other discussion before I call for adjournment. I'm going to just

reiterate before I call. Okay. My motion to adjurnn. Seconded. One of the people who will not be here. Oh yes. There we don't have to record who who moves and seconds things. So we'd like to move adjournment. I'll move a German. Is there a second it? Thank you. Uh before I call the question though again I I said at the beginning of the meeting and I'll reiterate here for those who aren't running again. Councelor Watson Appleton Smart. Thank you so much for your service. It's been a real pleasure working with you. I don't think you guys are going away anywhere. So, I'm sure we'll still have chances to talk and and uh your level of interest in the community and knowledge of it will be uh appreciated going forward. So, I look forward to speaking with you as civilians uh in the days and years ahead uh presuming that I or any of us are at this table at that time. So, and if not,

we can commiserate over a beer. Uh with that, I'll call the question. All those over all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed? Thank you everyone. Have a great evening.