Transcript: Special Council Meeting - 19 May 2026

Good evening everyone. Like to call tonight's special council meeting to order for Tuesday, May the 19th. My name is Andrew Appleton. Uh councelor Andrew Appleton. I am chairing tonight's meeting as acting mayor. Uh Mayor Murdoch is joining the meeting and is available online. Uh but for uh ease of chairing, I'm taking care of the uh the business inside the room tonight. So appreciate everybody's patience with my sharing. Um I will begin uh by acknowledging that we are hosting this meeting and holding this meeting on the traditional territory of the coast and straight Salish people. In particular, we recognize the Lquangan speaking people, the Sunis and Casspsum or Equimalt nations and their uh recognizing their historic connection to these lands and waters. Uh my personal reflection on reconciliation from this past week has been I had the advantage of spending some of the long weekend uh cycle touring around the peninsula and uh out to the west shore and rode through the traditional territory of the five Wasanich nations uh and out out as

far as Beecher Bay and into those uh areas of our area and just was reflecting very much on how uh fortunate and blessed we are to uh be sharing this land with so many different First Nations, each with their own histories and traditions that uh we can benefit from. So, I was reflecting on that as I as I passed over this beautiful area that we get to call home. So, thank you very much for that. And with that, I will ask uh I will call for a motion to approve the agenda under item 2.1. So moved and seconded. Any amendments to the agenda? Noting none. Uh all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you very much. Um, this is a special I will just note for those uh watching online or in the room, we don't have a huge number of guests at this stage of the game, but I will note that as this is a special council meeting replacing committee of the whole, it does not have an item on the agenda for public input. But I will note that items under section five are

open to public input and I will call for public input at that time. Um this is under item 3.1 is the typical uh time on the agenda for mayor's remarks and mayor Murdoch will make some remarks and in place of our typical uh report from council members that would typically happen at committee the whole I will ask council members to give a brief update on their activities as well after the mayor. So uh your worship if you'd like to proceed I will hand it over to you. Yeah thank [clears throat] you very much chair. It's uh I don't have a lot to go through but just a few things I think it might be of interest to the public. The u annual vital science report came out last week and it's definitely good reading to get it sort of a sense of the pulse of the community. What are the priorities are and what are some of the challenges facing our region. Um I had the uh last week I also was invited to

act as host for the parliamentary secretary proost uh as she made her announcement around some of the intentions of the federal government to protect natural areas across Canada. Um and uh and they have number of initiatives that were announced uh and noted that she did choose to the Oak Bay as a backdrop for that announcement. I think just the natural beauty here made for an appropriate place. There was nothing specific to Oak Bay in that announcement. Um, but we were also able to take the opportunity for to take her um and other members of the Ottawa contingent out in through a tour of Upland's Park with uh WY Thomas and Margaret Litkkey um and talking with number of the rare and endangered plants there as well. So that was uh that was very well received. Um, there was also the business improvement association annual general meeting happened last week and I just uh there was other members of council there was leazison so I won't go into it but I just wanted to

express my my appreciation for what a I think it's fairly unusually strong relationship we have between the business improvement association the municipality and our police force um that was really evident in in the course of the AGM and their reporting. Um from a CRD perspective last week there was nothing big on the agenda. um the the uh public consultation on the on the biochar pilot project um was completed. Um so that information will be coming back soon and the annual report which of course identifies all of the activities over the last year and the financial reporting was also approved at the meeting. So if anybody wants to get a snapshot of what's been happening at the CRD uh that's always an excellent report to read and with that I will hand it back to the chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much your worship for the update. So I will proceed to counselors and I will proceed alphabetically. Counselor Braithway please. I apologize. Thank you very much. Just as I was following um yeah I was I have a few things on that have been on the go. Um, I did travel to Toronto um as the um the century celebration was up for some awards as you know for the Canadian Event Awards as well as the Greater Victoria Festival Society which has sit on the board um for the um they were on up for the 125th Victoria Day parade. Um sadly the century celebration didn't win anything but the uh Greater Victoria Festival Society did win an award and this is nationwide which is a huge deal um for the 125th Victoria Day parade and um the um all-inclusive weekend that Gordy Dodd um sponsors as well. So that was really exciting to be a part of that. Um the RMTS AGM was on May 1st. uh my time as president came to an end. Um

and Valatini is now going to hold that position and I'll become past president. And I just want to take a moment to thank the board and the staff for all of that that they do um and the work that they do to ensure that the theaters are run in a way that's really inclusive and supports not only our nonprofit partners, but other cultural events that come out into our region. For example, we have a lot of um Broadway things that are coming up. Kinky Boots is coming up. Get your tickets soon. uh and uh and other things that are coming up a little bit later on this year. Uh the um the BIA, as the mayor mentioned, the BIA AGM uh was uh just this past week and the mayor and councelor Green were there and I just want to thank the BIA for all their great work. They really make us look so good. I did send the report through staff to all of the counselors um their annual report and so you can

have a read of exactly all of the activities that go on and and the the impact that they have on our community and I think it's it's huge and I I do thank them for for the work that they do. Uh chemist day we celebrated 80 years for the um the uplands park and 80 years of our volunteer extraordinaire Margaret Litkkey and that was a lot of fun. It was a great day and uh this past weekend I was able to attend the Oak Bay lawn bowling opening and was able to play a few ends and see the work uh on the interior that was made possible by grants that um they received through Oak Bay Council. And I think that's it. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Councelor Braithweight. I'll take the opportunity to say on behalf of of council uh extend our appreciation and our congratulations for the uh Victoria day, you know, for your work on behalf of that organization for that win that represents that's uh a superior accomplishment. Thank you very much for your work for that and also for your leadership on the RMTS board. That's uh fantastic. We uh we appreciate your your representation of Oak Bay and uh your contributions in that regard. Well, thank you, [sighs and gasps] councelor Green. Thank you very much, Chair. Um, I too attended CAS Day with some of my colleagues. Um, and that was very well attended. I understand at the end Margaret Litki reported she thought there were over 700 people at the event, which is incredible for CAS day. So, that and it was beautiful weather that day, too. Um I attended the BIA AGM as councelor Braithweight mentioned on behalf of tourism and uh they do a great

job and having the uh connection between tourism and the BIA is really it it it makes for a great relationship. Martin Cen sits on the tourism committee now and it took years to get that to happen and so there's a much greater collaboration between the two bodies. know as a result um I attended a GVL GVL Zoom meeting uh a heritage commission meeting and then also attended the federal environmental BC forestry preservation announcement at Queens Park at which time the federal government and I can't remember the amount but it was a lot of money for tree planting and perhaps councelor Patterson can remember the amount and how many trees they hope to plant anyway it was very well done and the secretary um who attended on behalf of the federal government had not been to British Columbia before and so she was very impressed and standing at Queens Park was amazing um as the backdrop to everything. So um and then this week tomorrow I will be attending the water commission meeting at CRD and the tourism committee meeting on Thursday night. Thank you.

Thank you councelor Green. We'll pass it to Councelor Patterson. I think councelor Green indicated that you would give precise numbers with respect to trees and value councelor Patterson. So yes, thank you chair and um like many around the table I too did attend Cameas days and it was wonderful and and I think the turnout this year was really um perhaps because it was an extra special year but it was it was a wonderful day. Maybe it was the cake I think the two large cakes to celebrate the birthday. Um it was a little messy eating, but I noticed that a lot of it was polished off quite quickly. So, um that was great and we're always so appreciative of uh everything our volunteers do and also our park staff who who attended the event and always helped to make it the success that it is. Um, and yes, on May 12th, I also was in attendance at Queen Queens Park for Secretary Provos announcement highlighting Canada's new nature strategy to protect natural environment.

Um, and yes, she she did mention the 272 million allocated to plant 95 million trees across British Columbia to help um with uh replenish the the fire zones and whatnot. So, I mean that was very pleasant. It was also wonderful. This was Secretary Provo's first visit to Vancouver Island. She was um very very impressed about uh Oak Bay and and fortunately I think one of the derelik boats was removed from the harbor before the secretary visited us. So that was that was very nice. But she was uh so impressed with um Vancouver Island. She she just couldn't believe the wonderful place that we we call home every day. So that that was wonderful. But I did note that despite um the mayor spending considerable amount of time um uh with at attending and myself and councelor Green also attending from uh we we had counselor um Thomas attending from Iscoal nations to to open with us. So, we had nice visits, but I noticed that in the Times colonist, it was Jacques Siwa that got the [laughter]

the the note, he got the photograph and the mansion in the paper. I don't know if that was because of his bilingualism and is approaching um uh the secretary and he's always very exuberant about this region, but but yeah, I thought, wow. So, Mayor and uh councelor Green, although three of us were in attendance, none of us made the front page of the TC. Um, and then on uh May 15th, I attended the official opening, the ribbon cutting for the new Crest facility out in emergency communications building out in Langford. And of course, it was the wrapup of the project. Hard to believe I because I'm the chair of the finance committee, I had to do all of the um review of the of the file.

Hard to believe that we came so close to our initial number that we projected in 2019 despite um coming through pandemics and um and supply interruptions um uh tariffs and uh inflation. But uh it will I'm really I will be very pleased. We will be have holding our board meeting and our AGM this week. So I will be very uh pleased to to report out both as a representative of the task force and as a chair of the finance committee to on the uh the successful completion of of not only the the building itself which is quite remarkable and and um I think even more than staying on time, staying on budget was the fact that the Crest staff um had the expertise to carry out a project like that and particularly transfer the switch from the RCMP building out at West Shore over to the new facility without any disruption to emergency communications in the area.

And that is that's no small accomplishment and I I credit them highly and I value them. I value the working relationship I have with them. And that will conclude my meet my report on my meetings. Thank you. Thank you so much, Council Patterson. And again on behalf of council district extend my thanks and congratulations to you for your involvement in the crest project. I know that's a major milestone and I know you played a very important role on behalf of the district in in developing that building and doing that work and we're always assiduously keeping council apprised of what the progress was on that. So on behalf of council extend my thank you for that.

Councelor Smart. Thank you. Um this past week I enjoyed participating in the um Capitol bike commuter bike challenge. Uh arriving six minutes ahead of councelor Dave Thompson from city of Victoria who um very admirably um supported another great transportation choice car share by taking an EVO. Um I also had some really good conversations about biodiversity at Cameay. Um, I also recently organized an event at Design Victoria called Grounds for Equity where we had discussion topics around fostering belonging in our community. Uh, and I joined many of uh, my colleagues around the table at the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities uh, conference where we I think Mayor Murdoch mentioned we had two successful motions supporting uh, student food banks and reduced fairy fairs for post-secary students. Uh so really glad to be able to to speak on those and um support our our students.

Uh and then I also attended again with many of the colleagues around the table the volunteer appreciation dinner at Mterrey. Thank you councelor Smart. Councelor Watson. Thank you. Um very um briefly um uh I had the uh the honor to attend on behalf of mayor and council the national day of mourning ceremony uh that was held on April 28th. Uh this national day of morning is to remember workers who have been injured or killed on the job and our staff um did a wonderful job of convening a very simple but moving ceremony at the scented garden. Um, I also attended the South Island Prosperity Partnership Municipal Partners meeting uh later that same day.

And I just want to say again how struck I am as our representative for Oak Bay at what an entrepreneurial and nimble organization that is. As you know the the um the the um senior staff have been going around to all the councils including councils who are not actively participating municipal u members um just uh explaining their role in the region and um the their catalyze if that's the right word catalyzation of economic development opportunities is really uh profound. they are the they are really the ones driving this in the great in the greater Victoria region and just hats off to them and uh I know they're they're working extremely hard right now on their mandate. Um and councelor Appleton uh will be attending the the annual general meeting in the next couple of weeks um on behalf of Okabay as the alternate leaison as I'm unable to attend. Um uh last week I attended the advisory design panel. Um uh it was a quite a long discussion about one of the applications. Those both applications that were at that meeting will be coming to council on

June the 8th. And I want to say she she can't um um you know fly her own flag but I would like council to know that our own counselor Smart was received a significant honor from the um the Royal Architutes Institute national level at the national level and has become a fellow of the institute. Um so uh highly congratulations to uh councelor Smart um clearly uh very honored in her profession and respected for the hard work that she's been doing and you know landmarks in her career. So that's all I have to say. Thank you very much councelor Watson and and congratulations to councelor Smart.

Thank you for that acknowledgement. Uh for my part I'll be brief. Um my two main appointments are with the Heritage Foundation. Uh the Heritage Foundation has been doing uh a bunch of very hard work over the fa past few months actually completely updating and modernizing their bylaws uh to in in a move to sort of modernize the operations of the uh of the foundation and reflecting their their current role and what they would like to do. I want to take the opportunity to thank staff. uh a number of our staff have been supporting the foundation in uh developing the language and aligning the language with how the foundation is intended to work with the district. So I wanted to say thank you very much for that. Um it represents a major uh evolution for the foundation and uh provides a a strong basis for where the organization will go and what they hope to accomplish. So I'm very very grateful uh to them for that. Uh and then of course an ongoing role as trustee with the Greater Victoria Public Library

Board. Um have attended uh have just attended sort of the the very long as as we do at council our end of year uh auditing and wrap-up of the financials. Did the same thing with the GVPL all as you would expect in in very very good order. Um, with respect to activities at the GVPL, I will take this opportunity to acknowledge, as council may already be aware and as public may be aware, um, it's, uh, been publicly announced that CEO Moren Sawa, who has come and presented in front of council on a number of different occasions and has been leading the GVPL for over 15 years, uh, is stepping down this year. Um she of course leaves um an an enormous hole and uh cannot be somebody will come in to serve that role but uh she cannot be replaced. Uh she is um one of the best in the country and in North America at what she does. Uh and I just wanted to

take this opportunity in this forum because we will probably not have Miss Sawa back uh at council before she steps away. I just wanted to take this uh opportunity to congratulate her. Uh to thank her for her service with the board u and my appreciation to her very particularly in supporting me as chair also mayor Murdoch as when he served as chair as well. Um she leaves an extraordinary legacy in her work and I just wanted to acknowledge that in this forum. Thank you for your indulgence in that part. So thank you. Um I will move on to section four on the agenda which is meeting matters. Excuse me. Item 4.1 is a development permit for 295 King George Terrace and I will ask uh Mr. Green to introduce. Thank you.

Thank you, chair. Uh good evening, members of council. The district has received a development permit for the property located at 295 King George Terrace. Purpose of the application is to allow the development of an accessory dwelling unit on the property that is partially located within the shorelines development permit area. This is an amended application to the one that was denied by council on March the 2nd of this year. Following the denial by council, the applicant has submitted a new amended application. The proposed accessory dwelling unit has been designed to minimize disturbance within the shoreline DPA employing a canal lever design to minimize foundation impacts and protect against sea level rise. While the previous application included variances to the zoning bylaw to reduce the required separation between buildings and structures, the size and sighting of the proposed ADU has now been amended and the applicant is no longer requesting any variances.

The proposed accessory dwelling unit still encroaches into the shoreline's DPA to the same extents as the previous application. However, the building's footprint has been reduced to achieve the required separation between the existing concrete stirs and the proposed accessory dwelling unit. The previous application also included a sighting variance to reduce the required separation between the proposed ADU and an existing wooden sitting deck on the property. This variance has also been removed and the wooding and the wooden sitting deck will be required to be removed, relocated or confirmed to not meet the definition of a structure in the district's zoning bylaw as a condition of the issuance of the permit.

The applicant has also submitted an updated letter from a qualified environmental professional addressing the impacts on the shoreline in relation to the cant design of the proposed ADU. staff are recommending that the development permit application be approved and the applicant is here online to answer any questions that council may have on their application. Thank you. Thank you much very much Mr. Green. Uh questions for staff councelor Patterson. Yes, thank you chair and through you to either the applicant or staff I guess. um in the report um [clears throat] and certainly by by the professional expert in it, the um it's it did state that so long as the light and precipitation can continue to reach the area beneath the pros proposed elevated ADU um that there would be minimal um alteration in the existing features. Um and there was um a letter attached to the report that uh it was talked about the comfort letter and it said uh it did talk about design interventions for rainwater runoff. Um uh it's on page 43 of the report and I

am just wondering if uh if we can confirm if the plan is in fact to uh introduce those interventions into the actual specifications for the application. Mr. Green. Um thank you chair. um through you to council Patterson. Obviously the letter that is attached to the staff report that addresses how that rain water will be diverted into the sort of the natural vegetation. Obviously that would form part of the development permit should council uh approve the application this evening and so that would form part of the permit that uh is issued by the district. Thank you councelor Braithweight. Thank you so much, chair, and through you to staff. Um, I'm wondering if we know about how many similarly situated shoreline lots could potentially seek a similar development. Um, yeah, that would be my first question, please.

Thank you, Mr. Green. uh through your charity council bra. I don't know the exact number but the entire shoreline is a designated development permit area for shorelines that is measured 15 m from the natural boundary uh above the natural boundary and also below the natural uh boundary. uh and so um yeah I wouldn't have the exact number of lots but yeah there are you know the district has issued in the past previously issued development permits in the environmental DPA so for example in 2024 the adjacent property at 291 King George terrace for three single family dwellings also encroached into that environmental DPA uh and earlier this year council also received an environmental approved environmental development permit for uh 193 says three cresant road for a new uh deck and uh retaining wall within that environmental DPA. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Um so I'm wondering if we know how much shading will actually occur beneath the structure and how confident um the the QEP is that the vegetation and hydrarology would re basically remain substantially unaffected underneath there. Do we do we have any idea of that from the report? Mr. Green, you probably answer to the best of your ability that the proponent may have dealt may have spoken directly with their QAP and may have additional information in that regard, but I'll leave you uh through your chair to council braithweight. You know, obviously from staff's perspective in this case on an environmental DP, we are very much reliant on the registered professional.

In this case, uh we have a report and a letter submitted by a a registered professional biologist and therefore uh we are you know essentially uh reviewed that letter and uh confirm the conclusions of that letter and report. Thank you. Please proceed. Uh thank you so much and through you. Um, yeah. I'm just I mean it it kind of makes me wonder whether we should be eventually directing staff um to whether a formal marine shoreline setback would be added to the zoning bylaw to provide maybe clearer guidance for future applications because there's so many questions that come up around this. Um my other question might be is post construction environmental monitoring required and if so do they um do they have to give a report back to us or is it up to us as a municipality to kind of follow through on that?

Mr. um through your chair to council breakway. We don't have a formal reporting mechanism in place. We don't require a condition assessment to be submitted, you know, 12 or 24 months down the road. Obviously, we always have the ability to enforce that development permit that is registered as a a charge on title. And so we do always have the ability if we think that that DP has not been followed either time of building permit or post building permit and post occupants is the ability to reinforce that development permit. Thank you councelor Braithweight. Councelor Smart please. Thank you um through chair to staff. My first question was um where some differences are existing right now between the drawings and the report.

Does the report supersede the drawings or do the drawings supersede the report? Mr. Green. Well, both would be attached to the permit acknowledging that you know some of the details may still need to be uh undertaken at building permit stage in relation to whether those columns are steel or concrete. From staff's perspective from an environmental DP, we're not, you know, it's not a form and character development permit. This is not um understanding the materials being used in terms of the construction. Um and so uh at time of building permit they have the applicant if they have a structural engineer involved at the building ter permit stage which we haven't necessarily requested any structural drawings at uh for an environmental DP therefore there could be some changes and there will be there is some u flexibility within that permit to change the columns or change the form and character of the design given that those aren't being controlled through this permit.

Thank you. Um my other question through you chair to staff is um just with regards to the site plan um I would anticipate that the 1.5 um uh meter rear setback would be from the rear legal property line and not the natural boundary that's shown on the applicant's site plan. We don't currently appear to have a site plan that shows the angular rear property line and its relevant 1.5 meter setback. Um, and when I look at the district map, it almost makes it on the aerial, it makes it look like that um, line is quite close to the bedrock outcropping, but I know that that is not an accurate map entirely. So, I guess what I was wondering to know is the staff actually have the distance from the actual 1.5 m setback um from that legal rear property line so that we know what the distance is from the ADU um to that setback.

Mr. green um through you refer the chair to um council smart obviously there was a in our zoning bylaw we have a 1.5 m rear set back to the property line however from a from an environmental development perspective what's more of concern is how much from yeah is the property located within first of all within that 15 meter setback and that 50 meter setback is measured not from the property line but it's measured from the natural boundary which is registered on title And so we know from this from the survey pond that was submitted that they are well beyond that 1.5 m. And so that's almost irrelevant in this case. What we're more concerned about is what is the distance from the natural boundary to confirm that that they are within that uh environmental DPA and to understand almost uh how significant of an encroachment within that environmental DPA.

Please proceed. Council for you, chair. Just a followup. Um, so it obviously maybe is is as you say not to the purview of our environmental discussion right now, but I guess I just uh looking at the sighting of that ADU. I guess as a someone reviewing this this item, I guess I wanted the confidence that the building location is is located um um actually within the setbacks and so I guess I'm hearing that staff is is confident about that. Please go ahead. Yeah, we our staff are confident that they are beyond that 1.5 meter reasset that for an ADU and the survey plan whilst it doesn't say the property line at the present natural boundary as per plan 102R will be the same as the property line.

Please proceed councelor. Yeah, thank you. Um through you chair and not to get too much into the weeds, but the um the property line is clearly shown as rectangular, but the natural boundary is curved and so they're two very different things, but um hearing that staff is still confident about the building setback. Thank you. Thank you, councelor Smart. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, um I do not have any questions at this time. Then I would uh seek a motion from this table. The uh staff recommendation is to approve the DP as presented. I'm happy to move that council approve the development permit DP00000068 for the property located at 295 King George Terrace.

Thank you very much. And I will second that for discussion. moved and seconded. Motion is on the floor. Discussion. Council Green. Thank you. I'll take the plunge. The first plunge. Um this is a difficult one and I have certainly struggled with it. Um because I see it from three vantage points and it's all about managing risk. Managing risk on the environmental side in terms of foreshore health and well-being. uh managing risk on the provincial housing legislation in terms of what is expected and managing risk around precedent setting. So those are the three big concerns for me. Um and I'm still thinking those through. But I I see this as a a much more u much more of a risk-taking uh application than I've seen in in a while. And I am concerned that if this sets a precedent, we will face other issues down the road on foreshore development. So, um, those are my concerns at the moment, but I'm anxious to hear from my colleagues. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Green. Mayor Murdoch, I did not give you the opportunity to motivate. I apologize. Please proceed. Oh, no. I didn't I didn't raise my hand until after, so no problem at all at all. Um, no, I'm I'm happy to support the application. I think I I think actually Councelor Green framed it very well. I think these are the concerns we think about. We do want to enable housing to happen. uh we do want to make sure that we've allocated you know we took it we we expanded the the width of the DPA a number of years ago just so that we could continue we could contemplate the entirety of the environmental area as we looked at potential development and and the ask was really not to degrade the environment and hence the environmental um uh you know review by professionals process you know every lot is very different and and that's the reason for those applicate before that review. Uh this is a fairly unique I is a very unique lot. It's it's very steep. Uh it's very bare rock. There's there's almost no uh native plants on there.

There is some invasive plants on there. Um but it's very much a a very cliff-like uh environment. uh and I think what the effort's gone to to make sure that um that sort of uh rock interface is maintained and taken care of. Um it's not untouched, but that's not the ask of the of the DPA. In my mind, the ask is, you know, if we're allowing development in that area, is it maintaining or improving the environment? And I I have a hard time looking at this and thinking it doesn't given the benefit of having additional housing in a in a in a sub 1,000 foot ADU is a real benefit to the community in my mind. Um you know I I do think that the the very minor impact on the environment in this particular location in this particular space uh is reasonable. So I'll leave it there.

Thank you chair. Thank you mayor Murdoch. I have councelor Braithweight next and thanks very much chair. Um and thanks also to councelor Green for her comments as well. Um I if I do support this moving uh forward um I just want it clearly understood that it's because I believe the application before us has been substantially revised and because of the planning rationale and policy considerations outlined by staff um it it leans itself to towards support. Um and but what I would say is that while applicants are certainly entitled to legal representation and advocacy, council decisions should not be grounded in good um should be grounded in good planning and fairness, not on perceived pressure arising from legal legal correspondence that we receive. Um and again, I believe that if if we want stronger shoreline protection um and to see changes, then we should be we should add a more formal marine shoreline setback um and it should be added to the zoning bylaw to provide us uh clearer guidance for future applications. And I think that's the direction that we should go after this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councelor Braithweight. Councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. Um uh I do um echo a lot of what councelor Braithweight just uh shared. Um I will um be supporting the application because I do feel like it currently meets our um shoreline development permit guidelines. Um, but I do think that's a further conversation that um, council should should really have. Um, and uh, but I would like to propose an amendment. Um, uh, and the amendment would be that the drawings be revised to state no additional fill under ADU natural grade preserved throughout. Uh, amendment moved and seconded. I guess I will just I will ask I will just uh refer that to staff or at least ask that question of staff as to whether or not the direction is clear and in uh alignment with typical standards that we might uh prescribe in the DPA through your chair to yeah through the chair to counc I think that would be a reasonable request that is relevant to uh to this application. Uh the amendment is moved and seconded.

Uh debate on the amendment. Oh, please motivate your counselor. I just wanted to quickly motivate um I really appreciated the applicant um uh at our last um opportunity last meeting um confirmed that this was the intent of the drawings even though um for myself it wasn't clear in the drawings and so I just wanted to make sure that this piece of information uh was carried uh forward with the drawing set. Thank you, Councelor Smart. Further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, then I will call the question on the amendment. All in favor? Any opposed? So, that carries. So, now we're back to the main motion on the floor. Uh, any further discussion of the main motion with respect to the approval of the DP?

Council Watson. Um yeah, just just to follow along the same line of commentary from council braithweight and councelor Smart, I think that uh this application now does meet the requirements and the guidelines. Um and so I will vote in support of it, but I think it has raised a bigger issue for council around the fact that we really are not protecting our shoreline in the way that we thought we were when this application came to us. And so that it behooves us, I think, as a council to do something about that. Thank you, Councelor Watson. Uh before I go, I'll go to councelor Patterson for a first time, please.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. And of course, I seconded this um for discussion purposes, but I I agree with much of what has been said around the table, but the application is as it has come back to us. I do appreciate the reduction in size of the ADU to um to limit the encroachment on the uh on the DPA. Um and I I you know and it is now there's no variances in in it. So, so that has been done also. I think with the um uh the professional report that has been provided and the uh design intervention for for rainwater runoff um that that again improves the uh the application that has come back to us. But I do agree with others around the council table that this uh does uh bring back to council I think further work that could could be done to strengthen our protection of the shorelines going forward. But I will support the application as presented.

Thank you, Council Patterson. Before I go to Council Green for a second time, I'll just make my comments and at the risk of sounding uh repetitive uh I concur with much of what has been said. Uh I think that there's been a substantive improvement to what's been presented in front of us. There's been additional information provided uh from the qualified environmental professional and I also concur with many of the comments made about uh potentially looking at additional standards for the DPA in order to accomplish the outcome that uh that council is is seeming to want to achieve. So and I'm of similar mind but council green please.

Thank you. Thank you. very briefly. I will be supporting the motion, but I really appreciate the comments of my colleagues at the table and I I do believe that we need to take measures to um strengthen our protection of the marine foreshore and obey because half of our community is is covered by foreshore. So, I think we have a huge obligation here. Thank you. Thank you very much, councelor Green. Councelor Smart. Thank you. um if possible through you chair, I I just wanted to um potentially ask um a question through you to staff just to clarify uh because my understanding is that this application does ex encroach into the DPA to the same extent as the previous application.

So I just want to make sure that all of council has the correct information if it's possible for staff to clarify the encroachment and and size of of this footprint versus the previous. I think it would be great if council was just aware. Thank you. Thank you, Smart, Councelor Smart. I think that's in order. So maybe I'll post that to put that question to staff. Is the extent of the encroachment in the revised proposal the same as the original? Through your ch through the chat to councelor Smart. Yes, correct. There is is the same encroachment into the DPA. However, the footprint of the ADU has reduced in size. I can't remember exactly what the square footage of the previous proposal. I think it was just over a,000 square ft, but this is now 954 ft. Obviously the applicant could confirm if that's of relevance to council.

Was that that's sufficient for me? I just wanted to make sure that we were all um have accurate information in front of us. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you staff. Uh seeing no further hands then I'm prepared to call the question on the motion in front of us to approve the DP. Uh all those in favor and any opposed? None opposed? It carries unanimously. Thank you very much to staff. Thank you very much. I appreciate that discussion. Uh moving on to item 4.2 which is council remuneration bylaw. This has received first three readings. So we're now moving to adoption. So uh I would ask that somebody uh move them.

I'll move that the council renumeration bylaw number 49662026 be adopted. Moved and seconded. Thank you very much. um don't generally debate on adoption, but this is an opportunity for sober second thought as it always is. Any comments on the motion on the floor or any feedback? Seeing none, then I will call the question. All in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you very much. Uh moving on to item 4.3, appointment of election officers. Uh I believe that I don't think there's a lot of preamble being presented here by staff. I think the content of the report is fairly straightforward, but uh I believe Miss Anderson can answer any questions that are uh that are on this.

I don't uh there was not a preliminary presentation uh scheduled for this one, but if anybody has any questions, staff are available. So otherwise, I will seek a motion as laid out here. Move the staff recommendation. Move second and seconded. Any discussion on the motion on the floor? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you very much. Uh, moving on to an item of probably a little bit more detail. 4.4 is upland sewer separation water water main replacement. Uh, I believe we're calling on Mr. Renick to introduce this item. Mr. Renick. Thank you very much, Chair, and good evening, council. The matter before you tonight is related to the upland sewer separation and water main replacement project.

When this project was initially scoped and awarded by council, there were some provisional items in the contract for if rock was encountered, if additional hydro excavation was required that ultimately those uh items that we had contingency for did not end up happening. There's approximately $1.4 $4 million of unspent funds in council's originally approved scope. At council's election, that could be returned to reserves. However, there are opportunities to do some additional paving and to address some critical uh structural failures in the sanitary sewer network. So, in accordance with purchasing policy, council approval is being sought to approve some change orders to expand the scope of the project and use those funds that were already allocated to the project just to a slightly different purpose on the same project. And I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Renick.

Questions for Mr. Renick. Councelor Watson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Renick. I appreciate you looking for good opportunities to spend money. Um I I did want to understand with respect to the spot repairs that you identify, I think two two sort of major and 11 minor. What if that work goes ahead? What does it do to the useful life of the asset after that work is done? And what would that council then expect in terms of um future work on that particular sewer line say over whatever that horizon is that you're evaluating priorities for? Thank you, Council Watson. Mr. Renick through the chair. It's difficult to put an exact figure on how many additional years of useful life you'll get out of a spot repair. Ultimately, what we try to do with the sanitary sewer assets whenever possible is camera inspect them and find where they have defects and essentially if we can address them through spot repairs as opposed to doing a full conventional dig. It generally is a better use of our money. uh really what would be a prudent

practice would be to do regular camera inspection you know every 10 years every 15 years for example to identify these high priority defects and fix them um so as I say I can't put an exact you know this will buy you another 10 years another 15 years but it it is a it's a prudent intervention to prevent the risk of of backups or failures from these specific uh locations thank you Mr. Yeah, thank you. I have a couple more questions just continuing on that particular issue for um the new uh infrastructure that's gone in under McNeel which includes a sewer some sewer line does it not for a segment of it if I got that right what what do you expect for that I know this is an old line that you're doing repairs to what do you expect in terms of useful life for a newly installed line in 2026 Mr. IC the expected service life for new PVC sewers is 90 to 100 years.

Thank you. And then um one other question I in terms of um your proposals re road resurfacing and new ashalt services. How will um your ex your experience with um how trenching in this major project has has affected um kind of road um surface life? How will it affect future scope and tandering for underground utilities work that that's going on? I think it sounds like reading the port report you you've something's occurred that you probably didn't anticipate when you were uh initially tandering this work and if you could just comment on that please Mr. through the chair. The scope of this project was significantly larger than a lot of the other capital projects that we deliver. Uh this was a $19 million project when typically our projects are in the 567 million range. As council is aware, there's a very long history on this project. Multiple iterations and ultimately the scope was kept as tight as possible to meet the provincial requirement to separate the sewers ahead of the end of 2025 recognizing that we

were relying on grants. So on an ordinary project, what we would do uh on a McNeel for example is assess the state of the ashalt at the start of the job. Look at how much trench is going to be taken out and if most of the road surface is in acceptable shape, Windsor is a really good example where we did the sanitary sewer up the middle of Windsor a couple of years ago and it was just reinstated. We did not approach council to do a full resurface of Windsor Road because the rest of the road was in fine shape. So I would say that the only real change on this one was exiter. Exiter was already scoped to have the ashvault removed but it was kind of a surprise that uh sorry it was uh proposed for an overlay. It was kind of a surprise that actually the ashvault is too bad to be overlaid.

Okay. So it kind of a oneoff like All right. Thank you very much. That's helpful. Thank you councelor Watson. I have councelor Braithway next. Thanks so much Chair. Um well, first off, I think that uh staff deserves some credit here because um too often municipalities spend every available dollar uh simply because it exists, but in this case, you know, you've you've brought back a project that's um under budget. I'm not sure how you did that, but thank you. Um I don't think I've ever seen that in all my time on council. So that's u pretty amazing. So kudos to you and your staff for that. Um maybe you can work your magic on other projects as well. Uh but what I would like to ask about is um around the uh deciding where this money should go. Um is the pricing um would rebidd any portion of this create any more savings or or is it that we should still be going through ashvault and windy um without going to um to procurement for

anything for for that services for from others. Mr. Renick through the chair. There would be some challenges of running a procurement. Um, we do ultimately control the scope of work, but if we were to take things from Windley's scope of work and retender them, there could be an accusation that we were being unfair to Windley. Removing the work from their scope and giving it to a contractor that we already have on contract uh with Island Ashvault is less risky from that perspective. Thank you, Mr. Rick. Please proceed. Thank you so much and you chair. Yeah, thanks for that answer. Um I'm just wondering then um would there be any future projects that would compete for those if we put this in reserves instead? Would there be any future projects that would compete for those reserves?

Mr. Enig, uh through the chair, essentially all of our capital projects are funded out of our capital works reserve. And so, um, I I think there's really two ways of looking that at that. It's these funds were allocated for this project. You could treat it as a windfall, return it to reserves, and use it to fund other projects. Or you could say, well, this is this is really kind of a just a variation of the project that council had originally scoped and originally budgeted. Thank you, Mr. Thank you so much. And I I I agree. So, thank you. Thank you, Council Braith. I have Mayor Murdoch next.

Uh thank you and through you chair just the only question I had on this I'm I'm supportive of the of the suggestion I think uh certainly the beach drive portion is so used for community events like marathons and tour Victoria and all these things and and used every day by cyclists and and and riders and so forth alike. So, uh, I guess the only question I really had on this one is that if we're bringing in ashvault crews, I I know sometimes it doesn't make sense to kind of deal with some of the little odds and ends. And there's a number of little dead end streets. I I see that on this map both uh uh the Humber Road and others are not. There's little sort of, you know, quarter block, eighth block long things that run down to the water aren't included. But I'm just wondering if it actually makes sense if the crews are there. This might be the least expensive time to tap up. And I can think there's a few. There's Humber and Rutland, um, Suriri and Tarn that are all little, you know, very short roads.

I'm just curious if the staff have looked at those, done any assessment of their of their state. It looks like they have for Humber because it's on the map, but just curious about the other ones if they've contemplated, you know, minor expansion of the scope to just deal with those while the while the crews are around. Thank you, Mayor Murdoch. Mr. Renick through the chair to Mayor Murdoch. Uh as Mayor Murdoch notes, Humber Road is on the map to essentially have the trench repaved um not to do the full width ashvault. That's because it's it's not a very busy road and the rest of the ashalt is in fairly good shape. The other roads that Mayor Murdoch referenced, uh Tarn Place, Suri Road, those are actually outside of the scope of the project. Those roads were not disturbed as part of this project. And so while I understand the the potential cost savings argument, ultimately those roads are competing with every other road in Oak Bay, one could um yeah, if

they're outside of the scope of the project, that's that's why they're not included. Uh thank you for that answer, uh Mr. Renick, and back to you, Chair. Oh, thank you, Mayor Murdoch. Further questions for Mr. Renick at this time? Uh then I would seek a motion from this table. Do you want um chair? Would you like each recommendation individually or all together? I think probably just for accuracy we should probably move them separately. Council Braithweight. I'll move recommendation number one. I'm assuming you don't want it read out. No, that's just for to approve the modification of the scope of work. Seconded. Any council green? Oh, never mind.

Moved and seconded. Um, okay. So, this is component number one of the staff recommendation about the modification to the scope of work. Any discussion on that component? Seeing none, I will call the question. All in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And then I would um move recommendation number two to approve the change order to the Windley contract. Thank you very much. Moved and seconded. Uh discussion on the second component of the staff recommendation. Seeing none, uh, I will call the question. All in favor and any opposed? None opposed. And then lastly, I would remove the third recommendation to authorize the chief administrative officer to execute a change order on behalf of the district.

Moved and seconded, discussion. [clears throat] Seeing none, I will call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. Uh, Mayor Murdoch, I see your hand. Is that uh [laughter] is that a statement? If I now that it's been passed I just hoping you could I could through you chair ask a question of staff about timelines for anticipated for completion. I think that's in order. Uh Mr. Renick can you speak to timelines now that this is moving forward? Uh thank you through the chair to Mayor Murdoch. The work is proceeding. Um, we will be executing the change order right away and we are working with Windley on acceleration and on getting updated schedules and as soon as we have something a little bit more concrete, we will share that out both through council and to the public through the project website.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Renick. Uh and before we leave this item, I would also take the opportunity as councelor Braithweight has has referred to this is a project of exceptional size and complexity. Um and so I think it behooves us to you know mention once more for for the public. Um what an achievement it is to have reached this point. uh and uh just the the scope of project as it was contemplated some seven or eight years plus ago um was extensive and to arrive at this point uh with essentially money left over uh is an exceptional accomplishment on behalf of the staff team. So I just wanted to say thank you again for that. Uh moving on to item 4.5 is accessibility plan implementation strategy.

This is with Miss Anderson. Yes. Thank you chair. Good evening members of council. The report before you introduces the accessibility plan implementation strategy. The strategy was developed from the accessibility plan which was adopted by council in 2025. The accessibility plan identified 16 barriers across the organization and following adoption of the plan staff were directed to develop an implementation strategy to address the barriers. To develop the strategy, a consultant was retained to support a structured review process. The work included research into best practices and interviews with all district department heads. The developed strategy translated the 16 barriers identified in the plan into 28 implementation actions and provides a practical approach for embedding accessibility into the district's ongoing practices. The strategy is intended to do three things.

First, it shows how the district is currently making meaningful progress and what actions are being advanced through existing work plans and budgets. Second, it identifies actions which would require future council consideration for resourcing. And thirdly, it provides an accountability measure which ensures that council, the accessibility advisory committee, and the public are provided annual updates on disability and accessibility actions. Following council's receipt of the report this evening, staff will provide the strategy and the proposed accessibility lens to the accessibility advisory committee for feedback as part of the next phase of implementation. We are here to receive feedback and answer any questions. And our consultant, uh, Miss Winter has joined us online this evening.

Thank you very much, Miss Anderson. Uh, and as noted, Miss Winter is online. Thank you for joining us and taking the time. Do have questions for staff. Can I have councelor Green and Councelor Patterson? Thank you. And through you. Thank you very much for the report and I'm very pleased to see it as well. And I just had a a minor question that was um on page three. Um it mentions installing a hearing loop in council chambers to improve accessibility for residents with hearing disabilities. This is quite a critical issue and I I'm really pleased to see that and I was just wondering has that been done or is there a timeline in mind? Thank you Miss Anderson.

Yes. Thank you through the chair. Um it is active right now. There is a hearing loop. If someone was to come in, they could connect with it. Thank you. That's great news. Ask and you shall receive. Councelor Green. Anything further? Councelor Patterson, please. Yes. Thank you, Chair, and through you to to staff. Thank you so much for the report. It is nice to see um momentum building on this coming from a province where I think they adopted this in 2003, 2004. So, it's nice to to see catching up now. But I do have a question um around the initiatives for future consideration for 2029 and 2030. Um and I guess that is on page four of 52. Um, and uh I'm just wondering what the rationale is for not considering public parking and bus stop review um with with the active transportation program that is already why in play underway really. So um and because particularly transit uh transit stops are being affected by um active transportation uh routes

throughout the whole region um and are are more being addressed as an afterthought as we are postponing a decision on this too. So I'm wondering if uh staff could just present the rationale for how th those decisions are made. Thank you councelor Patterson. Anderson, that may be a question for you or maybe the consultant. So, yes, thank you um through your chair. We are um fortunate that Mr. Renick, director Renick is in is in attendance tonight. So, if if he had anything to build on that question, Mr. Renick, please. Uh thank you through the chair. As it is noted in the report, an accessible parking and bus stop review would be a fairly significant undertaking as it was initially scoped would require an an inventory of all accessible parking spaces both in municipal lots and on street locations. And the review of bus stop amenities would really involve consultation with BC Transit as well as coordination with regional partners. And so when we were reviewing this plan,

just based on the the scope of the work and the other um the other items that are in the work plan, we felt that was one that uh that needed to be deferred. Thank you, Mr. Renick. Uh follow-up question, council. I I I guess as a followup to that then um if we are delaying the um the review of this until that point in time when uh when some of the active transportation routes could already be be have been implemented or or uh planned. It it seems shortsighted to me to not consider these things along with the planning for any roots that are being considered so that um we're not progressing to a point where we will be limited prevented in the future from addressing the situation in a way um that both from a funding and a practicality and safety standpoint are managed effectively. with active transportation.

Um, so I would I wouldn't want it to to prevent us in the future or cause problems or or have to backtrack on some of the the active transportation that is planned for the community if we have to go back and modify at a later date. Um, particularly some of the transit stops. And I I I say this because I'm experiencing it throughout so much of the of the region and so I I do find that disappointing. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Patterson. Not sure there's Well, I was if staff wishes to respond, please go ahead, Mr. Hannik. Through the chair, deferring a comprehensive review does not preclude doing specific targeted reviews for that those pieces of infrastructure that would be affected by a particular route.

There were challenges in some implementations in the past. For instance, the uh the floating bus islands on Pandora in City of Victoria. That's no longer considered best practice. Um and so certainly we would be able to undertake, as I said, we would be able to undertake review of how specific projects affected specific transit stops without necessarily having to undertake the comprehensive review. Thank you very much, Mr. Renick. I have councelor Braithweight and smart. Thanks so much uh chair and through you. Um the report really uh repeatedly talks about accessibility should become embedded into all municipal decision making through an accessibility lens. Um and and I think that sounds really positive. That's great. Um but it's a little bit vague too. Um so I'm wondering um how the accessibility lens practically will work in the staff reports um for decision-making. Will it be a checklist or something like that?

Do we know that yet? Miss Anderson. Yes. Thank you through the chair. Similar to the financial impacts, there will be a box where we will list the accessible impacts. Please. Thank you so much. Um and then um it we talked in the um report it talked about uh proposing an uh an idea position. Um and I'm not sure if that would be temporary or permanent staffing. And I'm wondering if we know what the cost and scope yet around something like that or an estimate of the cost and scope around that would be. If not, I totally understand. It's just out of curiosity. Uh Miss Hunt, I'll give you to answer to the best of your ability.

Yes. Uh we don't have um uh the actual cost and scope of that yet, but um uh originally staff were looking at hiring a consultant to do a variety of the uh this work. And I think that looking at whether a temporary staff position uh for a couple of years may be able to come in and do that instead of uh a consult you know consultant or variety of consultants uh there may be some benefits uh to that that approach and uh in advance of the budget process we would be um approaching council with uh with those options. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you so much chair. Um, and I I guess that's the same because the the report also talks about um how many future items are low, medium, or high cost, but without detailed estimates yet, obviously. Um, but do we know perhaps when we might receive some of the more detailed estimates around this or do we have to wait until we're further down the road? Ms. Hunt.

Yeah, thank you very much. um through the chair to council braith we would be bringing those forward individually as part of the budget process where we would have uh you know defined scope and and and a budget and council will be considering it at that time. Thank you. Uh councelor Smart please. Yeah, thank you um through you chair to staff just actually building upon a lot of what has been discussed already but just a little bit further on the looking at this amazing list and it's so great to have this in front of us just wanting to understand beyond the the update um checkbox on staff reports which sounds amazing um uh just wondering about the sort of operational versus council involvement decisions with a lot of things on this list so to give a particular example developing a district-wide AI use policy. Um, it looks like that's being considered operational and I'm wondering like is today a day you would want feedback on any report that council wanted to be more involved with or is the assumption

really at this point that this is all operational and um that it will be just communicated out to the public. Thank you, Miss Anderson or Miss Hunt. [clears throat] Uh thank you through the chair of councelor Smart. Um certainly looking for any feedback that council has. I I think my question to you is uh whether or not you're referring to items that we've already sort of deemed as underway and operational um or or you know future items. But uh certainly um yeah would like to hear your your your thoughts around uh any of the items that are on the list. Go ahead councelor Smart. Um thank you. And are we doing questions and comments at the same time right now?

Chair, uh, I guess if we're if it's relevant to the uh, relevant to your point that you're pursuing here, councelor Smart, you could uh, make a comment for sure. Um, no, thank you. Um I would just add a a comment then that I think um quite a few counselors around this table attended um some informative sessions on uh the use of AI at um a recent conference and I I do think there's a lot of interest at this table and being a part of the conversation about how um that is used. Um uh my other question was just with regards to um bus stop accessibility. Um, and my question just to um expand upon what's been discussed already, I understand BC Trend actually does have quite a comprehensive program where they even list at the bottom of each bus stop sign whether or not it's deemed accessible or not. Um, so I was wondering is did staff see um the district's role in bus stop

accessibility really being almost an advocacy project of like looking at how many stops weren't accessible and and trying to um promote the desire for those in in Oak Bay. I'm just wondering what staff saw as the our role versus what BC Transit is already doing from an accessibility standpoint. Thank you council. I'm not sure where best to direct that. We'll start with Mr. Renick. Thank you, Mr. Renick. Thank you, Chair. Accessibility of bus stops is really a partnership between the district and BC Transit. We are a recipient of their shelter program where when we are replacing the shelters, it's done through cost sharing between BC Transit and the district. It's fairly there's a lot that goes into making a transit stop accessible and some of that work does fall on the municipality and it can be things like is the sidewalk that people need to take to get to the bus shelter smooth and barrierfree. Uh we deal with challenges around the geometry for buses approaching the bus

stop outside of pharmacy as to whether or not they can safely deploy the ramp. So I would say that there's more than just an advocacy piece there. There is work for staff there as well. Thank you, Mr. Running. Uh, Councelor Watson, thank you. I have a question, I think, first for maybe um Miss Hunt and then one for Mr. Renick, actually. Um um the the immediate actions in the in the implementation strategy are I would say maybe fair to say fairly diffusely distributed throughout the organization. And I just wanted to understand a little bit how um how the the organization will maintain focus and accountability for the things that are listed. It's a fairly long list of things that are kind of in in assigned to departments in in in in moving forward um the the the strategies that have come out of the accessibility plan. So if you could just comment on that miss Anderson.

Yes. Thank you through the chair. Um, appended to the um, strategy is a is a the steps and the action plan which we will bring to council annually and that outlines there's a checkbox for the status and progress notes of each action and we will be bringing it to the accessibility advisory committee prior to council each year. Sorry, I missed that. The the report was quite long. I obviously missed. Was is that right at the end of the report? Okay. I'm so sorry. Okay. Um my my next my only other question and it's um uh just gets back to some of the um the the the um the reports reflection on the fact that um uh in terms of ongoing things that we're already doing. Let me just get the page reference so I get this right. Page 1452.

Here we go. Um in terms of um accessibility um improvements in the physical environment um both the staff report and the consultants report um talk about our adherence in uh work to the BC active transportation design guide when designing sidewalks, trails and other public infrastructure. And I just wanted to ask Mr. Ranic. Within the last few months, council actually changed our direction in that regard because we adopted a motion that the previously requested constraints of a default design standard be removed when developing defined detailed plans for the active transportation network. And I just wondered if there's any conflict between what we're saying we're doing consistently here and the new direction that council gave around doing that design. Do do we need to revisit that that um that new direction Mr. Renick through the chair? Typically the the types of accessible infrastructure that have been being added recently are the tactile warning surface indicators uh that were installed at the Wilmont crosswalk for example. Uh it's things like audles on the traffic signals. Um, so I don't see those as being in in conflict with

council's motion regarding all ages and abilities cycling infrastructure. Thank you. I just wanted to check about that. Thank you, Councelor Watson. Any further questions for staff? Councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you, Chair, and um through YouTube. I guess this is really about website development and uh accessibility and so I'm wondering if staff can just um confirm what we will be using for accessibility checkers on uh color contrast in the either documents on the website or or uh through hard copies. Miss Anderson. Thank you to the chair. the the website is managed through our strategic initiatives department. So I don't have that information on hand but I can certainly get it for you.

Thank you. And if I might just continue chair because I notice I notice this in Sanich too with their um accessibility um uh program that they have that the the program document when you go to the website does all comply with the color contrast web aim. Um and so it is um very pleasant to read visually but it's not carried throughout [laughter] it is not carried throughout their website probably because it would not make the website as as interesting. So, I don't know um what progress has been made in um making it adaptable, but I think that it is something that is worth worth considering um because it it does make it [clears throat] much easier and much pleasanter to read. Thank you. Noted, Councelor Patterson. Thank you.

Any other further questions for staff? Seeing none, then I would seek a motion. I'll move for seat. Moved. And do we have a seconder? Seconded. Very good. Um, do you wish to motivate council brae? No. Just thank you very much staff for the uh for the report and I'm happy to support it. Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion on the floor? Seeing none, then oh, sorry, Council Watson, go ahead. Uh yes, just a question for staff. So this will be going to the accessibility advisor committee within a I think it's coming up real soon next week or so. Okay, I am seeing nodding heads and so that will be confirmed. Councelor Green, thank you. Um chair, I just want to say this is a great body of work, a long time coming and I really appreciate all the appreciate all the staff support as well as counselor support on this on this initiative. I think it's going to have a great deal of meaning for

residents who require this this kind of additional support. So, thank you. Thank you, Councelor Green. Agreed. Uh, I will call the question. All in favor? And any opposed? None opposed? Carries. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Anderson and staff. Um, moving on to section five of the agenda. These are special meeting matters that are subject to public input. The next couple of items are are subject to public input. First of these is item 5.1 which is signed bylaw amendments for election signs. Uh and Mr. Renick uh will be introducing. Please proceed. Mr. Renick. Thank you, Chair. As noted in the report, council had initially seen a draft bylaw limiting the number of locations on public boulevards where election signs could be placed. that was presented to council at the evening of April 27th. At that meeting, council passed a motion seeking some modifications to the location map.

Following a review, staff removed two of the locations that had been originally proposed due to sighteline consideration and have added an additional four locations. Uh so we are now proposing a total of 11 locations and based on the figure on page two uh as much as possible tried to strike a geographic balance of covering the entire district. Uh unfortunately we did find that South Oak Bay just does not have the traffic islands or or the large boulevards and so we had to get a little more creative with locations. But uh this is the revised report as per council's direction and happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much Mr. Renick. Questions for Mr. Renick on the report. Councelor Smart. Oh, thank you. Um through your chair to staff. Um just one question. Um one of the locations at Estavan and and East Down uh in the last election signs were always removed from this location. I think I tried three times and it wasn't just my signs. everybody's signs were always taken down. Um and so being that this is actually going to be a suggested location um does staff um have some way that they could support signs? Apparently the um you know criminal offense with up to two years maximum prison sentence isn't enough for whatever um um this person who doesn't want them there. So can the district place place a sign that says election signs can go here? Can we do something to support that location? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Renick. Uh through the chair, that actually I did not know that signs were being removed from that location, but I'm seeing nods from the other members of council. Um so to be clear, that was not being removed by district staff. That was a neighbor that was that was doing that. [clears throat] I think that we could take it away and we could discuss some strategies, but I I agree with councelor Smart's point that the fact that it's a criminal offense ought to be a deterrence enough, but yes, we can take that away. Thank you very much, Mr. Anik. Councelor Smart. Yeah, just one further question. So, um, in reviewing the existing sign bylaw, um, it looks like we do currently allow signs technically on municipal land in front of schools when it's not voting days. Um, however, this proposed report, um, it appears would change this to not allow signs on municipal lands in front of school properties. And so, I just wanted staff to confirm my

understanding, um, of how this proposal um, would change that just in light of the the new way that school um, trustee elections are happening. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Smart. Mr. IC through the chair. The current bylaw prohibits the placement of signs on boulevards where municipal facilities are located and it lists a number of examples. I it would be my interpretation that even if the municipality is the owner on title of school district lands that those boulevards would be allowed for election signs under the current bylaw because they are not municipal facilities. If the proposed bylaw that's attached to the staff report were to be adopted, it is correct that school district boulevards in front of school districts would no longer be locations for election signs.

Thank you, Mr. Enick. Further questions for Mr. Council Braithweight. Uh, thanks very much. Um, and you chair. I'm just wondering as far as the waterfront locations go. Um there's one that's substantially larger than many of the other areas. Um, and I'm wondering if um, number one, we we kind of looked at how scenic and and tourism impacts might be considered for waterfront locations and if there would be a maximum size um, considered for sign locations along the waterfront like as far as not going from um, uh, in this particular case from I think it's Barrettsford to uh, um, Windsor Road. Thank you, Mr. uh through the chair. We did put in the draft bylaw that um did we actually put that in there? Yes, thank you. We did put in the draft bylaw that there would be two signs per candidate per location.

Ultimately, it's difficult to predict how many candidates we might have in a given election. The concern was that if you constrain it to a very small area, are you now having conflicts where people are putting their signs on top of each other? I'm sensitive to the concern that was raised in the correspondence that it would create um a billboard effect, [snorts] but ultimately if you have six candidates, two signs each, you know, 12 signs across that entire region, I don't think is going to create a significant amount of clutter. Please proceed. I think perhaps in that location the the bigger thing would be um when there's a windstorm all of those signs are going to end up in the water probably because a lot of them are not um they're not uh really tied down so that they can't not blow away. And so I think that for me would be um a bigger concern rather than the number of signs along there. It would be how easily they would get blown into the into the ocean and become an

environmental concern. Okay. Just I was looking for the question in there, but that's okay. Uh, any other questions for staff? Councelor Watson, please. I'm not sure if it's a question or and I don't actually know who to direct it to, but I I just noted that we've in the bylaw, we've drafted a a 4 foot height limit from natural grade for these election signs, but in our homebased business consultation, we're actually suggesting 4 1/2 ft as the height limit for signs on private property, or I guess they'd be in the public boulevard for homebased businesses. And there's a discrepancy there which I think is an odd one uh given that election signs are maybe just as important as signs advertising homebased businesses. And I wondered maybe this is from Mr. B if at this point in time it would be possible to um rethink that proposal in the homebased business um bylaw uh consultation so that we have sign heights that are consistent.

Thank you, Council Watson. Maybe I'll just uh may maybe I'll slightly redirect that again to Mr. Renick and just ask whether or not there was, you know, sort of what consideration was made between those two municipal standards and whether or not there are things that are uh informing those two heights differently possibly. Thank you. That was way better put. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Watson. Thank you, the chair to councelor Watson. When you look at the existing sign bylaw in Oak Bay, we do actually have a host of different sign sizes, sign regulations for the type of sign. For a lot of our signs, we don't actually specify a width and a height.

Um, for example, construction signs, they just have a sign area. Election signs were an exception where election signs did specifically have the requirement of 2 ft by 2 feet on public property. When we were writing this amendment, because we recognized that by limiting the locations to certain public boulevards, we might be introducing a sighteline hazard. That was why we put in the 4T above natural grade because that's a that's a fairly standard. That's the level at which you want to ensure there's nothing blocking a sight triangle for a driver. I don't see that as being in conflict with the homebased business signs which are likely to be on on a lawn and they're really only impacting a view of the house as opposed to uh potentially being at an intersection. Thank you. And that's helpful.

Thank you, Councelor Watson. Further questions for staff? Do not see other questions arising. This is an item which is open for public input. So if there is anyone in the room or online that wishes to comment on this item, uh you are more than welcome to do so. I see somebody coming forward. So uh as always with uh uh uh comments to council, please state your name and your municipality of residence and you please proceed. Hello. Um thank you. My name is Anton Brackage. I'm a resident of Oak Bay. Restrictions on political speech should not be undertaken lightly. I still have not seen demonstrated a pressing need for this proposed amendment. I certainly do not think such a restriction should be made on purely scenic concerns.

Um I also have to say from my personal experience, I don't feel um that the environmental concern holds a great deal of weight. Having been a candidate and a volunteer on multiple campaigns, I have not found that signs tend to come loose on their own and blow around a great deal. People do sometimes pull them up, which as we've noted is a a criminal offense. And certainly um if if people are deliberately sabotaging campaign signs, that should not be rewarded in my view by giving them the restrictions that they want on those signs. Um, the arguments presented appear contradictory. There's little public demand for this change from what I've seen. Um, in correspondence in the report, there's no evidence of significant safety issues caused by the status quo. And the report to council indicates that there is not expected to be a workplace or financial impact to the change. So, everything else aside, is this really a good use of council or staff's time?

[gasps] Um, I also note two of the new uh two of the previously proposed locations have now been removed as unsafe from the new map. I'm curious as to why this supposed hazard was missed before. And above all, I think I'm concerned about the appearance it creates of council potentially tipping the scales in in an election in terms of where signs are located, how that benefits certain candidates. I was concerned to see a member of the public suggesting correspondence that one of the locations proposed appeared to favor a specific counselor. I'm not saying that's correct, but even that suspicion is damaging to the democratic process and to the public trust in it. And I see no benefit clearly to the proposed change that balances out that harm. A final note, we've heard a lot of talk about how this change would affect local elections, but I'm very curious as to how it would affect provincial and federal elections and campaign signs there as well. Um, regardless, while the new version of the

proposed amendment appears to be an improvement in so far as it is less restrictive and more geographically balanced, I think that it was a mistake for council to go down this road in the first place and continuing would be doubling down on that mistake. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Brackage. hands online or anybody else in the room for public feedback. So, I will bring it back to this table. Councelor Braithweight, please. Yeah, just a quick question that had come up from um the the comments just made uh and it's to staff. Um I'm I'm I'm pretty sure that our any rules that we change for municipal election signs do not um uh roll over into provincial.

But I would just like clarification from staff if that's true or not. Would it affects would it affect provincial election signs? Mr. Ranic through the chair. Yes, it absolutely would. Provincial and federal elections. You actually that's helpful because that's sometimes where we see more of a proliferation of signs. So that's great. Thank you. Thank you, Council Green. Thank you very much. I appreciate the correspondence and the comments tonight. I just did a quick scan myself today. of the province and those communities who do have uh signage policy and it's the city of Victoria, North Kawichin, Richmond, Siri, Kquitlam, Nanaimo. Nimo also has size requirements um on public space and Cranbrook is looking at signage policy ahead of the 2026 election. So I want I you know I want to make the point that this is not something unique or unusual to obey that it is being um practiced in other parts of the province. So that that was my point that I I was curious myself. Thank you.

Thank you councelor Green. I appreciate those comments. Um at this stage seeing no other feedback then I would seek a motion from council. Council Patterson. Yes. Uh thank you, Chair. I will uh re I'll move that signed by law number 3946197, amendment bylaw number 4962 2026 be read a first and second time. So moved. Do I have a seconder? I'll second for discussion. Seconded for discussion. Councelor Patterson, did you wish to motivate? Yes. I I think that um staff have responded as they were uh directed to by by council and I think that they have um attempted to ensure that there that the democratic process is intact but also that there um there are guidelines for safety related issues for traffic flow.

I also think that um it's I appreciate this being done ahead of time because the locations are clearly marked and that makes it will make it easier for um for any candidates who are placing signs and just do some of the comments made. I will say that I don't think that this I think in fact my opinion is that this is um more equalizes the process because it ensures that that anyone that wants to participate it's it puts everybody on an equal playing field so that we we don't have um one one or two candidates that that um blanket the uh municipality in the public realm with signs because of course we can still um they can still choose to work with with residents within the community who may be quite willing to have signage placed on the boulevard in front of their homes. So to a certain degree um uh you know there there is some room for um perhaps one or two candidates to have more signs, but I think in the public realm it it puts

everybody on an equal playing field and so I support it. Thank you, Councelor Patterson. Further discussion on the motion on the floor. Councelor Watson, please. Thank you. Um, I will not be voting in support of the motion. Um, I I do appreciate that staff have done exactly what they were asked to do, and we've had a couple of rounds on this, but I'm I'm really um I'm I am more all the more convinced, particularly after hearing Mrs. Mr. Brackage's commentary tonight, that this is a solution in search of a problem. um and that we will be doubling down on a mistake that we've already made by pursuing this. I think that there was no evidence of safety concerns, no nuisance complaints uh after the previous elections and um election signs are an important opportunity for in uh incumbent and firsttime candidates to um let the community know that they're running for the important role of political office to govern the community. And I don't see any need um to pull back what's already being done.

I I disagree with the assertion from uh one of the court the the one letter writer that um uh it it is um it allowing um these signs on municipal property on the public boulevard is free advertising. That would also be the case for any election signs that are put in front of people's homes. it would then be free advertising. I think it is free speech is what it is and it's important and I I think that for first time how do we know from for how candidates um may or may not be able to um make themselves known to individual homeowners or property owners who'd like to take their signs. So, I think that um we need to um leave things the way they were and uh um that that that that's an important thing to do. This is a very shortterm use of the public space, whether it's in front of people's homes on the public boulevard or whether it's on public property and the areas identified in these maps. And we I think we're making really much a do about nothing to the

detriment of allowing um uh information to be shared about who would like to um put themselves forward for the important position of candidacy for office. Thank you, Councelor Watson. I have Mayor Murdoch next. Yeah, thank you uh chair and and I guess I'll make a couple of general uh quick comments and I have a couple of suggested uh uh changes and I think if it's if you're amendable I'll just do them by motion and we can have a quick talk about them one by one. I um but just my generalized comments here I think I think it's a good discussion for us to have. I think the I think there's an important point that's been raised about freedom of speech and I there are multiple ways of people you know having a getting the word out that they are running for office. Um signs are one way. I I think the freedom of speech in two different ways though. One the primary purpose of election signs is that people who uh are politically engaged and and want to show their

support for a candidate use signs as that mechanism. That is their that is their way of sharing to the community who they're supporting and and driving that communic that conversation in their neighborhood. Um it is a secondary purpose to my mind to have them as as billboards or as u just generalized science you know raising awareness. Um so I think they're both of value but I think the primary purpose there is really for individuals. I do think it's reasonable given that that we have I do allow for public space and I think the direction given uh to kind of for selection being around um you know being more cognizant of of sight lines and safety especially as we are more clear about the height of these signs. I know the question was asked about why were some taken off. The answer to that was because we are allowing these signs to to be you know election signs are a certain height. They do block views uh and that that creates some um uh some safety issues.

So if if you're a minimal I have uh just not very many just a few uh suggested changes and I think if it's okay chair I might just make those we can just discuss them quickly one by one and I'll just motivate very quickly on each one to explain the rationale just for clarity or worship so that that would be in order uh as described in the options in the staff report we're talking there are a couple of options uh outlined for either removal or addition of locations just for clarity are you referring to the removal or addition of locations with your amendments. Um, in fact, I think most are just just clarification of the of the of the uh drawings. So, I'm going to maybe we can give this to staff if they see if that's if that's amendable within the second reading or if that has to go back for the the the drawings to be amended.

Uh, just hold one you thank you your worship. Uh, I think Miss Anderson as or staff can comment on this at this time. So, please go ahead Miss Anderson. Thank you, chair. just to provide some procedure. Um the appropriate time to make amendments would be following first and second reading. So between second reading and third reading could do proposed amendments. Okay. Then I I will I will do that. I will wait for the completion of if second reading passes then I've got some uh some suggested changes that would that I think will will help a little bit. Okay. So just for clarification, your worship, you're referring to uh clarifications of the locations as outlined in the attachments to the staff report rather than additions or deletions.

I have uh no I have I have both just amendments to the to the sighting and then uh and then some I think it's worth throwing them on the on the patch for consideration for deletion. Um and I'll make clear what those are when I make the motions if that's amendable, but I'll I'll leave it for now. I understand procedurally what we should do here is if there's support for this uh for second reading I'll make those amendments after second reading. Thank you mayor Murdoch. So just for clarity uh we are at second reading of what is presented in the staff report. Uh further further discussion or further debate. Councelor Smart.

Yeah thank you. Um I won't be um supporting first and second reading. Um, I I do support the increased amount of locations that we're seeing right now, but I I don't don't support this whole exercise being that in the last election there was not a single infraction. And I I strongly believe that this does privilege everybody around this table uh to be making this decision right now. And so I I don't find it appropriate. Um, this is a for new people that are coming in, new candidates that are running for council. They need to get their name out there and and public locations of election signs when they're starting a campaign is one of the easiest ways to do that. And uh, limiting the ability to do that when we've had no complaints in the last municipal election does not feel appropriate to me. Um, however, if this passes, I do also have um one amendment to um add a location um uh that I will be putting forward.

Thank you, Councelor Smart, Councelor Braithweight. Um thanks so very much, Chair. Um I brought this motion forward because election signage on public property has become to me an increasingly challenging issue for many municipalities. Um during election periods, we often see a large number of signs placed on boulevards, medians, and other public areas. While election signs are an important part of the democratic process, their placement on public land can sometimes create concerns around visual clutter, traffic safety, and accessibility. Our boulevards, parks, and streetscapes are shared public spaces. Reasonable limits on signage helps us ensure these spaces remain safe, accessible, and visually welcoming for everybody. Many municipalities, as councelor Green has pointed out, across BC have addressed this issue by introducing clearer rules for election signage. Cities such as Sanich, Richmond, Vancouver, Kquitlam, and Colona have implemented bylaws that either limit signs on public property or establish designated locations where signs can be placed. These approaches still allow candidates to communicate with voters while helping municipalities protect the quality and safety of their public spaces. Designated signs locations can actually improve fairness

by ensuring each candidate has equal access to public space. Instead of a well- financed candidate being able to put a 100 signs in one location, it equalizes it to only two per location, and everyone can do that. Importantly, the motion before council does not propose banning election signs. Signs would still be permitted on private property with the property owner's consent, which is where most campaign signage typically appears. What this motion asked is is simply that staff review the current bylaw and bring forward options that could establish designated public locations and reasonable limits on signage in those areas. And they have uh and this to me um helps ensure fairness for candidates, reduce visual clutter in the public realm, and provide clearer rules for both campaigns and staff responsible for enforcement. Clear rules reduce complaints and enforcement challenges for staff and reducing sign proliferation also reduces environmental waste associated with with election cycles. I think this is a practical step and that other municipalities have taken and that we should take as well. Thank you.

Thank you councelor Braithweight. I'll take the opportunity to speak to this. I'm I'm not supporting the motion on the floor uh as I have not supported the process from the very beginning. Um, I feel that limitations on democratic expression, which election signs clearly are, regardless of uh interpretation of intent or interpretation of uh support or financing thereof, um are a critical part of democratic expression and should only be limited and should only be modified under extraordinary conditions with a very strong rationale. And as we have heard repeatedly and have as we have had confirmed there was no such issues identified during the last municipal election nor in any other election uh that I have been aware of in recent memory. So this is responding to uh an issue which has not been raised which is it does not respond to a direct concern. It just does not respond to an issue and it takes uh it uh it fundamentally restricts the ability of political candidates to express themselves uh in a democratic way. So

I've been adamantly opposed to the process from the very beginning and I will continue to oppose it. So those are my comments. Any further discussion on second reading? Councelor Watson? Yes, thank you. I did just want to say one more thing as a point of clarification. election signs in front of people's homes are on the public property. They are in the public domain and we are not placing any restrictions on those. And I just I just find this whole exercise um quite mystifying um that we are giving in effect free reign to the the use of the of of public property in front of people's homes and then we're restricting it um uh in in other municipal spaces. It's just in congruent to me. Councelor Watson, Councelor Braithweight for a second.

Thank you, Chair. I think um if I may, um putting a sign in front of someone's public property um basically means that you have permission from that person. Nobody can just willy-nilly go and put a sign up in front of someone's house without the permission of that um resident. And even if there's a sidewalk with a boulevard beside it, our rules state that that boulevard is considered a continuation of the house that is in front of it. And um and so there would need to be permission from that household to put a sign on that boulevard as well. Thank you, councelor Braithweight. Uh councelor Patterson, please.

Yes, thank you chair. And I I will just um echo what councelor Braithweight has said and uh previous councils made that concrete decision to require a homeowner's consent to put a sign on the boulevard because of complaints that the council of that day got about the overp proliferation of signs throughout the community. So um this is not a benign issue that hasn't been discussed before. It has there was uh a decision made about that for exactly that reason. And I think the same concerns have have been raised publicly um about transit routes and um uh the visibility that may be blocked if if signs are not restricted to a a reasonable height and reasonable number so as to not obstruct traffic flow. So I I do support this because I think that it is in fact what what this council and previous councils heard from members of the public and that was to uh yes encourage the democratic process but to not overdo the signage and particularly in ways that

blocked um uh transportation routes in ways that were unsafe. And I think staff have responded with this report by doing exactly that. So I am supportive of it. Thank you, councelor Patterson. I have Mayor Murdoch and then Council Green. Yeah, having already spoken to this, I'll keep my comments short. I I do appreciate the comments that have been made around the table. I think just for clarification, we already have a signed bylaw. What's being proposed here is to clarify uh by putting in explicitly where signs are allowed as opposed to giving general direction. Um I do think this probably does actually in fact impact uh federal and and provincial uh elections a bit more because they're probably less familiar with the community and this gives them a little bit more clarification and it easier to find those locations that qualify. Um but that being said, I think there's a a comment made as there was no issue in the last election and uh it is perhaps true that there was no I don't know lawsuit or formal complaint, but I think

anybody with common sense as as people interpreted the by the sign bylaw in different ways. We were seeing a proliferation of signs on a couple of particularly a couple of islands. I think of the one at the at the bend of where Oak Bay becomes Newport that had a large number of signs and that was a very dangerous location that was blocking sight lines and that was true of a number of islands. So I I do think this is rational. I think it makes sense for us to again I see this as a as a minor tweak to an existing sign bylaw that already limits where signs can go.

Uh it creates a significant amount of clarity and uh ensures that there's there's safety at the places that the signs are being used. So I I think there's a bit of hyperbole uh in some of the comments that have gone uh on this one. And I just think rationally it's it is our job to look at this and and and use our common sense and look at ways of of applying uh you know is the sign bylaw working now? Yes. Could it be a little bit better? I believe so. I think some of these changes will will make that an improvement again particularly for the non-municipal elections where the the clarity of of of location will be of great benefit. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Murdoch. Council Green, thank you, Chair. Thank you for all the comments, everyone. Um, I I don't see this as an unusual undertaking. Um, it is consistent with a number of other communities in British Columbia. As I uh indicated earlier, I also think it is an equity issue. I think that um restricting signage equitably across the board um provides equal opportunity to new candidates as it does to incumbents. And I will tell you that in every election I have run in, there is sign anxiety. Um it and it is about the ability to afford signage. It is about where they're placed, how they're placed, and I think I think the clarity really will reduce some of that anxiety for candidates and also for staff in that regard in terms of enforcement. So, I will be supporting the motion and um I appreciate the comments and thank you for the report, Mr. Renick.

Thank you, Councelor Green. Councelor Smart. Yeah, I would I just summarize that as an existing candidate, we probably all around this table have a a list of many contacts from previous elections in which we can call on day one and immediately put up all of our election signs on private property. As a new candidate, you have to make all of those relationships in a very short amount of time going door to door asking people that don't even know you to put up a sign on your lawn. It is not the same. Um, and I really feel that restricting these sign locations advantages us and disadvantages uh new candidates running.

[clears throat] Thank you, Councelor Smart. We have the motion for a second reading on the floor. So, I will call the question. All in favor? And all opposed? Councelor Smart, Watson, and myself opposed. That passes. So, we're now at second reading. Uh, Mayor Murdoch, if you had some amendments to make, uh, I will invite you to please bring those forward. Sure. Thank you, Chair, and for your indulgence on this. I I I guess the first uh I was going to go sort of in the order in the uh in the report if people want to look at the at the images on there. The first one is on page seven of 16 at the Cedar Hill crossroad and Cadbury Bay Road. And I'd like to make a motion to uh just this is really more related to the graphic uh to limit the signs to the western maybe if if I can just get a second or I can just quickly motivate on each of these uh amend the

uh the graphic to indicate the just the westerly half of that island. Moved and seconded. Moved and seconded. So just this is just u again us uh different all of us having different experiences here. I know that that route is used uh very frequently by uh cycling groups um that use the uh that that quadrant of uh Cadru Bay Lands down Henderson, Cedar Hill cross um for doing circuits and that corner um is because they want to come around that corner at some speed um that visual corridor is quite a difficult one and I think if we just if I think particularly in other people going down So the plane are also going to have a bit of that challenge as it's a turn. So I just think from experience I think that if we just limit it to the western half um still for allow for the sight lines around the corner uh for that use without putting people at risk.

Thank you Mayor Murdoch. I guess then I would put a question to staff. Uh number one I guess you're proposing the westerly portion of what is uh displayed in the Cedar Hill crossroad and Cabro Bay Road. I guess my questions for staff would one uh how would that how practically could that be enforced for one thing and secondly u was the traffic island in its entirety not considered as far as like as I understand it uh visibility and and traffic considerations were a primary driver towards consideration of locations. So was that visibility component considered for the entirety of the island? Mr. Renick. Uh, thank you for the question, Chair.

I'll actually answer them in the reverse order. So, the visibility was considered for the entire traffic island. In an initial draft of the bylaw, we also had the middle traffic island at that intersection and ultimately removed it because we felt that one was was a no-go. In terms of the practicality of enforcement, I I think that it's it's difficult to translate lines on a page and a bylaw to reality on a boulevard. Um I I think it's it's easier if it's the entire island, but if it's the will of council to have that be a smaller polygon, ultimately that's that's the direction that council can provide.

Thank you, Mr. Renick. So the amendment which is on the floor is for a restriction to the westerly component of the uh island outlined at Cedar Hill crossroad and Cabro Bay Road. That's on page 7 of 16. So just if I may, I think having heard that from Mr. Renick, I'm uh willing to take that back and I think we can we can let this one try it as it as it is. So I'm happy to to rescend my motion to amend. So and that's amendable to the second. Okay. Okay. Julie withdrawn. Uh, Mayor Murdoch. So, you have Yeah. No, thank you. Uh, and then going to the um um the other one was just this one I think is just will benefit. It's just the beach drive from Windsor to Barersford.

Um that that has a natural end right at Barisford. um as described where there is a crosswalk and a and a and a and a cross in a in a walkway barrier. The um extending beyond Oh, sorry. So, the motion would just be to uh that that section be uh the graphic reflect its termination at Barisford Street at the northern end. So, for clarity, we're referring to the graphic on page 13 of 16 of the staff package. Beach drive from Windsor to Barisford Street. The indicated polygon extends north of Barisford Street. You're proposing an amendment to that polygon which terminates it at the intersection of Beach and Barisford. Correct.

So that is the motion. Do we have a seconder? Seconded. Uh so very very quickly on this one that that north of Barisford uh that grass widens out and and and enters directly into that park. And I think we're getting a it's it's where that polygon ends is is not extraordinarily clear. Um but also it becomes adjacent to a park which I think was our in our original intent was to avoid. And so my my the logic here is there was there was actually a crosswalk that crosses right at Barisford. There's a concrete line. So I think if the if the indicator the the wording says it from Beach Drive to Barersford if the if the polygon ended right at Barisford I think that would be helpful to to clarify where that would be allowed.

Okay. So the amendment is duly made and seconded. I think the intention is clear. Uh any discussion on that amendment? Councelor Smart. Uh thank you. Um just through you chair just a clarification because I'm just trying to pull this up on Google Maps. Um just wondering about the proximity to Glen Lion Norfolk School. Are we not even up that far? I'm just trying to No, we're not even up that far. Okay, now I'm seeing. Okay, thank you. I'm just because of the timing. I didn't have time to look at the map. Thank you. The area immediately south of Hannes Park in this case. Councelor Braithweight.

Uh thanks, Chair. Um I actually would prefer to have this location taken out in its entirety. And based on the comments that I made before that I feel that it's visually it would it's not an area where um I would like to see signs u and I do believe that weather will um for some of the signs um will actually um cause them to be blown over. Uh some of those signs that are on the wires are not really um really stable. Uh and so I would actually prefer to see that whole area taken out. uh rather than just that one little um corner at the top.

Duly noted, the motion on the floor is to amend the existing polygon. So that will be the that will be the matter for council to decide. Any further discussion on the amendment motion on the floor? Council Patterson. Yes. Thank you, Chair. Um appreciate the discussion around the table. I I I do agree with the mayor on this one. It is uh there is a crosswalk at Barisford. So that is a natural location for it to end. Um it will not be uh I I don't think easily um clarified to to people where the polygon ends exactly as it as it shows now. But I think that clearly through the statements it's from Windsor to Barersford and if the if the diagram is modified to be more concise um I think that that will uh will alleviate um uh any discrepancies with it going beyond that and then starting to encroach on Glen Lion School. So I support the uh the amendment proposed.

Thank you, Councelor Patterson. Further discussion on the amendment. Councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. I will I will support the amendment for supporting keeping this location and supporting not having signs in the park. Thank you very much, Councelor Smart. I will just take the opportunity to speak uh for myself and I feel similarly I will support the amendment uh despite not supporting the process. So support the amendment because I think this is a significant location and I think that that is a a useful modification of that polygon. So see no further discussion. I'm calling the the uh calling a question on the amendment on this specific polygon. All in favor of the amendment and any opposed? Councelor Braithweight opposed. That passes.

Mayor Murdoch, did you have anything further? Yeah, just uh just two more. Uh one is uh at the 500 block of Beach Drive. Uh I'm just going to move that those that section be removed. If there's a second, I'll explain why. Moved and seconded. Please proceed. So there's two this is to my mind there is a we have a fairly substantial block of of space just a couple of blocks down on Beach Drive which is the same sort of contiguous area. So it's not sort of necessary from an area perspective. And by their very nature, one of these is actually adjacent again to a to a private home. And I think that there would be some confusion here about signs. Uh that's the one sort of in the bottom right. Uh it is, you know, immediately adjacent to the to the property there. Um and there's no and I and these two very small pieces here I find more confusing than helpful where the other areas are more contiguous. So I think both for the reason that there is a duplication of space that is just a bit further down the road. It's adjacent

to a private property and the uh the locations of this are not as clear as as the other locations proposed. I'm just suggesting that they just get removed. Thank you, Mayor Murdoch. So, just for clarity, the motion is to delete the two locations shown uh in the 500 block of Beach Drive on page 14 of 16 of the staff package. Correct. Discussion on that amendment. Councelor Smart. Thank you. Just a question um through you chair to staff. Could we just confirm whether any of these are in front of um properties as suggested by the mover? I think there's there's some outline here. So this is shown on the map, but count uh Mr. Renick, if you wanted to clarify uh through the chair, they're not in front of a property, but they are very close to the uh northwest corner of I think that's 607 Beach Drive.

Thank you, Mr. Renick. Anything further, Councelor Smart? Further discussion on the amendment motion? Uh for my part, I will not support the amendment motion. Um I think if this is the course that council elects to take that we need to retain as many uh locations as possible and have them be geographically distributed throughout the district. So I would not support this amendment. Councelor Smart. Yeah, I also won't be supporting the amendment. Um, I think we're doing enough of a drastic reduction in possible places um to use signs and the hope with this new proposal was that we would have them geographically distributed. So, I would not uh support removing.

Thank you, Councelor Smart. Councelor Braithweight. Thank you. I will be in support of the motion. Uh, further discussion on this amendment. I will call the question. All in favor? And those opposed, uh, myself, councelor Watson, and Smart oppose. That passes. Mayor Murdoch. And my last one, I promise. Uh, and and this one I'm not 100% sure, but I wanted to just have it for discussion. Uh, and that is on page 12 of 16 to remove the the area at the corner of Transit Road and McNeel Avenue. So the motion is to remove moved and seconded to remove the polygon shown on page 12 uh of 16 of the council package at the corner of transit and McNeel.

Yeah. And yeah, thank you. Thank you, chair. Um, and and briefly, I I I when this was flagged, I think it was in councelor Smart's uh piece, I I said, "Oh, that actually makes a lot of sense because that is a sort of a a little piece of property that is ours and is not, it meets the criteria." The reason I flagged it here and I and I just kind of want to hear from my my fellow counselors is while it is it does meet the criteria, I think for most people, they see that as the yard beside a private house. And so I think the perception is going to be and I think if that house was there they be they would be held accountable uh for that. So I just think it in the while it meets the the technical aspects of it. I think practically speaking it kind of has the appearance of the boulevard in front of a private house. And so I just thought

I'd just flag it here because I think it it warranted at least a little bit of a discussion. Thank you Mayor Murdoch. Discussion on the amendment motion. Councelor Smart. Oh, thank you. I I did also initially have the same question. Um and I guess for me, how like I did appreciate staff's um approach with really keeping it linear along the road. Um, and perhaps in the same way that staff might be going away and looking at um a suggested sign for signs not to be removed from Easttown and Estaban, perhaps there could be almost like a similar sign here just denoting that it's a public election sign location.

Thank you, Councelor Smart. Councelor Watson, I I would I would just add to the sort of the argument in favor of keeping it because as I I agree with some of my council colleagues, we need as many locations since since we're doing this. I think we need as many locations as possible, not as few. And the public has become accustomed to um uh public signage on that piece of land for quite a few months now. So, I think it would be apparent to anybody who's going by there regularly to the park that that actually is uh public land and not private property. There's a large sign there right now.

Thank you, Councelor Watson. Councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you, Chair. I I too am in support of retaining this as it is. I appreciate what the mayor says about it being perhaps perceived as a boulevard attached to a private residence. However, it is not attached to a private residence. And and I think that, you know, that could be said about about locations around the district, but you know, I I think it this this is balancing um the exposure that candidates will want for the election to this to this area and um so I I think that this one should remain in. I think it's a it's a good location for signage and it can accommodate it and can do it safely. So, I don't I I don't I'm not I wouldn't be supportive of removing this location. Thank you.

Thank you, Councelor Patterson. And just speaking for myself, uh opposed to this motion for very similar reasons just in terms of balancing out locations and and I do feel that that is it is distinct enough from the adjacent private property that it warrants retention. So, I'm not supportive of the amendment as it currently is proposed. So just for clarity, the amendment proposed here is to remove that location. Uh so then a vote in favor is to remove and a vote opposing is to retain that location at transit and McNeel just for clarity. So then I will call the question. Oh, Mayor Murdoch, please. I just wanted to say thank you to my to my coun fellow counselors here. I uh I I think that's that's exactly the conversation I wanted to have. I I think that the that makes a lot of sense. I imagine that we may get some complaints in future. Um, but I think it's uh I understand the rationale of moving

forward with it at this time. So, thank you. Thank you, Mayor Murdoch. So, I will call the question on the amendment. All in favor? Mayor Murdoch in favor? Uh, any opposed? Uh, the remainder of council opposed. Councelor Braithweight. Sorry. Sorry. I in favor. In favor. Okay. I just didn't put my hand up. Sorry. Okay. Very good. So, councelor uh or mayor Murdoch and councelor Braithweight in favor the remainder opposed that fails. Do we have any further uh amendments of this type at second reading? Uh councelor Braithway please. Uh thank you very much chair and for you. Um I would like to put a motion on the floor to remove the location at Cresant Road and Quimper.

So for clarity, this is the final location in the list on page 16 of 16 Crescent Road at Climper Street. So to remove that location in its entirety, do we have a seconder? For discussion. Seconded for discussion. Uh you may motivate. Thank you so much. I just I just feel that this one um I'm not really sure why it's in here. It feels more directly adjacent to residential character than many of the the other arterial um sites. Um, and so I think it should we should be cautious about introducing con concentrated sign areas into spaces that do not already function as broader civic or transportation corridors and I don't think that that meets that criteria. So that's why I would like consideration of removing it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councelor Braithweight. Further discussion of the amendment. Councelor Watson. Sorry, I just hardly disagree with that assessment. I think it is an important public space. It's a transit um hub. Um, and it's great. It's there's no safety issues and it meets the criteria that were set out for evaluation of these spaces. So, um, yeah, I just, uh, think it would be a disservice to the community as we're trying to create some spaces for election signage to remove that spot. Thank you, Councelor Watson. Further discussion, Councelor Smart. Thank you. I just uh feel the need to comment as as someone who's a resident in the area that I will benefit the least from this location because I have many contacts in the location. So despite the letter writer who um would like to insinuate that I might advantage from this location, I'm the least in need of it. Um so I just felt the need to clarify that.

Thank you, Councelor Smart. Further commentary. Councelor Patterson, please. Yes, thank you, Chair. Um I I won't support removing dislocation and the the reason it's been stated quite well at the table here, but I guess my observation has been that Harling Point is is often kind of the forgotten little corner of of Oak Bay. And um I think it is important that uh in that location they you know that they are involved in the community election and feel like part of the community. And um so I think that this just is is a good recommendation by staff to see that all areas throughout Oak Bay that are that are part of the community are in fact part of the election process too. So, I I would I would um leave this location in for signage. And um uh I and I, you know, I think that go that says a lot about wanting all parts of the community to participate in the democratic process. Thank you.

Thank you, Councelor Patterson. Mayor Murdoch, please. Yeah, very briefly. I I I I appreciate the the the rationale given for this and I I in some ways I tend to agree, but I also think that it does meet the criteria. It is a transit stop. Um and frankly I think the choice of whether or not to use a space like this if it's low traffic um will come down to the individual counselors whether or not they see it's it has merit uh to put signs there uh given the cost. So I think given that and I did appreciate councelor Patterson's comments on this. I think uh I'm not going to support the motion to remove this one. Um and again, I think our process here is this has been an iterated bylaw over the years and we can always this can be revisited in future time, but I think it makes sense to include it at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Murdoch. Uh just speaking for myself, I will not support the motion on the floor. I think uh distribution of sites throughout the district is is significant and and I do agree with the comment uh from councelor Patterson as as far as uh Harling Point is often uh underserved not necessarily underserved but underrecognized I guess as as a community. So I think it's important that there is a location uh in in Harling Point. So that's my perspective on it. So not support the amendment motion. So any further debate on the amendment motion? Seeing none, I will call the question. All in favor? Councilors Green and Braithweight in favor? All opposed?

Uh, Mayor Murdoch, myself, councilors Watson, Patterson, and Smart opposed. That fails. Uh, Council Braithweight, did you have any further amendments to make? Okay. Thank you. Councelor Smart, please. I'd like to move an amendment to allow election signs to be placed in front of school properties on municipal boulevards. So moved. Do we have a seconder? Seconded. Councelor Watson, please motivate. Yeah, thank you. Um, this just addresses the fact that, um, we currently allow election signs to be placed in front of school properties on municipal boulevards. Um, this location isn't actually really utilized at all and there may be very few or no places that are utilized. Um, but in light of the school trustees election changing to a writing system, I don't feel that we at this table should be restricting the possibility uh for school um trustee candidates to advertise in probably the most ideal location should they choose to do so and should they find an appropriate place that actually meets all the other restrictions in our um

bylaws. Um, so I just wanted to make sure that we weren't um not consciously having this conversation at the table. um and deciding to potentially um allow something that um at a time where things are changing um and it might actually become more advantageous for school um uh board trustees to utilize election signs that we aren't inadvertently taking away the most um prominent location um for them to communicate um with parents. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Smart. So, the motion on the floor is to essentially restore uh boulevards in front of school properties as available locations. Uh debate on the amendment. Mayor Murdoch. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I actually am not clear. Um my recollection of that is that they were not open season in past years. I believe school districts had some limits. Um I actually look at this in the same sense as I would look at it.

I I I take the point made that there was merit given uh you know school district trustees you know benefit from getting their names out there. Um and I think that is and obviously they are welcome to use the same public locations that we allow for all the other people in our uh jurisdiction. To my thought, this is a this is a decision for the school district to make if they want their schools to be used as uh as places for school district trustees to advertise. It is extremely simple for them to to just give that allowance for their properties uh and have that happen without us. that would have that because that change essentially would probably quadruple or more the amount of space available for signs without the limitations of numbers or anything else. Um I think we're it dramatically changes the nature of the of the intent of this. Um I do think that it probably is really worthwhile for us just to share with the school

district if they haven't thought about it yet. They should be clear about their policies around uh advertising for trustees or for the broader electorate uh on their property because most of these pieces are are actually on their property. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Murdoch. I guess I I kind of skipped over staff there a little bit. So I might give staff an opportunity to clarify just in terms of what was an ex the existing standard and what is the novel standard. Mr. Renick uh through the chair. I was actually seeking a clarifying question. Um councelor Smart referred to school properties and the discussion sounded like it was around school district 61 trustees and so I was wondering whether the intent of the mover was that Glenline Norfolk School and St. Michael School be included or excluded. Um we would need to know that to prepare the bylaw were the motion to pass.

Thank you Mr. Renick. I will leave it to the mover to clarify. Yeah, thank you. Um I did leave it open, but I am um open to um amending it to be more restrictive to SD um 61 properties. At this point, I don't see that this is going to be heavily utilized, but in my discussions with staff to date in trying to come up with a motion around this, uh my understanding is that even to for the um school properties to choose to do this, we need the freedom in our bylaw to allow them to choose to do this. So, as far as um Mayor Murdoch's suggestion that we leave it to the school districts to decide, the problem with that is that it would be then in contradiction with our bylaw and then we'd have to have a bylaw revision and it's very close to the election to do that. Um and so that is the reason for just leaving basically at this point leaving it the way it was

before this whole project came to be. um perhaps we can learn from this election and decide to restrict school properties next time, but we're currently not restricting um school properties. And so this motion is just entirely around let's not change that yet, especially with what's going on with the changes with the school trustee elections. Thank you, Councelor Smart. So, as I as I understand it, you are proposing an amendment essentially to uh reintroduce the language from the former bylaw essentially with respect to schools. Is that [snorts] enough clarity for staff? I I'm I would need so we would need some guidance as to exactly how the terminology around schools was phrased in the previous bylaw. I believe Mr. Renick.

Uh thank you, Chair. The current bylaw is really silent on school properties. Um I I think that if council were to pass the motion on the floor, we would need to do a report back. Um this this won't be something that we can just bring uh an amended bylaw for third reading. Okay. Um then I would suggest uh we have passed second reading. Uh we do have several amendments on that point. Um, it would result I I guess I would ask for Miss Anderson's uh guidance, but we have second reading passed. So then we would be seeking potentially a motion to refer back to staff to report out on the implications of that of that uh proposed amendment. Is that the best action in this case?

Um, as thank you through the chair. Um, as the motion is written, if it was to pass, if it was will of council to pass, we would hold third reading and we would come back and with a with the bylaw as amended as we've interpreted it as a report back for third reading as amended. Okay. So, just for clarity, um, if the motion we can we have the motion live on the floor, uh, we can debate the motion and call the question on the motion. And if the motion were to pass, uh, then it would essentially return to staff. We would not do third reading at tonight's meeting and it would go to a subsequent meeting. So, but I guess it will be to the will of council as to whether or not this amendment goes ahead. So, I will have councelor Green and then councelor Watson. Council, thank you very much. This is um an interesting one because I actually have sympathy for school school district candidates when they're running. Um there is a lot of organization around municipal candidates with all candidates

meetings, organizations getting together and hosting all candidates meetings and so on. There's there are a lot of opportunities for municipal candidates to um to meet the public to uh market themselves and so on during an election. There are very limited opportunities for schoolboard trustees. I've always believed that they they got the short stick uh during municipal local elections. Um there was nothing really organized for them. Uh I don't I'm not aware that they had many old candidates meetings and I think it's a pretty lonely slog for them when they're running for for the school board. So if in any way we can uh lift them uh during the election and lift their profile um that would be helpful.

I've always thought it would be great for municipalities to sort of share the the election process with the school district or collaborate at least on some of the old candidates events and so on. But having said that, um I I would certainly like to have a report back from staff if if we can do so so that it doesn't complicate the jurisdictional issue. Thank you, Councelor Green. Councelor Watson. Yes. I just wanted to say that I would support this motion. I think that we are going in this in this fall election. We have a brand new structure for school district governance uh which makes the process of the election and candidacy much more close and personal both for Oak Bay voters and school district candidates who want to run in Oak Bay.

And um I understand what the mayor is saying about yes, sure, it should be up to it will be up to the school districts themselves to decide what goes what's what is allowed in front of their properties, but we should not be an obstacle to letting them say yes. So, I would really like to get staff's advice about how we could uh how we should amend the bylaw to allow that possibility should the school district 61 itself agree to it. Thank you, Councelor Watson. Councelor Braithweight. Thank you, Andre, Chair. Um I you know, municipal um municipal s we're not allowed to put signs on municipal lawns and I'm not sure if school trustees can put it in front of schools. I don't ever remember putting a sign in front of a school. What I do remember is people trying to campaign in front of a school and being asked not to because the school wasn't allowing that. So, I'm not convinced that boulevards directly in

front of schools are the most appropriate locations for concentrated election signage. Schools are unique community spaces with high child and family activity. And I think we should be cautious about treating them in the same way um as major transportation or civic signs. most municipalities apply additional restrictions around sensitive public spaces and I think it's reasonable to ask whether school frontage belong in in that category or not. So So again, as far as my um as far as my uh recollection goes, I've never put a sign in front of a school in the in all of the elections that I've that I've run in. Thank you, Councelor Braithweight. Uh Councelor Smart, please.

Yeah. Um uh just um I just would like to comment to council that I know in the last election that um uh Margaret Jenkins school which has half of Oak Bay um um uh residents uh at the elementary school level attending um does allow election signs uh in front of of the school and it's a really nice way for very busy parents uh to learn about who's running in the election. Um, so I do know that it does occur in other municipalities. Thank you, Councelor Smart. Mayor Murdoch, please. Yeah, thank you. I think I think this needs a little bit of of of clarification and guidelines for this.

You know, my my general feeling on this one is because I think it's a pretty substantive and there's some fundamental questions here asked. Is this only public schools or are independent schools included? Is it just for trustees? because I've heard a lot of and I and I do agree that I think if there's ways that we can help the trustee process awareness process that makes sense but if this is opening it up to all the municipal candidates those trustee signs are going to get lost in the crush around schools as well. Um, my personal recommendation on this one would be that uh we don't support this motion. Um, but that we do uh initiate a a letter to the school district and ask them is there have they thought about what they want done for election signs around their school? Do they want trustees only? Do they want none? Do they want uh everything? Are they are they comfortable with everything? and then we can we can then consider an amendment to the sign bylaw based on

what their feedback is. But I think it's what I've got here is is a lot of questions uh and not a lot of answers. And I I think if there's I I tend to agree with the sympath with the with the tone I'm hearing which is how do we help school board trustees get the visibility that they need? Um and I and I think that's a really good question. I don't I didn't hear that being the proposal. The proposal I heard is everybody signs uh and with the wording with no limits per site because they wouldn't have the same kind of parcel. So I I'm uh I can't support the motion as it's put there.

But I do think this really does warrant a conversation with the school district as to what they would like how they would like to partner with us to make sure that school trustees um can be supported in their in their campaign process. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Murdoch. Miss Hunt, thank you very much. Uh I just want council to be aware uh you know timing is fairly important on this. Uh we will be preparing you know packages for candidates uh coming up over you know probably in July and so um you know making sure that we have uh this signed bylaw nailed down and and the sign locations because that will be part of the package. So um I understand what Mayor Murdoch is saying. I am just a bit concerned that we're running out of time to do extensive consultation uh you know with the v the various schools and and be able to collect that information, return to council with another report and then have council make amendments.

Um so I I just caution um that we are running out of time in terms of process. Yeah, thank you for that clarification, Miss Hunt. And I guess I would I would I I I think that's a fair point. You know, my my guess my observation of that is if the if the school board wishes to have trustees or all the luck and shines available, it's uh they can certainly make that available on their property um just like anybody else could. So, I think that's uh um I think that's actually is available right now. Um but that would really be their call. It just wouldn't be available on all of the boulevards all the way around every school as the motion uh is in front of us.

Thank you, Mayor Murdoch. I have councilors Green and Smart, but I do want to be conscious of time and whether or not we have any other amendments to make. So, I'll ask you be really brief. Um, and I appreciate all the comments. I I if if we don't support this now going forward because of the time constraints and the pressure to get packages prepared and all of that for um the election, I would really encourage the mayor to sit down with the superintendent of school district 61 and talk about how our respective bodies could support and encourage candidates around election time. I think that conversation should be had more than just a letter. I I I would like to see a meeting with senior staff and the mayor and superintendent at some point in the future to talk about this process. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Green. Councelor SM. Yeah, thank you. I just I wanted to express my concern about saying that school districts could still have signs on their property versus on the municipal boulevard. It's not the same thing like we allow residential properties to use the public boulevards because that's where people see them when they're walking, when they're driving, when they're cycling. Um, so I just I really feel strongly that we're restricting so much already that we shouldn't change really what is what this motion does is just allow what is already currently available, has never really been utilized today, may still not be utilized, but at least we're not creating a barrier. Um, and we're just basically this is a in a sense a status quo motion that basically says we're not changing stuff with regards to schools. We're keeping things the same.

Thank you, Councelor Smart. Uh seeing no further discussion. So the motion on for clarity the motion on the floor is for the provision of school boulevards the boulevard space adjacent to schools uh as being available for election signs in the bylaw. I will call the question on that amendment. All in favor and all opposed. Councelor Braithweight Patterson Green and Mayor Murdoch opposed. that fails. Are there any other further amendments proposed to the bylaw at second reading? I do not see any. I appreciate this debate. Then I will ask for a motion to give the bylaw third reading and a reminder as amended. Please. I'll move that sign bylaw number 3946 1997 amendment bylaw number 4962206 be read a third time as amended.

Thank you very much. Moved and seconded discussion usually don't discuss on third reading as as I now currently reminded. So then I will call the question. All in favor and all opposed. Myself, Councelor Watson, and Councelor Smart opposed. That passes at third reading. Thank you very much. Moving on. Uh thank you for that uh discussion and thank you for the support from staff. We're working through those amendments. Uh final item on this section of the agenda is blasting regulation changes, proposed bylaws. Mr. B, thank you for your patience. Thank you, chair. Um, blessing regulations have been discussed on several occasions over the last years and as directed by council in July of last year. Today's report includes the recommendations from two advisory bodies as well as the proposed bylaw. The heritage commission looked at the bylaw last fall and recommended approval of the proposed regulation uh while making a comment to consider acknowledging non-registered heritage buildings. The advisory planning commission um also looked at the bylaw and recommended approval and provided a number of

comments for consideration and the staff report provides more information about their comments and today the bas in front of you uh the key one is a separate blasting bylaw that has now been prepared as recommended by our lawyers. It it includes the program that has been developed over the last couple of years. Um a summary table is included as the first attachment. Um to give you a couple of highlights in response to resident concerns, the new regulation now includes uh rock breaking and sets volumes volume limits for blasting and then for rock hammering specifically hours operations have been set and restricted to only afternoons uh in recognition of the noise impact. Uh the notification area also has been increased. Consider consideration is being given to designated and registered heritage buildings by making sure they're shown on the map. Industry input has also been considered and for example by making sure there's sufficient time for each permit to uh to be able to complete the work and also by foregoing an earlier considered requirement that

was in play for a moment for for a third party review. So um all in all the this blasting regulation seeks to balance the livability objectives but also with a need to provide reasonable options for construction activities. So a total of four bers have been prepared to implement this new program and they are provided to you today for your consideration of bor ratings and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thanks. Thank you very much Mr. B. Questions for staff. uh councelor Patterson then briefly please. Thank you chair and through you. Thank thanks for this uh report. Um I know people have been anxiously awaiting amendments to our blasting bylaw for for some period of time and and it it it's a very sensitive topic in the community.

Um and in what we are we are um proposing I I think the changes are are good. One question I do have though because it's not clear to me in what has been presented is where the responsibility and authority lie for verifying the blasting contractor's insurance and registration with governing bodies. if um if it is up to the general contractor um to provide that evidence to the municipality or if the municipality seeks it from the blasting contractor. If we could just get a clarification from staff, I would appreciate it. Thank you, Councelor Patterson. Mr. B. Thank you, Chair. Through you, um we seek that confirmation from the blasting contractor and uh that's already something that is in our current regulation. So we get proof of insurance and we'll rely on that to check for well the coverage and the date of uh start of coverage. Thanks.

Thank you Mr. B. Councelor Braithway please. Thank you chair and through you. Um yeah we have been waiting a long time for this uh report and I really appreciate the considerable consultation and work that's gone into trying to balance the neighborhood livability concerns with the practical development realities. So I really appreciate that. So thank you. Um, couple of questions that I have would be, um, with these changes, does staff currently have sufficient capacity to enforce the new requirements? Um, and um, yeah, just I guess that's my first question. If if you have the the staff capability, Mr. Paul, thank you for the chair. Um, yeah, we would rely on our building official team. um and and most of the due diligence takes place uh before the issu the permit is issued. So we rely on that um and assume that once the permit is issued everything should be fine with sufficient time. There will be cases that maybe somebody takes more time than allotted or there are other concerns that might come up. sometimes happens

currently as well and we would still rely on the same team of building officials or if need be the bylaw compliance official to have a look on site and see what's going on and and take any measures that might need it. So uh it costs a little bit of more time but I was pointing out in the report as well that um we also think that maybe uh there may be less permits as well um because it yeah it does require certain commitment to to apply for the permit and provide these uh the relevant documentation. So on balance we think we're good but it isn't it is a small increase in in work. Thanks.

You please proceed. Thank you. Um and then so I I always ask this because this is um where I think our residents feel the most vulnerable. Um but what recourse exists for residents who believe that they have blast that the blasting has caused damage and how are typical um how are disputes typically resolved in that case because I'm wondering if a pre-blast survey has to be done on all the neighboring properties around where the blasting is going to take place. Sorry, that was questions. Mr. Bull, thank you uh through the chair. Um let me see. Um uh the first thing especially for owners that are approached by the blaster for a pre uh blast survey it's called. It's basically their insurer taking a look in advance. It's an opportunity to let them but also for yourself to yeah take stock of what's the state of the uh house at that point. And it helps down the road to clearly identify what is caused by blasting and what's not. So um now if

there is damage that occurs and it's uh believed to be related to uh blasting uh then the homeowner that is experiencing the damage should contact their own insurance and their own insurance company will then uh reach out to the blaster's insurance and a whole process starts of assessing what the damage is if it's clearly related to the blasting. If that's the case, um, it should be covered through that insurance that is required for before anybody gets a permit. Thank you. Thank you. Further questions for staff. Seeing none, uh, this is an item that is open for public input. So if there's anybody in the room or online that wishes to I don't see anybody online and I don't anticipate any hands there but I will give it a couple of seconds just for the feed to catch up and see whether anybody wants to speak to this item.

Seeing none then I will bring it back to this table and there is an extensive list of bylaws to read in. So I'll read them very fast. Um, I'm going to move that the blasting and rock breaking bylaw number 4958 2026 be read a first and second time. Moved and seconded. Discussion on the motion. Council Watson. Yes. I just like to say that I'm happy to support it. I think the fact that the observation you just made that there was nobody online or in the room or even correspondents to address this just points to the fact that we've come to a very successful uh result uh uh as as a result of wide consultation and the involvement of all the interested parties and so uh the fact that nobody's here to speak for or against this indicates to me that we've reached the right kind of balance between those interests.

Thank you councelor Watson. Councelor Green please. Thank you chair. I'm very pleased with this um report and with the recommendations and I'm I'm grateful to staff for their while it was a long process it was a thorough one. Um and I really do think at the end of the day it is about public health and safety. Um and I think that um in in this way we have tried to cover all those bases and ensure residents that um blasting and hamming and rock breaking and all the rest of it while it may be part of of the development process, we do have um the ability to monitor and and regulate.

So I think it's a you know it's a great outcome. Thank you. Thank you councelor Green. Any further debate on the motion on the floor? Then I will call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Please proceed. Uh I'll move that blasting and rock breaking bylaw number 49582026 be read a third time. Moved and seconded. Uh I will call the question. All in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Please proceed. Council move that the anti noise bylaw number 3210 1977 amendment bylaw number 4960 2026 be read a first and second time moved and seconded debate on the motion on the floor seeing none I will call the question all in favor any opposed none opposed and I'll move that antin noise bylaw number 3210 1997 amendment bylaw number 4960 2026 be read a third time moved and seconded And then I'll call the question on third reading. All in favor? Any opposed? None opposed.

And I'll move that building and plumbing bylaw number 4247 2005, amendment bylaw number 49592026 be read a first and second time. Moved and seconded. Any debate on the motion? Seeing none, I will call the question. All in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Building and plumbing bylaw number 4247. Sorry. I'll move that building and plumbing bylaw number 4247 2005 amendment bylaw number 4959206 be read a third time. Moved and seconded. Uh I will call the question on third reading. All in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And I'll move that planning and development fees and charges bylaw number 48452023 amendment bylaw number 4961 2026 be read a first and second time.

Moved and seconded debate on the motion. Seeing none I will call the question. All in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And lastly, I will move the planning and development fees and charges bylaw number 48452023 amendment bylaw number 49612026 be read a third time. Root and seconded. Uh motion is on the floor for third reading. I will call the question. All in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you very much. Thank you, Council Braithweight. Uh moving along from this motion, I will take the opportunity to say as as some counselors have have referenced, this has been uh long in development and I just want to recognize the amount of work that staff staff and building and planning have had lots to do in a bunch of other different aspects of the operation. And I know that work on this uh proceeds when you know capacity is available and you know we uh I know that staff understands the significance of the the bylaw in the community and uh now having a standing standalone blasting bylaw is is very significant

for the district. So a significant accomplishment and significant amount of work by building and planning. So wanted to recognize that and say thank you. Um moving along item six is new business. Um, I do not believe we have any new business. We may have a notice of motion under item 7 though if if I'm not mistaken. Yes, councelor Smart, please. Yeah, thank you. I have a notice of motion. Could I read it into the record? I we would need to read it into the record for so it's can be captured. Yes. Thank you, Councilman. Uh, the notice of motion is for staff to return to council with options for introducing a marine shoreline setback for structures within the shoreline DPA area.

Thank you, councelor Smart. Well, was just notion notice of motion at this time. So, it's just that's okay. Uh but this is going so staff will take this away as sufficiently clear in terms of language for staff seeing nods. So, that's okay. So, we will see this at a further council meeting. So, thank you very much for that. It only remains to have a motion to adjurnn, please. Motion moved and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed to adjournment? Seeing none, we stand adjourned. Thank you very much everyone. Thank you. Thank you councelor Appleton for stepping in. Much appreciated. Thank you mayor.