Transcript: Council Meeting - 13 Jul 2026

Just checking the room audio. Thank you.

Hi, Council Smart. Um, just doing an audio check. Let me know if I sound good. Thanks. I can hear you. Um, can you hear me? Okay. Yep. You don't hear you. All right. Thanks. Thanks.

I went home and had some very salty soup. I didn't realize. Hello, Counselor Smart. Just guessing you can hear us. And I thought it was better than you know the regular cans. Yes. When I looked at it. Perfect. Thank you. I was like, "Oh, it's really, you know, it's made my lips all dry." It's like a cabbage veget.

All right, good evening everyone and welcome to a regularly scheduled council meeting for July the 13th. As we call the meeting to order, we just like to acknowledge that we gather on the traditional territories of the coast and straight sish peoples specifically recognize the lungan speaking people known today as the malt nations and their historic connection to these historic lands and waters continues to this day. Um we are waiting for one counselor still to join us online. Councelor Braithweight. Um but we'll go through some of the procedural pieces of the meeting uh as we anticipate her any second. Uh first order of business is approval of the agenda. Can I have a mover and seconder? Moved seconded. Any discussion?

All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Adoption of the minutes. We have two uh both from June 22nd. Same mover and seconder. Any discussion, changes, corrections, or amendments? Not seeing any. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Um my comments that are brief. I do want to just acknowledge we have councelor Smart who's joining us from afar uh today and councelor Braithwe will be joining us online as well this evening. Just uh um will become oh there she's just joining us now. Perfect. Um my remarks fairly brief. I just want to acknowledge I was attended the uh magazine restaurant awards which I think is the third or fourth time. Uh what was interesting is there was four different Oak Bay restaurants that were nominated for seven different awards. So uh it was quite a good showing for Oak Bay restaurants in their best of categories.

Um also just want to acknowledge we had a first music in the park last week and those will be happening throughout the summer. So if you have a chance to get to Willows and attend uh really well worthwhile. Um also much of many members of staff and council attended the pride parade over the weekend and it was very well attended both in the parade and by people out to that. So, it's nice to see the turnout. Um, there is yoga in the park starting already. So, this first one was last week. This next one is this Tuesday. Uh, so if you're interested in doing yoga in the park, it's again at Willows on Tuesday night. And there is a uh a sculpture tour that's happening this Thursday that you have to register for. Um, but that's happening as well uh with some accompaniment of music and some of the artists attending on that Thursday.

Uh turning then to the next order of uh item on the agenda is our public comment and question period. Um we uh have some new faces in the audience. So just for clarification um items on the agenda uh if they're open for public input, we'll allow public input at that time. Um but we allow time in every meeting for members of the public to address council on anything really not on the agenda but of general interest to uh to council or to the public or to the community. So if anybody here either online uh or in person wishes to address council, you can do so. Just ask you that you raise your hand and then come forward to the microphone. Again, this is just anything comments on things that are not on the agenda tonight, but just of general interest to the community.

I always give a little moment of time because sometimes people are a bit nervous about coming forward. Don't see hands popping up. Um I will just ask and give one more second here. Oh, there is. Please come forward. you can demonstrate um if you're online or you're watching this on the YouTube stream, you can call there's a 1855 number with instructions on the agenda package as well. And if you're on the Zoom call, you can just raise your hand within the app to uh to make yourself known. Uh but we have our first speaker in the room. Uh so if you could just turn your microphone is on, you can demonstrate this. So name, municipality, residence, and then you have up to three minutes to address council. Welcome.

Let's get this party started. Um Leona Fernette, Oak Bay resident. Um here as I try to make it a regular appearance for the last year and a bit talking about four and no more. Um I would like to thank the mayor and council for their patience with me and listening to what I have to say. It's very much appreciated not only by me but the residents in my neighborhood. Um, I am just here to remind everyone of our commitment to our official community plan and that it's absolutely imperative that we stick to that now that we're going into an election cycle. Um, you know, some of you may or may not be here, and I think that it this time it would be prudent that not nothing gets approved outside of the official community plan.

There seems to be a a willingness at times to listen to these proposals. And um just here to remind you that when we don't stop and take note of what the impacts will be as you've said Kevin many times is very unfortunate and I'm sorry this has happened. We have an opportunity to stop that kind of thing. We have a very unfortunate situation on Woodburn today with a development that has foisted a responsibility of moving a power line, a high high um use power line and a trans transformer from their property to a neighbors down the way. and has caused nothing but grief for that neighbor that has been impacted.

And I can only say that unless we start dealing with those types of issues and not turn our resources to these big uber developments that think that they can just come in and ask for changes to the regulations and or bylaws and the OCP need to hear a hard no. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fernette. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak to council this evening on again on items not on the agenda? Okay, I uh we'll move on to items on the agenda. Uh so with that, we'll move to section six, which is bylaws and permits. Uh this section does not have public input on it. Um our first item of business is 6.1 2579 Cadro Bay Road. Um, go ahead, Miss Cleaver.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um, tonight I am presenting zoning bylaw amendment application ZN 00069 for 2579 Cabro Bay, currently occupied by Liquor Plus within the Cabro Bay Village commercial area. The application proposes a sightsp specific amendment that would permit cannabis retail sales at the subject property. This application seeks council's consideration of first, second, third, and final adoption of of the proposed bylaw amendment. The first consideration of this application went forward to council on June 8th where council directed staff to proceed with giving first not giving notice of first reading and to wave the public hearing. Uh public notices were published in the Oak Bay News on July 2nd and 9th and the notices to neighboring properties were mailed June 29th. This report provides all comprehensive information about the application to date. Staff are recommending first, second, third, and final adoption of the proposed amendment. I'm happy to answer any uh questions that you may have, and the applicants are also present today to also answer any questions. Thank you.

Uh thank you very much. Uh back to this table. I think I'm going to seek a motion for first and second reading. Um and then actually if I can if we can read out the the language in here and then we can have a further discussion. Go ahead, councelor Appleton. Your worship, I would move that zoning ballot number 3531986, amendment by law number 4968, 2026, be read a first and second time. Moved and seconded. Thank you. Um, discussion don't see hands popping up. I I just want Oh, go ahead. Council Green to speak. Thank you very much um mayor and thank you through you to um our planner for a very comprehensive report. Um I just wanted to say that some residents have raised concerns about the location and the proximity of this uh potential store. Um so I just wondered um through you to our planner have h how have those concerns been addressed or or have they been taken into account um in this particular case? Thank you.

uh through the mayor. Um in essence, I think there was a a variety of different kind of consistent um uh I guess points of feedback. Um primarily uh I guess this the nature of the retail sales at that subject property. Um, I think we could go into a very uh wholesome conversation or a debate as to how that parallels with retail sales in general. And so looking at um you know our current bylaws, our OCP policies and and and and weighing that into the regulatory process um locally but also proincially and federally as we explored in the first um uh June 8th meeting. Um, ultimately I think I think that's really hard to kind of measure out how we would kind of economically evaluate one retail sales uh business against another. So in terms of proximity to school, we we did discuss that at the first meeting. um keeping in mind a form of character and design of the storefront. That was also part of the discussion and trying to parallel um you know the the current um aesthetics that exist as well as we do

have our commercial mixeduse development permit area and so that was something that could potentially be explored and and may depending on the nature of any proposed changes. So yeah, we definitely consider that as as much as we possibly could. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I just wanted to acknowledge those concerns that were expressed to us in writing following the June 8th meeting. So that was that's why I raised it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councelor Green. Go ahead, Councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. And another question for staff about um uh the retail operations within that area. Have we had any commentary from the adjacent retailers in the area?

um through the mayor. Uh no, I didn't hear from any of the adjacent um business operators or commercial businesses. Thank you. I don't see any other hands. I just uh similar to councelor Green, just I I always think the the letters in response uh raise points that I think uh are due consideration. Um certainly not in not in favor of the change of going from liquor to cannabis. Um uh and I think understandably there's a there's more use of alcohol than there is of cannabis but both similarly 19 plus in terms of the uh in terms of their use. Um so I um I am supportive of this change but I just just want to acknowledge that we've read those u and I think you know reflectively probably my personal preference would would probably be that it didn't change. Um but I think in terms of representing the interests of the community um I think it's reasonable ask the part of the business owner.

I'll leave my comments there. Uh, so I'll call the question then on first and second reading. All those in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none opposed have the same. Would you just read aloud the third reading? Your worship. I would move that zoning by number 3531986 amendment by line number 4968 2026 be read a third time. Moved and seconded. Is there a seconder? Thanks. Yeah, I don't usually debate on third reading, so I'll give a heartbeat. Nope. All those in favor? Any opposed? And for adoption, your worship, I would further move that zoning by number 35311986, amendment by number 4968, 2026, be adopted. Seconded. Thank you. Again, don't Oh, go ahead, councelor Patterson.

I will have a motion arising if uh once this done, can I should I do it now? No, you should do it after after consideration of the motion. Uh so on the motion on the floor is for adoption. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Councelor Patterson, you indicate you have the motion arising. I do. Thank you, Mayor. And and you know, we have, as you referred to, we have had quite a bit of correspondence. So, uh, motion arising is that staff be directed to prepare a report for council on establishing a non-medical cannabis retail store policy for the district of Oak Bay, including an outline of the provincial and municipal approval processes and potential amendments to the district's zoning bylaw required to implement such a policy.

Could you just read that again just so we have it? I'm just want to make sure I'm clear about whe you're asking for that policy to be developed or for a report to come back to the that staff be directed to pre prepare a report for council on establishing a non-medical cannabis retail store policy for the district of Oak Bay, including an outline of the provincial and municipal approval processes and potential amendments to the district zoning bylaw required to implement such a policy. Thank you. So it's moved uh just for my clarification if this is seconded and if it passes this would come back to the next council would be my understanding of timelines if this is this report back. So the and just for absolute clarification the report back would be what what it would take to generate such a policy not not asking for the policy. Miss Hunt.

Uh yes thank you for your worship. Just to clarify, uh, staff would not be reporting back at the next meeting with the report that councelor Patterson is to the next council, not Oh, next following the election, not to the next council meeting. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. Not for this council's consideration. Sorry if my my language wasn't clear on that. Um, yeah, just want to make sure that we don't have any more time in this in this thing for that to come back. Okay. I'll second that just um for just to hear the arguments that um councelor Patterson has around this, please. Yep. It's moved and seconded. Go ahead, Councelor Patterson.

Yes, thank you. This motion does not approve or disapprove cannabis retail in Oak Bay today. It simply asked staff to bring council the information information needed to consider whether Oak Bay should establish a clear local policy for non-medical cannabis retail stores. At present, Oak Bay is one of the few municipalities in the region without a pathway for proincially licensed cannabis retail. And a staff report would help council understand the provincial process, municipal zoning implications, public notification options, separation distances from sensitive uses and approaches used by neighboring communities. Uh I really see this as the governance piece that uh would be helpful uh as these types of operations um may become um there may be more requests in the future. So I think it it would be prudent upon us to have actually a governance policy by which we we vetted them.

Okay. Thank you. Discussion on the motion. No council Watson. Could I ask a question? Um it's probably of staff. Do we have an equivalent policy for liquor uh retail, Mr. B? through through the mayor. Uh to my knowledge, no, we do not. Um I I'm uh I'm actually torn on whether to support this. I appreciate the report back is just a a report on what it would take to do a report, but I also think these are so few and far between that the development of a report on this and policy is almost overkill for the for the rare times that we're going to be getting these applications. Um probably support it because generally speaking, a report back on what's required is not a not an ownorous task. Uh all right, so the motion is uh to request a report back. I will call the question at this point. All those in favor and those opposed.

None opposed. That carries. Uh so that report will come to the next council, not the next council meeting. Um moving on to item 7.1. We have appointment of the chief financial officer. Uh can I have someone read in the motion here? I worship. I would move uh the staff recommendation or that move that council resend the appointment of Michelle Hunt as interim chief financial officer for the district of Oak Bay. and secondly appoint Jennifer Lockheart as the chief financial officer for the District of Oak Bay. Is there a seconder? Thank you. I just want to take this opportunity. Uh we were just in the transition period between uh um director of finance and uh and so our CEO stepped in and took on that role in the interim, but we're very pleased to have Jennifer Lockhart uh starting with us here. Um she joined us the district at the end of June for her first meeting in Oak Bay.

Um she comes to this district with 11 years of experience in senior leadership and local government most recently serving if I get this wrong you can correct me uh as the senior manager of financial services for the district of Sanage. So we're just [clears throat] very pleased to welcome you to Oak Bay and look forward to working with you as you step into this role. Would you like to say anything? Yes. Thank you for the warm welcome and I am too very excited to be here. It's a tremendous opportunity and I look forward to serving all of the residents and the uh the district of Oak Bay.

Thank you. Thank you, Miss. Very good. I'm now going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed? That carries unsurprisingly, but good to have it. Something that we do have to do. Um we move on to probably something that's a little less uh quick is the uh 7.2, 2 which is 2090 Cadaroo Bay Road official community plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment Miss Cook. We have with us our senior planner and uh welcome. Thank you mayor and good evening to yourself and councel. This application is for a fivestory mixeduse multi-unit building located at 290 Cabro Bay Road at the corner of Cabro Bay Road and Epworth Street. The application includes an OCP amendment to amend the neighborhood village designation in this location to increase the allowable height from four stories to five stories, a zoning bylaw amendment to create a comprehensive development zone that is sight specific to the proposal and a commercial and mixeduse development permit application to manage the form and character. [clears throat] Excuse me.

The residential component of the building includes 16 residential strata units with two dwelling units proposed to be sold at below market rates to Habitat for Humanity or a similar entity. The building also includes a commercial ground floor which is currently proposed to contain a hybrid daycare and co-working space. Um further work is required to identify sight specific uses for the proposed commercial space. The application has been reviewed by the advisory design panel on June 9th and the advisory planning commission on June 17th. Both advisory bodies um recommended approval with considerations which are included in the staff report. The property is in location that is supported by frequent transit, active transportation, commercial businesses, and recreational services making the location appropriate for higher density development. Nonetheless, staff consider there are a number of outstanding matters that need to be addressed before the application can be supportable.

Staff are therefore recommending that the application is referred back to staff to work with the applicant to address outstanding issues as outlined in the recommendation of the report. The applicant, Mr. Andrew Mills, is present today and has prepared a presentation for council. Excuse [clears throat] me. And I understand a representative representative from Nickbury Architecture is also joining us online after the presentation from the applicant. Staff and the applicant are happy to take any questions that council may have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Cook. Please come forward. It's the same process of just your name and municipality, residence or business and then uh you can have normally you do about five minutes but we can have up to 10 minutes but I will cut you off after 10 minutes in the interest of uh making sure we have a chance to get to questions and and discussion.

Do you mind going back to the start or can I do that? I'll try. It's working on the online version, but it's not working in here. So, we're sharing I think the maybe the wrong screen. Yeah, this appears to be the end of the presentation, not the beginning. Yeah, when you were scrolling backwards, it was the uh the the Zoom call showed the you scrolling backwards, but not the end in in room presentation. Well, I I may start while we're we're waiting for this. There's not a lot of visuals uh at the beginning anyways. Sure. Um so um my name is Andrew Mills. Uh I am um representing Hlet Homes and uh we're proposing uh development building at 290 Cadro Bay Road. Uh I'll try to be as non-repetitive as possible because Miss Cook uh described uh a lot of what what we're doing here. [snorts] Uh so in essence um we've been working with staff, we've been through committees and and there's uh somewhat general recognition that the proposal is in line with the spirit and the intent of the neighborhood village designation uh from

the OCP. Uh we're looking for direction to determine whether we should continue on with this this proposal. Uh we are proposing an OCP OCP amendment as well as we are um proposing fewer parking spaces than the bylaw um suggests we should and so um [snorts] you know it's an expensive process to go through and if there isn't support then then we'd rather know that now than come come through to bylaw uh readings and such. Uh so essentially we're proposing a a fifth story um in the new neighborhood village designation which calls for up to four stories. Uh the context of that is that we uh initially um uh started this application process went through our first review during the old OCP when that designation called for four to six stories and then it was reduced to four stories. Uh and we're kind of stuck in the middle with an already in progress application.

[snorts] Uh we we believe it provides meaningful housing. Oh, we're here now. Uh meaningful housing benefit while maintaining um you know the OCP's uh overall design intent from the neighborhood village. Uh we're proposing a a transportation um first car light approach. Um you know the the site is uniquely positioned within a neighborhood village and there's excellent access to walking, cycling um and alternative forms of transportation. uh and uh we're we're uh proposing a barrage of of TDM measures to to make up the shortfall if there is any. Uh so the overview uh Miss Cook went went through this largely uh you know our vision though is a mixeduse walkable building designed to increase uh housing stock, reduce reliance on cars uh and and support local businesses and and community life within that neighborhood village.

Uh again, we're located at uh corner of Cadro Bay and uh and Epworth and the location really matters in this one. Uh you know, it's one of the few sites in Oak Bay that is in a neighborhood village and has such access to amenities so close. Uh so to the south, I don't think this is a pointer. Uh to the south we have Oak Bay Recre, we have Oak Bay High, we have all those amenities. To the west we have Fort and Foul Bay within a less than five minute walk. Uh to the east we have existing purpose-built um three fourstory apartment style buildings likely from around uh mid-century sort of sort of area and then to the north along Epworth we have uh traditional residential homes.

Uh we have bias setbacks to the south and to the east uh because that's really what the the public experience will be of the building. uh you know uh access to the commercial space is off Capro Bay Road. Uh access to the res residential area is about halfway up the lot off Epworth Street. And then currently access to the parking area is uh is near the rear of the lot off of Epworth Street. We tried to develop uh build or propose a nicel looking building uh you know heavy on articulation, vertical lines, varying materials and colors and and textures to to make it a pleasing build building to look at. This is the Cabro Bay Road uh frontage. And then we have the uh and then we have the uh Epworth Road frontage uh which I mean is different but in a similar style.

Oh, here we go. Uh each floor would would be proposed to have uh two two bedrooms, two one-bedroom units. Onebedroom units are, you know, 7-800 square f feet. Two-bedroom units are, you know, 11-,200 ft². Uh, we've tried to design nice layouts for those units. Uh, as as Miss Cook mentioned, we've been through ADP and APC both with a recommended recommendation for council approval with considerations. Uh, and and overall, I think we we are aligned with the OCP. Um, you know, we support compact sustainable growth, which is what the neighborhood village is looking for. Uh we're supporting active transportation and and reducing greenhouse gases through through um travel. Uh it's already supported by existing infrastructure. Uh and advances broader district policies for housing sustainability.

There are some issues to resolve. Uh these are I mean I won't say minor issues because there's no such thing but they are not to do with the OCP amendment necessarily. uh you know in as much as um they aren't to do with the fifth story specifically. They're to do with facade improvements, glazing on commercial areas, how to implement uh something like a car share, how to implement non-market housing, uh how how the systems will work, waste management, pickup, where it gets a stage before it's picked up, loading zones for commercial areas, that sort of thing. Again, important things but not fatal uh issues to resolve uh as it as they are not necessarily related to the five stories. [snorts] So, so the question um we're looking to have answered from council is you know if the fifth story is supportable uh you know we feel it provides uh you know a substantial community benefit that wouldn't exist wouldn't otherwise be possible without five stories. Uh and we feel it's in line with the spirit of the OCP. Uh likewise with the the parking

light approach we we feel like this strengthens the proposal. You know the the OCP uh is not looking to prioritize and maximize parking. We're looking to reduce single occupancy vehicles and we're looking to do that through location, walkability, uh TDM measures, etc. So again, um touched on this again. So I don't think we'll achieve OCP goals of of reducing um single occupancy driving by building lots of parking. I think there's there's tasteful ways to do it in the right location with the right TDM measures that will make a a project like this um viable and and a positive for the community. And I'm not asking council to hope it will work. This is evidence-based. We have data to support that this sort of approach does work. Um referencing specifically a post occupancy study at uh on Shelburn Street in Sanich. Uh it was a larger building again a mixeduse building. uh uh end up being built at half the amount of parking that we're we're proposing for this this proposal, but it worked. Uh you know, the parking demand was accommodated on site. There was no

spillover onto adjacent streets and in in essence the TDM, the uh transportation demand um management measures worked. Parking supply methodology worked. So, I'm proposing uh more density than the OCP uh currently allows. Um I think it's an appropriate density. I think it's um a positive community. Uh the fifth story really is critical though. It provides additional homes. Uh it improves the project viability and and likely is the difference between the project proceeding or not. Uh and we we do this while aligning with uh mostly with the OCP. Here we go again. Oops. And so the request we're making today is not for uh uh a bylaw reading. The request is some for direction. Uh should we continue down the road with this proposal or is this fifth story a no-go for council? Um no. So, is council supportive in principle of pursuing an OCP amendment to allow consideration of a five-story mixeduse building on the site? And um if if they are great, we continue along. We work with staff to perfect the proposal. Um if not, then we

have to reconsider and and potentially abandon it. Thank you very much. And I'm available for questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Mills. Much appreciated. Um that was a nice halfway sort of seven and a half minutes. It's just about perfect uh between the five and the set 10. Um I'm going [clears throat] to move over here to members of council. Uh procedurally here as noted, this is not uh for public input at this time. Uh council is sort of our first chance to look at it. As noted, either provide feedback uh for changes or uh or none no changes in advancing it or to uh or to or decline.

Those are the sort of three options available to us. Before we get there, we want to make sure that we're we're doing our due diligence and asking appropriate questions uh to understand the the context of the application. I have hands online first, so I'll go there. Counselor Smart and then Braithweight. Thank you. Um my first question um is likely for for staff but perhaps for the applicant. So through you mayor, is there any additional information on how the storm water management is being designed? Yes, through you, mayor. Um, so, uh, storm water servicing plan has been submitted, uh, with the application and has been reviewed by engineering, but as I understand, we have not received a full storm water manage a comprehensive storm water management plan with the application so far. Um, but the applicant may have further details on storm water.

I through the mayor. I do not have further information on storm water at this time. Continue. Councelor Smart. Well, thank you. Um my um second and last question is, is the applicant um open to other retail uses that would provide more direct community interaction? Um or is this project um uh specifically reliant on the proposed ground floor uses? else again through the mayor. Uh no, we're not married to the commercial use. Uh you know, it was uh sort of just a brainstorm of of a possibility that could work there. Um co-working and child minding, you know, in in my opinion could be a a good thing for the community, but there's lots of options retail wise there.

Thank you. Uh going to councelor Brieweight online. Thanks very much. Thanks very much, Mary. Can you hear me? We you can. and you started off quiet, but we can hear you now. Okay. Thank you. And I'm I apologize for not being in chambers tonight, but I have a bit of a cold, so I didn't want to spread my germs. Um I do have a number of questions. And just to follow up on the question that councelor um Smart asked about the storm water management. Um do we do you know where that might be on the site or because it hasn't been planned so far, you're not really exactly sure where because it's such a small site, I wonder where it might be placed on the site.

Miss Cook, do you wish to I think at this point we don't have those details. Is that correct? Yes. Through you, Mary. Yeah, we don't have those details. I'm not sure I totally understand the question. I suppose there's a number of different storm water management tools that you can use uh through landscaping like rain gardens or actual devices that are underground, but yes, currently that is not part of the current proposal. Okay. Thank you so much. Um, and can you um can staff just clarify how many legal dwelling units actually currently exist on this property through? Yep. Through you, mayor. Um, yeah. So, there is an error in the staff report that states that it's currently a single family dwelling, but there is a basement suite. So, there are two uh there's two dwelling units on the property currently.

Okay. Thank you. Um, and then I I'm I'm when I read the report, I was um I was a little bit um perplexed because uh when I look um at on page 29 to 34, it looks like there's 12 bedrooms and four 12 two bedrooms and four single rooms. But in their um letter um on page 42, uh it says that there's actually eight um one two bedrooms and eight one bedrooms. So, I'm wondering what what we're seeing and why why it's different than what perhaps I'll give that question. Sure. I'll give that question to Mr. Mills. Do you do you have an accurate Yeah. through the mayor. Um, so the initial proposal was for um a variety of threebedroom, two-bedroom, and one one-bedroom units. However, we were proposing a single egress staircase, which uh you know is within provincial uh building code. however, is not supportable by our current um fire department's capacity. And so the the proposal was changed, but again, rather than redesigning redesigning redesigning and coming back with fully resolved

plans, uh we we um discussed the um getting a mandate from count from mayor and council before we do those changes. uh but no the the current plan is for eight one onebedroom and eight two-bedroom units. Okay. So the what we have in front of us it's it as you can understand that we we're seeing two different things that are in front of us. So that's why a bit of confusion there I think. Um and also going along that same um line of questioning uh around the the the commercial space um front in Cabra Bay um you mentioned that it would be a child care work space um but then on another part of the plans it says that it's going to be um in in your letter from February actually it says it's going to be ground for ground for commercial space and then so it could be like a boutique restaurant or a small um retail um but so I'm I'm confused as to

whether or not it's going to be childcare spaces or it's going to be commercial residents or commercial um retail. Uh thanks for the question through the mayor. That's unresolved at this time. This is an empty space that we're proposing here. Uh and you know the the application has evolved uh since February. Uh certainly I believe the mixed use uh commercial DPA calls for retail. Uh so anything other than office space. So again, we are not married to uh a certain business in there. We we want uh we envision for this building um a commercial space that is uh more community oriented, something that doesn't draw people from far away, but is a center within that the the local community. People can walk to, people can bike to. A co-working child mining is an option. Coffee shop is an option.

A hardware store is an option. Those are all retail. In fact, the the childminding co-working space is is um technically not um appropriate according to the the commercial mixeduse DPA. But in essence, the we're not married to anything. We don't have a plan for it. It it's spitballing. Thank you. Because I I do know that um if you did have a childare space, I I believe there's a um a provincial requirement that you have to have outdoor space um when you have a a childare space. So, that might be something that you need to take into consideration if you go down that path. Um, and then as far as the um the parking studies go, and this perhaps might go to staff. Um, did we do any independent um verification of the parking inventory in that area yet, or is that something that would be um in the future?

Miss Cook, uh, through you, Mayor. Um, no. As the file manager, I did not do any independent um I suppose site visits specific to the parking on street parking um within the area. And as I understand it, um engineering did not uh undertake an independent um site visit either. Okay. Um Okay, I'm going to hold on the rest of my questions right now. Um and I'll let someone else and you can maybe come back to me later on. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bully. Wanted to add something. Yeah, thank you, mayor. Um, I would like to add that uh um staff do review the methodology of the of the study and uh at a higher level, but further review will be needed to look into questions that were raised and and and further information that came up.

Thank you. Thank you. And I think uh to the point of the applicant, um we're not getting into all the weeds today. This is kind of a a first touch to see if there's a a general feeling that this meets the general intention or for uh or not. uh and to give some direction if it does go forward. So, appreciate that approach and uh so I think we we have to accept that there's going to be some slightly unanswered questions at this point because it's it's a slightly incomplete application. Uh can councelor Watson next. Thank you, Mayor. I just have one question and it is back to the single egress stair and the initial proposal and it's really I suppose to staff. I I know that we don't have fire services present here tonight, but I just wondered what the rationale what what the constraints are in Oak Bay that would prevent a single egress uh proposal being considered for this site.

I I know we have an outstanding request for a staff report and some policy options on this, but in the interim uh why was this flagged by fire services? Mr. Bull, thank you. uh through you through the mayor. Um the key consideration or concern is uh the size of fire department and the ability to have sufficient staff show up to fight the fire but also deal with any evacuation of the building. So uh that's where there are challenges uh uh that uh make it make higher buildings uh and this is not a very high building just yet but higher than u than I think the the fire department would be comfortable if that's uh at a high level my understanding of the concern. Thank you.

Right. And just to follow up, are those standards that are set proincially that they have to manage to I I again you may be out of beyond what you can answer but I am curious about that. Mr. B. Thanks for you mayor. Um yeah the province has allowed for this option. uh but with this option that the province has also allowed outlined that uh there needs to be planning for for those kind of situations and that it needs to be determined if there is sufficient fire protection services available. Um and there's probably also other just regular uh requires of fire departments. Um but I want to be clear that this is an option in the in the provincial legislation. It is not a uh outright allowable approach. It's subject to local conditions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. That was my only question for clarification. Appreciate it. Thank you. I don't have notes for other people I'm speaking with. Councelor Appleton. Go ahead. Thank you, worship. Uh and through you. Uh I think this is a question for staff. I just wanted to talk uh briefly about the neighborhood village designation and this is laid out and and described by staff in attachment 14 to the staff report and I appreciate this analysis but I just wanted to confirm a couple of points. As I recall, uh during review of the draft OCP before it was finalized, uh this neighborhood designation uh included a four and up to six uh designation in previous iterations of the OCP. And as I recall that four to six as it as it is four with up to six uh was actually uh revised for this specific site. It was originally proposed, but I think was brought forward as an amendment uh to have that be uh not 4 to6 on the specific site as

part of that OCP deliberation. Is that correct? And I don't mean to put staff on the spot, Mr. Green. Uh good evening, worship, members of council. Yes, that is correct. And so, yeah, council, there was an amendment, I believe, in January of this year, uh, to try and revisit, uh, increasing the height at this location up to six stories, but that motion failed. Uh, the motion that did pass was in relation to the Cedar Hill, Henderson Road, uh, neighborhood village where the height was increased up to six stories. Go ahead, please. Uh, thank you through your your worship and and thank you for that. I'm aware of that amendment, but I think that that was actually a later amendment. I think that the language to restrict four to six stories where the language now states up to six stories may be considered only at the neighborhood village located at the intersection of Cedar Hill crossroad and Henderson Road.

I think that that language was actually incorporated the original language as in the OCP debate included four to six stories on all neighborhood village designations if I'm correct. F3 worship. Yeah, I believe that is the case. That is correct. So if I can continue your go ahead. So thank you for that. as a follow-up question with respect to that. Um so just for the clarity for for council and members of the public, we do not because the the uh irrespective of whether this was four or five or four or five or six stories, it would still require a comprehensive uh development designation for this particular property because the design standards and the the st the uh uh layout or the uh design uh requirements for the building are not yet in the zoning bylaw. That's correct.

Mr. Green, this is in respect to the current RM3, I guess, zoning. Yeah. Yeah. Through your chair, perhaps I can clarify if we're talking about the OCP land use designation or the zone within the district's zoning bylaw. I guess from staff's perspective, we have determined that this triggered an OCP amendment given that this proposal was for five stories and the OCP specifically uh has a height limit of four stories at this specific location. Thank you, worship. I'm just I'm looking to clarify for the purposes of clarifying for the public. Uh there's a difference between the OCP uh policy CF3 which outlines you know the built form characteristics and intended land use for the neighborhood village designation and in fact what the property is currently zoned for and what type of zoning would be required for the property to execute certain other types of built forms. So it would be possible in this particular case even though it is RM3 that uh depending on the nature

of what was proposed you would still need a CD zone to achieve the uh built form and characteristics as outlined in policy CF3 F3 worship. Yes, that is correct. they would still require given that we don't have a fourstory mixuse zone within the zone in Ber then it's likely that staff would recommend they zone until such time as we have zones that align align with our land use designations in the OCB obviously that is part of the prezoning uh work that is uh that staff has commenced this year go ahead thank you worship so that that was the the the crux of what I was looking for confirmation on is is that there is at this stage of the game not a misalignment, but we do not have, as Mr.

Green has indicated, we do not have language in our zoning bylaw that allows us to uh directly execute the built form and characteristics and intended use that are outlined in the approved OCP policy for uh the neighborhood village designation. So, thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant or to staff? Go ahead, councelor Green. This is for the applicant. Mayor, um, thank you for coming today and for the presentation. Um, following [clears throat] this conversation that we just had at the table, could you tell me, uh, what is preventing you from building something that is consistent with the current zoning, uh, that would not require, uh, a zoning amendment to our official community plan?

Is there any reason why you couldn't reconfigure because it seems as though you're still in the sort of evolutionary process as you described it? Um, and I also realize that you haven't actually met with the neighborhood since January. So, you have made some changes and had some thoughts. Um, and so consultation, timely consultation with the neighborhood would be helpful, I think. But in that evolution, um, was it ever discussed to build something that was consistent that didn't require, um, you know, an amendment to the OCP as it stands. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Uh, through your worship, thank you for the question. Uh, essentially that comes down to financials really. um a four-story building on this site uh with the the expenses one encounters um TDM measures elevator uh you know upgraded seismic sort of uh costs with the new building building code it's just not feasible to make it work on this site. So the the five stories it it's really five stories or it's going back to sort of um

sort of bill 44 and the SSMU guidelines which would um typically allow four sort of town houses on this site. So we know it's up in the air which is why we're here, right? And so we're we're going to see if we can get five stories and if we can or if we can get support for that then then we'll proceed but the four stories won't be won't be viable and we're left with kind of an SSMU sort of development. And one more follow-up question through you mayor to the applicant. you mentioned um housing for Habitat for Housing. Um how far along are you in those negotiations with Habitat for Housing? And the reason I ask is um I'm familiar with that organization. They normally build for families, not for individuals in a in a single unit. So, I'm just wondering where you are at with your conversation. Thank you.

Yes, through the mayor. Um we've had preliminary discussions. Uh there's interest. uh there's there's barriers uh in in the way um most most notably uh sort of down payment sort of funds uh you know and Habitat I mean they have a variety of ways of implementing their housing goals and and one of those is to essentially buy something pre-sale at a reduced rate and then hold that uh or or essentially broker a sale with a covenant on title uh and and so we're we're not very far down that road. Um, but certainly if it's not Habitat for Humanity, there's there's multiple mechanisms to to implement a a non-market housing. And that was one of the issues I I discussed. You know, that's one of the things we need to resolve. How do we actually do that? Is it Habitat? Is it someone else? Is it through me?

Thank you. Uh, thank you, Council Green. Uh, any other first-time speakers? Uh I just have a couple of questions here. I mean I I guess I'll I'll prefront this a little bit and there's a there's a comment in the report just you know speaking to the fact this is a small lot for doing this and and um you know 6,000 or 600 square meters versus 2,000 is a minimum for RM3 and it kind of carries over with the setbacks and so forth. And I I guess I'm going to just touch on that language in there. Is there any potential here for doing a land assembly that would kind of allow for this to kind of reduce some of the because we're talking about five stories here as an OCP amendment. We're asking for a significant amount of variances attached to setbacks on all four sides.

Um so just curious if that had been looked at or if that's a feasible thing in this market to do any kind of land assembly. Um thank you for the question. you know, there's there's always possibilities. I I have spoke to the owners next door uh you know, in in fact the adjacent property and the property next door to that uh and uh developer, right? And so that would look like um sort of me moving away, me abandoning the project, right? which which come what may. But you know again that's why we're we're here to to sort of determine the the feasibility of that and you know if if unfortunately if it doesn't work that would be unfortunate but it also gives us direction to sort of move on from it. So so at this time a land assembly is is not really on the table.

Yeah. Thank you Mr. Mills. And the second question I had um is specific to the setbacks and that's just on the interior side lot which is adjacent to the building which is require 6 meters and is there a 007 which is basically nothing. Um just perhaps you could just touch on that because it obviously would given that there are windows in that side of the building. Um it limits the development capacity of the of the lot adjacent to it. So if you can just sort of talk to that setback ask. Yeah. So my understanding is with the comprehensive uh design district there is no set minimum setback. Um are may I ask if are you referring to the RM3 zoning bylaw?

Correct. Yeah. So the RM3 I mean all all of our zoning has some setback requirements on all four sides. So um obviously the substantial again this is tied to the size of the lot but but I'm just talking very specifically about that interior side lot which is the one adjacent to the next building which is listed here as I read it 007 meters uh 7 cm um you know the size the setbacks for most of the things in that area are six meters so it seems like it would be a matter of setback for sure uh you know and again that's tied to the size of the lot um And you know the option is to center the building uh towards Epworth reduces that that setback. Um you know especially with the the double egress staircase now it's it's tough to make all of that work uh while maintaining sort of um the parking supply that we're offering commercial space and there's actually an access requirement off of uh off that interior lot as well. So, so

yeah, certainly consideration was [snorts] um given to making it the the um the best possible sighting is that that is possible, but my understanding was that there there wasn't actually um an uh a CD specific uh you know setback requirement and those are just built into the built into whatever that CD zone ends up being. But staff may be able to answer that better than I can. No, it's it's fair. I mean you're right in that the sense there was no you can ask for anything in a comprehensive development piece but perhaps you could just can you just given it is essentially a zero meter setback and and there are windows on that side of the building it does sort of force uh you know the reason we have setbacks is to make sure that there's air space given by both parties there. So I just was that was primarily the source of my question is I guess a is that it doesn't sound like it's very movable given there's only about 5t on the other side

of the building to move it to the property line as well. Yeah, I I mean certainly um where there's a will, there's a way. Uh you know, if if setback ends up being a a a barrier for for mayor and council, then then that's part of um the mandate we're looking to get. Um can we work with staff? I mean, it's a tight site as as you can see. So, I'm not sure if it can or not, but certainly that's something I'm I'm more than willing to work on. Thank you for that. Um, and I have a second time speaker, no first at the first time. Go ahead, councelor Smart.

Thank you. Um, I just had a question for staff with regards to the single egress uh, stair approach being denied by the fire department. Uh, and just the potential loss of those larger um, family oriented units. Uh I had understood when the fire department had requested a mention of potentially limiting single egress uh stair applications as I mentioned in the OCP that single egress stair applications would still be reviewed on a project by project basis. So I'm wondering did this specific review take place and what are the criteria that the fire department reviews and can this be made available to council? I guess particularly looking at this project on a corner site with laneway there's good access. We also have other five-story buildings in Oak Bay. And I'm just wondering, was there discussion around whether four stories would be supportable with a single egress um uh stair design or or a slightly fewer units? I'm just curious to hear more about that specific uh review that that took place so that we can learn more about how we can bring

this important um housing typology to the district. that provides so many more opportunities for um livable um units and and more um housing options for our residents. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Smart. We don't have the fire chief in the room today, so uh I'll give it to Mr. Bull. Thank you, Mayor you. uh I don't know the details of the exact criteria but I know do know and it can confirm that this is always considered on a case by case basis and there have been some scenarios but there are much lower buildings where single egress can be supported uh but the exact criteria and reasons why that could not be supported in this case uh I cannot comment on the specifics thank you anything else councelor okay uh councelor wraith for a second time uh Thank you, mayor. Um, I think these questions are probably for staff. Um, there was a number of, uh, um, uh, pieces of correspondence that came in that had some questions that I thought

perhaps you'd be able to answer. And one of the questions was about the public information meeting um, that was held by the proponent on January 8th. And and there was a a suggestion that it didn't meet the legal requirements of the development application procedures bylaw. Um, and I'm wondering if staff can touch on that, if they have any information about that. Miss Miss Cook, thank you for the question through you, Mayor. Yes. So, a public information meeting um was held um and we reviewed it against uh the the development um application procedures bylaw. Um I guess one thing that is still in question is that this meeting was held um before the public was aware that there was an OCP amendment. So, I guess where we're at in this stage of the process, we're not at bylaw readings, kind of getting that first feedback from council. Um, but if this application was to proceed, uh, we would, uh, be happy to work with the applicant to set up a another public

information meeting that they can have as well as, um, if the OCP amendment is moving forward, there's also a public hearing requirement. Thank you, C. Thank you. And and then also another question that was raised was about the errors in the um parking study um that were presented to the APC on June 17th. And so I'm wondering has the APC seen the actual updated parking study or are they were they basing their um comments etc on the um unupdated one? Miss Cook, thank you for the question through you mayor. Uh yes, the advisory planning commission uh did have the updated parking study included as an attachment in that report.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Over to this table here, we have uh um a recommendation here for should this advance was to to ask uh the staff to work with the applicant to address a number of the uh of the points there. Um, but I think as as noted by the applicant, this is the chance to uh to also provide any additional feedback or if it's if there isn't going to be support for the OCP amendment or other aspects of this, this is an opportunity to provide that feedback here as well. Um, so with that, uh, I'm going to go back to folks at this table and we can have a either a motion on the floor is probably the simplest thing to do.

Go ahead, councelor Appleton. really your worship. I would move the staff recommendation. So moved, seconded. Uh and yeah, applicant isn't leaving the room, but we may have some more additional questions that come out of the debate, but no, you can you can sit down. It's good. Uh go ahead, councelor Appleton. Thank you, worship. So I'll speak in favor of the staff recommendation. Uh I think that there is especially because there is ample language in the staff recommendation proposing quite a bit of additional work to address some of the questions that have come up from the advisory body review of the application. So I see that there is an active and deliberate response proposed in the staff recommendation to uh to address that. Uh I recognize that this there is a fairly significant scope in development. I do not consider it to be out of uh line with the neighborhood village designation because as I've spoken to here previously, the neighborhood village designation as originally contemplated in the OCP did contemplate four to six stories uh on all neighborhood village designation areas.

And as we also uh confirmed with staff, uh even a fourstory uh building on this site, if we were going to propose a a one-story reduction, even a four-story would trigger uh comprehensive development type of uh structure here. We don't have the zoning tools in place to execute the vision that is laid out in the neighborhood village designation which is in the approved OCP. So because we do not have those things in place at this time, then I feel that projects which broadly fit with the OCP policy for the neighborhood village designation warrant consideration both by council and advisory bodies and warrant uh working deliberately to try and address the issues that are laid out here in the staff recommendation. So, I do believe it has enough merit to go forward and should the applicant be successful in addressing some of the things that are included here in the staff recommendation, then I would look forward to it going to readings and also having a public hearing in keeping with

its CD designation. So the C staff or uh the public would have an opportunity to weigh in on the extent to which the applicant has responded to the specifications in the neighborhood village designation in the approved OCP. Thank you worship. Thank you. I have councelor Watson then Brieweight speaking to the motion. Yes. Thank you. And I'm also as councelor Appleton has enumerated in favor of of taking this forward. I think that there's a a a reasonable um uh grouping of of additional information, additional study, additional work requests to help flesh this out. Um but I was um in thinking about what should be happening in neighborhood villages.

Um when the when the applicant referred to the idea of the the other, you know, option being single, you know, um small scale multi-unit housing, four units per lot, I would see that not consistent with what we're trying to achieve in this location and it would be a real lost opportunity. So I think that there is an opportunity here. It needs further work. Um, one thing I I would just add is that when the advisory design panel, I am lazen to that group, um, discussed this project, they identified it in their own language as kind of the gateway project for this neighborhood village area. And so they saw it as an important and prominent site and not necessarily just this site, but the neighboring properties to the west. And um I think that there there's you know opportunity absolutely here which the applicant is showing that he's prepared to do more investigation of. So I'm happy to uh move this I would I'll I'll be supporting the motion to move this forward with the staff recommendation.

Thank you. I have in my speakers list councilors Braithweight Green and Patterson. Uh thanks very much mayor. Um and I'm going to be speaking against the um the motion. Um and it's not um whether I support housing. It's Julie about whether the proposal to me aligns with um the planning framework that council has adopted um for OCP. Um so I I'm I'm I'm also not really sure about the difference in the staff um in the plans that the staff has have in their report and the applicants plans that are in in uh in their portion of the report. I think there's too many differences there. Um, and I also believe that um, the integrity of the OCP is in jeopardy.

Our OCP is less than seven months old and residents I think if we if we moved ahead with something like this or if we're we're suggesting that something like this is acceptable, then the residents could um, they could really lose confidence in what we are putting forward as our OCP. So, I I I really strongly feel that way about that. Um, I think, um, it should be consistent with our current zoning. Um, and I'm really concerned about the lack of proposed parking, especially if there's a commercial area in there. Um, and we're asking for, I mean, we're asking for up to eight changes for them to go and consider up to eight changes uh, that we're suggesting. Um, and that's just so many. And I'm not confident that the applicant can come back with um, something that's actually going to fit in to what I would consider should be fitting into our OCP. I think three stories would be better and I think that the community would feel a lot better about three stories in this area. So sadly I can't um even though I would

like to see the uh some increased housing on on that corner, I can't support um this even moving going back to the proponent to have some um modifications because I don't believe that the modifications that will come back will fit in with what we want to see in the neighborhood. Thank you. Uh thank you for that councelor Braithweight. I have next council green and then Patterson and then I'm assuming councelor Smart you'd like to speak to it as well. Thank you very much. Um this is you know this is difficult. Um I will not be supporting the motion. I feel this is a very hypothetical proposal. There are too many uncertainties um embedded in the proposal and I really appreciate the staff report bringing to uh our attention at least eight shortcomings that require attention. I I appreciate that. But there are a couple of things that I'm concerned about. One is the Boker Creek wershed and water course. Um and that involves the storm water

runoff. And we did receive an email from um our director of engineering today uh specifically uh talking about that. And so without a storm water plan or water management plan on site, I'm concerned about the runoff and what impact that might have on on Booker Creek. And the friends of Booker Creek have spoken about that very clearly. And in fact, I met with them not that long ago, and they they are very concerned about anything that occurs within three blocks uh within a threeb block radius around around the Ber Baler Creek water course. Um I'm concerned about the lack of timely consultation with the neighborhood um and the fact that it occurred before there was um a zoning um amendment or bylaw amendment required for the OCP. Um, I'm also concerned about the parking, both street parking and and the lack of on-site parking. I think we've already seen the impacts of inadequate parking on other small streets and those with resident only parking. I I'm trying to envision where where people will park. And I think it's a wonderful ideal to assume that people

won't use cars um or or have cars, but I think uh the reality is that we still have motor vehicles um accessing and egressing properties like this. Um I think a threetory Is there an echo? Sorry, [laughter] there is an echo. Somebody's I think got their micro their their speaker turned up on their laptop. Keep keep speaking. Um there is also um uh oh I've lost my train of thought now with the echo. Um I know you know three stories would be very applicable and very doable on this site. We also haven't gotten into the process of village planning yet. We talk a lot about village plans but we haven't actually undertaken the planning process. I think um we need to be careful about that when we're looking at amending the OCP around village centers and village plans. And so therefore, I would like to see this go back.

I I think the applicant said it himself, this has been very much an evolutionary process. I think there is still good information to bring forward, but in its current state, um I cannot support it. I would I would rather see it denied and then they can sit down with staff. I'm not in a position to direct the applicant in what he should he or she should do next. I I don't feel I have enough information and there is not enough certainty in this report. So, thank you. Uh thank you councelor Green. I now go to councelor Patterson and councelor Smart for comments on the motion.

Yes, thank you mayor. I will not be supporting the um uh the motion as it stands. Um and primarily that is because the applicant has come forward to say if we agree to the dimensions really the height and the the the footprint of the building then perhaps they will work on these things. Um and I I I find that that's not tremendously useful in making a decision at the council table. Um when this application actually went to the advisory planning cons uh committee for consideration, the motion to approve it failed three times before the committee decided on letting it go forward and outlining um the strong concerns that they had as a committee about the application. Um and the staff have our district staff here have done a very good job in capturing many of these um concerns in what the recommendation is.

However, it's uh the concerns of the committee and it was a fairly lengthy discussion was how even things like having to reverse in and or out of the the parking that was there was a safety risk and they didn't they did not see a path forward to resolving that satisfactorily. So it's um and certainly the uh in our OCP the mixeduse development permit area does say that we will respect and enliven the character and street ca street streetscape of commercial areas and contribute to the neighborhood's sense of place and we didn't see that the committee did and and myself I I don't see that demonstrated in what is before us and so it's uh there are so many unknowns to this that I I simply can't support it moving forward at this point in time especially if it's the applicant's expectation that we are as a council if this moves forward agreeing to to the dimension the scale the height the footprint of the building as it is

it's a very um it's not a large mayor as you pointed out it is not a large property to do this type of development Uh thank you uh councelor Smart and then I will speak to the motion. Please go ahead councelor Smart. Thank you. Um I am supportive of the motion put forward which essentially outlines the next steps to improve and coordinate concerns uh with the uh proposal to date with the two specific asks of clarification from the applicant on whether a fifth story and a car light parking approach are potentially supportable. Uh with regards to five stories being supportable and this location being able to support a carite approach, this site is located within a designated neighborhood, village, close to shops, schools, recreation facilities, parks, services, active transportation, and transit routes. So this is the type of location where we can provide more housing opportunities and we can consider a carite um uh um approach. With regards to the parking, I have heard great interest from residents towards encouraging our growth in our urban village areas to support a healthy

community where we do have these different housing um size opportunities that support different stages of life. Um, and I've I've heard a lot of support for this versus concentrating our housing um within our um single family fabric. Um, so I do believe the proposed um um project uh is is supportable um to go forward with these next um considerations particularly so that we can look at details like our storm water management and we can Councelor Smart is, if you can hear me, you've uh you've frozen on our end and may not notice that because we don't look all that active on our on the small screen. [laughter] Uh probably will notice here in just a minute that uh there's no response.

But councelor Smart, if you can hear me, we cannot hear you. I think we just lost her, but I'll just if you don't mind, we'll give her just a moment to come back into the meeting. Anybody know any good show tunes that we could Oh, here we go. Thankfully. Welcome back, Councelor Smart. Uh, you're just you got cut off there about a minute ago. Um, yes. And I I'm not sure exactly where you were just talking about storm water. Uh, things like storm water could come back. Fantastic. Um, I Yeah, we'll just wrap up then. um uh by just saying that that I I would really appreciate seeing um as much as I I believe that the proposed ground floor uses would be highly desirable in our community, I would appreciate seeing in this particular location uh retail, restaurant or service uses that have more community engagement with the general public just to activate the streetscape. Um and that's the end of my comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councelor Smart. Um uh yeah, my observations here on this one are I guess in response to a couple of the comments. Um I do think that while the V village planning process is still to come, it doesn't preclude us from considering these applications on their merits. Um and uh whether you think four stories, three stories, six stories is the appropriate uh scale of that, we we consider it. And so it's okay for us to look at this prior to the village planning process. I'm going to [clears throat] have to speak shortly because my voice is not going to last. [clears throat] I I'm not also concerned with with details like storm water if that if it proceeds that would be dealt with at the end of the day and we could consider the the details at that point.

So I'm not weighing those things into my consideration here. Um I would also say that at a at a broad strokes there's no one aspect of of and I'll talk about the sort of this street this block um that would preclude it from having u four or five stories. I think um again we're looking at some village planning pieces and we could consider that. Um my my biggest issues with the application and and I'm inclined to think that we're better off uh I think a better kindness here maybe just to decline the application at this point is really just structured not around any specific aspect of the of the application but the reality that it's a 600 square meter lot which is a basically a small single family lot in which we're trying to apply a um a large multif family building onto and that's it just brings constraints uh that are very difficult.

So if we're looking at the um the setbacks on all four sides, they're very very uh reduced from what we expect in multif family uh in Oak Bay. Um the building height will you know substantial I think would be manageable but probably if there were again some greater setbacks which a larger lot would allow. Um, same with things like lot coverage and floor area ratios. You know, they're significant, three times higher than the zoning allows, but they're also uh two to three times higher, but they're again, those are things that we could consider, but they often require some setbacks and things that are just not feasible in a small lot. Um, I do think things like the uh the location for parking demand management uh is a reasonable thing. I don't think we require as much parking here as we do in in some other parts of the community. Um uh and I don't even think I think you know the reg the motion here asking for further work to be done on that makes sense. Um so my my issues here are primarily around um the

the setbacks uh the height um particularly the interior side lot setback but I think given the nature of this type of building uh there are very limited amounts of things that can be done about that. Um and again I think there's a significant difference between five stories on a very small lot with with small small setbacks and there is a five-story building on a street where there's substantial setbacks. Um so for those reasons I don't I think the the the proper thing to do here is that again I want to just highlight that no one of these things uh is a is a is a bullet that that shouldn't be considered. Uh it's reasonable to do reduce setbacks. It's reasonable to consider higher height. Is it reasonable to consider reduced parking? Um, but I look at the cumulative total on this application and it seems like it exceeds the amount that uh is probably reasonable uh given the the location.

Um, and again I don't I think this is really not down to anything other than it's an incredibly difficult and small lot to try and put uh these things on. I I I would just the only other comment I would say on this one in terms of considering ground flooror commercial use. I do think it's critical. Uh it's highlighted in the OCP about the importance of not moving commercial off of the ground floor and it up into up into second floor story commercial. I do think that it should be our our top priority if we're going to be considering I'd rather not see retail on the ground floor personally than to see ground level commercial. I think that we're better off having more housing uh in that situation than we are uh trying to look at ground level commercial. Uh so that's that's [snorts] where I'm sitting at right now on this one is I think that the the cumulative total makes the motion not supportable. Um, and I'll leave it there.

There's any other discussion on the motion that's on the floor. I'm not seeing any. So, I'll call the question. Uh, all those in favor. And those opposed. I have councelor Braithweight, Green Patterson, and myself opposed. So, that motion fails. Um, so Mayor, do we need a motion to deny? We would require I'll just turn to staff to make that clarification, but I believe yes, it would be appropriate to have a motion to deny the application. I would make that motion. It's a motion to deny the application in its current form. Senator movement seconded. Is there discussion? Go ahead, councelor Appleton. Thank you, worship. So, obviously not in favor of the motion on the floor. I'll just take the opportunity just to reiterate uh what I said uh when a similar uh proposal in the neighborhood was being uh considered recently which is that the OCP as adopted in my view provides such a limited amount of there's there's so much correspondence that makes reference to adherence to the

OCP and unfortunately in my view the OCP has adopted provides such limited opportunities for density and additional housing ing that it actually uh er as it has been implemented it actually erodess the ability to provide certainty. All new proposals that require CD zoning. They will require spot zoning. they will require special dispensations because the OCP as adopted uh significantly reduce the amount of density available on lots. So it this type of approach unfortunately although I can appreciate when folks point out the need to be uh adherent to the OCP. Unfortunately the restrictiveness of the OCP requires that to achieve the goal uh [snorts] of the neighborhood village designation which is outlined in the staff report and includes a four to sixstory building for these types of designations. to achieve that you need to do a spot zoning which we've heard over and over again from members of the public that they do not wish to see. So this is exactly the same issue that cropped up with a previous submission of this type and when and if a revised uh

submission comes back it will have the exact same uh issues to deal with. So, I just want to be really clear that the OCP designation and the OCP policy for a neighborhood village does provide for this type of density, but the uh inability for us to execute that through zoning is what's putting us into this spot. Thank you, your worship. Thank you, councelor Appleton. Uh on the motion to deny, I have councelor Smart in the green and Watson. Thank you. I'm obviously not in support of of the motion. Um, I I do see that this is the type of location that our community has been asking for us to uh support with regards to housing options to take away the pressure from um infill housing um and changing the fabric of our residential uh neighborhoods. And so I I really feel that we need to take this application to the next stage to see how um staff can work with the applicant on the recommendations that are listed in the

report. I do think there's a lot of uh potential in this application um and was really um looking forward to to seeing um the potential to bring more housing opportunities to our community. So, I won't be supporting the application. Supporting the motion. You support the application, not the motion. Sorry. [laughter] No, just to be clear, uh, councelor Green then Watson. Thank you. I will be supporting the motion. Um, and I just want to respond to some comments about the official community plan. I recall very distinctly the public hearing. I recall the community outreach around the public hear around the official community plan. And I recall that this council uh the majority of this council voted to scale back some of that density at the request of the community because there is an operative word in official community plan that is the plan belongs to the community. So I think we were responding in a responsible manner. We did not say no density. We scaled back the extent of

density especially um on properties that buffer established neighborhoods. And I really think that's important. Um, and so I I just want to respond to that. Um, this this version of the official community plan was purposeful and it was responding directly to what the community was asking. Thank you. Uh, thank you. I'm appreciate that that we've had a bit of discussion around the the relation to the OCP because this is an OCP amendment. Uh, I'm going to ask everybody just mostly keep our comments on the application here and the merits of approval or denial. Motion on the floor right now is to deny. I have councelor Watson next and then Patterson.

Uh thank you. As I know you already know, I will not be supporting the motion to deny. I think it's disappointing that we wouldn't allow the opportunity for the um examination and exploration of the creative potential of this site. it is in uh a designated neighborhood village area and therefore we need to expect a different building form and treatment in order to achieve our our planning goals and our housing goals. Um I I just wanted to underline that with respect to the correspondence we've received tonight, we had many letters from people who would like to see this move forward. Um we we haven't yet been able to I think um uh find a place where we we can come to say yes to anything and I you know the the applicant asked the question if not here where well I think if not here where I think it's a great question to ask um I I I would just also comment that um notwithstanding the view that maybe it's asking for for too much for a small lot we had a what I felt was

a very good proposal just down the street with very generous setbacks and it still got a no. So, I I'm I'm really really concerned that we're basically signaling to the development community, don't come to Oak Bay. We've got nothing for you. We're never going to say yes. And it would have be we didn't have to say yes to a revised proposal, but we've now limited our opportunity to see what could be done on this site at a gateway to our community on the very strip that we say has to be for neighbor for, you know, a neighborhood village. So, um I'm kind of extremely perplexed that uh that we're looking at a denial. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you. I have councelor Patterson next. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I will uh speak in favor of the motion that it to deny the application and certainly I spoke to a number of the reasons why I I wouldn't move it forward. But as I look at the the list of um what would be referred back to staff to work with the applicant, I think that an applicant coming [clears throat] with an application to council, a professional developer should have worked through most of the logistics of this and been and been coming forward, I believe, with something that um already had a lot of clarity. We we are a small community. Our building and planning department is not large and I I don't think it is really up to staff our staff to work on finding all of the solutions to this. I think it really is the responsibility of an applicant to come forward with with something that does meet not just the housing in the in the

OCP but again the uh enlivening the character and streetscape of a commercial area. It is a gateway to a commercial area and certainly that stretch along there um is suitable to um multi-residential housing because it is so well situated to amenities for residential housing. But that area within the community is also a very heavily used area as it exists today. So yes, I I understand that there was several pieces of correspondence from people who don't live close to that area, may not know how it all functions, but the the transportation issues are not insignificant around the area. I think if we're going to have uh commercial space, it has to be something to enliven commercial space. Otherwise, I think then the focus could be more on on on simply having housing. But there we also have the complexities of being uh a fully built out community and that makes it more challenging, I recognize, for developers to find lots that can reasonably be readapted to um

multi-residential or mixeduse commercial areas. Um so it is challenging but in some of the other uh neighborhoods throughout the region that has been done through land assembly um to to achieve uh the goals of what those communities want. And so I think that we do need to ensure that what is developed in Oak Bay works for Oak Bay. not just just to check boxes of how many housing units we're getting, but what it is doing for the fabric of the community on a longer uh longer term basis. And if if we allowed this to go forward, it really would then just keep the the problem then moving along beside it because the setbacks are are so small that um we it just further constrains us. So, I uh I'll support the MO motion to deny the application.

All right, the motion to deny is on the floor. Um I'll just add a couple extra comments on this and and uh first I I do appreciate I know there's been some concerns about maybe perhaps an incomplete application. I think this is good. I think uh given the the the consideration of the the scale of the ask, I think it's good to have a touch point for us to have it to see if it meets. um this is a very constrained site and very difficult and and I think that's so I think having it here for this kind of feedback either it has enough merit to go forward or not is exactly the job that we do. Um I also just think that um you know it's I think we all can support this type of housing but again we have a very specific ask in front of us today and that's kind of the the mayor that said I'm weighing this on. Uh I do take the point that you know the zoning is not caught up to the OCP and the OCP frankly is likely to change

as we go through a village planning process and I think um what we can't do on this site as an example that we can do once we have completed that process and why it's important um I think is really highlighted by that one um one of the one of the numbers that's in front of us which is the essentially zero meter um setback on the interior lot line that because it has windows it means that the next lever over has to leave space for light to get into. Um, if we set the zoning so those setbacks are zero, then you can have buildings adjacent to each other and abuing and using more of the land more efficiently.

Um, so we do have to do some planning work and we have to do that. I think the difficulty here is we're asking for the question here is on this 600 square meter lot is the ask reasonable on the face of it and I think the problem is that it's I I have a the reason I'm at my point of this one is that I think those specifics of this specific application I have a hard time supporting just for those reasons. Uh so I'm going to call the question now on the motion. All those in favor and those opposed I have councelor Watson Appleton and Smart opposed. That motion carries. Mr. Mills, I'm sorry that did not work out for you tonight, but I hope the hope the quick answer at least is some some help in the process.

U we are going to move on next to next item on the agenda. I know there's a number of people probably in the room that came here for that one item and you're welcome to leave at this time. Just ask that you do so quietly so we can continue on with our work. Our next item on the agenda is uh open for public input. Um that is 8.1. Uh we have Upland's development variance permit. We have Mr. Hadfield here, one of our planners. Uh welcome, Mr. Hadfield. Thank you, your worship. The district has received a development variance permit application for the property located at 3280 Uplands Road to facilitate the retention of an existing shed on the property. The shed is non-conforming to the setbacks and minimum building separation regulations of the R2 zone. Staffer are recommending that the development variance permit application be approved given the requested variances are fairly minor in scale. The shed is screened from view from the street and given it has been built in keeping with the character of the existing home. The applicant uh

Lewis Horvette of uh uh Zebra Design is in attendance tonight to answer any questions uh council may have. Staff are also available to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Hatfield. Applicant is here. I'm not sure we're going to need to talk to you, so just stay there. So, but procedurally, this is helpful for things that are open for public input. Uh, we do generally have questions of council to either the applicant or to staff if there's any questions. At the conclusion of the questions, we will then invite the public to come and speak to council with any comments or questions. At the conclusion of that, uh, we will come back to this table and, uh, put a motion on the floor, debate that, and advance it. So, um, thank you for the introduction, Mr. Hatfield. I'm going to turn on this application at 3280 Uplands Road. Are there any questions for the applicant or to staff?

Seeing none, uh, are there any members of the public who wish to address council on the variance being asked for uh, on this application? This is the shed at uh, 3280 Uplands Road, which is asking for a setback sideyard setback variance. Did I get that right or is it a rear yard setback? I can't better be careful I don't just say that in the record. Interior sideyard setback and building separation distance. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Uh I'm not seeing any hands popping up wishing to speak to the variance. I will come back to this table for a motion. Go ahead council green. We can just move the staff recommendation if you wish. Uh I'm prepared to um make the staff recommendation the motion that council approve the development variance permit DVP 0000184 for the property located at 3280 Uplands Road and seconded. Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you very much. It was a less complicated application than the last one. So, thank you. Uh we move then to 8.2 3160 Exit Road. This is both a development variance permit and an upland setting in design. Um I'll let Mr. Hatfield introduce this. There is a slight restriction on this and that we can take public input on the variance but not on any of the design criter uh aspects of this application. Mr. Hatfield, thank you worship. The district has received an upland signing and design and development variance permit application for the property located at 3160 Exit Road to facilitate the addition to an existing non-conforming single family dwelling on the property constructed in 1969. The applicant is proposing to renovate the exterior of the building and attach deck as well as add a new covered entrance onto the building's north side. A variance is required to construct this entrance as the existing building is legally

non-conforming to the interior side setbacks of the R2 zone and this new entrance will project further into the setback. The applicant is also proposing to retain and repair an existing greenhouse in the rear of the property which is non-conforming to the setbacks of the R2 zone and similarly requires a variance. The application was presented to the advisory design panel at their meeting on June 9th, 2026 who recommended that the Upland sighting and design application be approved. Staff find that the requested variances would increase the utility of an older home, enable a practical greenhouse building to retained to be retained, and would result in only minor changes to the existing development patterns of the site. Staff are recommending the Upland's sighting and design and development variance permit applications be approved. The applicant Ian Roberts and land owner Christian Tocher are in attendance in person tonight to answer any questions council might have. Staff are available also to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hatfield for the uh for the report. Uh again, same process. I'm going to turn to members of council to see if I have any questions related to the development variance permit or the setting and design. Seeing none, I'm going to invite any public input into the the variances being requested. Seeing none, either online or in person, I'm going to come back to this table. Uh go ahead, councelor Watson. I'm going to move the staff recommendation that council approved development variance permit DVP 00190 for the property located at I'm going to do them separately. So you are yes I'll do that. Yeah. Yes.

So the motion on the floor is for the DVP approval move and second. Thank you. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And then setting and design. uh that council approved upland sighting and design permit to ADP0000204 for the property located at 3160 Exit Road. Move and seconded. Thank you. Any further discussion? Yeah, go ahead, Councelor Watson. Yes, I just want to add although it u we've already voted on the variance permit. I just wanted to uh note that um uh although it's out of scope, I mean it was out of scope that one of the compliments that came on the on this on these renovations to this home to to uh make really minor changes to give it some new life is that the the changes to the entryway are are um were really appreciated as minor adjustments to give it more prominence as the way into the into the home. So, uh um u without those changes, we probably wouldn't need the variance, but they work together as a nice package, I guess, is what I'm trying to say, or at least what that's what the design panel thought.

Go ahead, councelor Green, before I call the question. Yes, through you. I I just wanted to thank the applicants for saving the home. So many of the we are losing these homes um particularly in the uplands and I'm very grateful to you for saving it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, see no other comments. Uh, yeah, good luck with the project. I'm going to call the question now. All those in favor. Any opposed? None opposed. Uh, thank you and take care. Uh, we move, uh, and you're welcome to leave as well. There's no no requirement to stick around. We move to item 8.3. Now, councelor Green, you need to recuse yourself.

I have to recuse because this involves I'm a coowner of the property. Thank you. Thank you. Just ask that you go into the committee room and we'll wait for you the door to close before we consider this application. Back to you, Mr. Hatfield. Thank you, Worship. The district has received a development variance permit application for the property located at 1059 Rosalyn Road to facilitate the retention of an existing heat pump serving an accessory dwelling unit on the property. The heat pump was cited within the 1.5 meter setback from a property line to a heat pump and is located adjacent to the property's rear lot line which is adjoined by a lane.

Staff are recommending the development variance permit be approved subject to the submission of further visual screening design information. The director of community building and planning satisfaction. Staff find the request to heat bump sighting to be largely unproatic from a noise perspective. Would encourage but would encourage the applicant to explore a more comprehensive solution for visual screening like landscape screening or extending the property's fence line. The applicant Paul Cosgrave is in attendance online tonight to answer any questions council might have. Staff are also available to answer questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. I don't see the applicant online. Oh, here. Okay, there we go. Not online. In person. Um uh thank you for that. Uh so back uh same process as before. This is uh open for public input. Um but first we'll take questions of council seek public input and then uh come back to this table for for further direction. Uh so with that are there any questions to staff? Go ahead councelor Patterson.

Yes. Thank you mayor and through you to um staff. Um, could staff confirm whether applicants are required to identify the proposed location and specifications of heat pumps when the applications are made? Um, and secondly, whether we also provide applicants with a copy of our best practice for citing um of of heat pumps. I'm not sure to give that to Mr. Bull, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Green. Yeah, thank you. Uh the requirement for heat pumps is a you know in the grand scheme of things a relatively newer kind of building code requirement in terms of adding those. Um additionally we changed our heat pump regulations somewhat recently but I I can confirm that um typically during the application process at this time we do ask applicants to identify the heat pump locations um to confirm uh conformance with our setback requirements. Um as mentioned in the report during the time of this application that that was not completed.

Yes. Um in regards to the uh you had a question about the supplementary kind of materials and that kind of brochure. I can confirm that in these cases where people have you know questions about heat pump sighting, what our regulations are, we do provide that kind of uh more publicly accessible or more digestible kind of form of information. Thank you. Thank you. Council Patterson, please continue. Yes, thank you. And one other question for for staff um who would be familiar with the site. Um could just a comment on pre and post construction opt what options were uh were there for situating the equipment that would have aligned with our our um our building regulations here in Oak Bay and best practice citing guidance for a heat pump.

Yeah, perhaps I can essentially state uh staff's position and then perhaps we could go to the applicant. Um, you know, staff's position is that sighting positions were available on that south side of the building that you know, if this was identified earlier during the design process and, you know, kind of given those different setback options that there was yard space available to be able to site a heat pump and in conformance with those setback requirements. Mr. to cause growth. Just to maybe uh answer that question a bit more fullesomely. Oh, thank you. Good evening, mayor and council. Thanks for taking on my uh submission today to when we designed this house, I didn't know and didn't realize that there was a layout and requirements from Oak Bay for where the um heat pump should be. There's an excellent diagram and uh stuff available now from Oak Bay for this which we're currently using on two upcoming projects. When we designed the pro when we designed the house, we wanted to add the heat pump to go for as high energy efficiency because this building is going to be around with this family for many years to come. And when I design

houses, we make it as efficient as possible. So when we located where the heat pump would be and the air handler would be for this project we uh and we looked around the sort of the the size of the house on one side of the house there was a existing mature garden that we're trying to preserve including a tree that was in very close proximity. The other side was our laneway access for quite a wide uh bike for mobility for one of the one of the homeowners. And so not thinking really too much about where the heat pump would go, we do know that they usually have to be in close proximity to the air handler for to achieve the efficiency. The alternative places for the house were on the far side of the building, which would have exceeded the limits. It was over 60 ft away. So there's limits to where how far these lines for the refrigerant could travel from the air the air handling condenser to the air handling unit. So just thinking the way

I think things were like, well, we'll just put it on the opposite side of the wall into the laneway and it's out of the way of any fire department access on all sides of the building and it was on the lane way wouldn't interfere with anything else and not knowing about um just not thinking about just thinking about the efficiency of where this item should be. And it became news to me when we did our final uh occupancy inspection that it had gone into the setback. And then so we our initial thing was to be like okay well let's solve this. And when we looked at other avenues, we're looking at uh basically negating the efficiency of the unit by locating the condenser on the opposite side of the building where it would be approved. We didn't want to put it on the garden side because again there's no access and being a professional firefighter, these things occur to us as well. But whether or not you can travel through these zones, but nonetheless, we wanted to go through the variance process to see that

if we could put whatever we can do as far as like a shroud or something to make this acceptable to obey, we would do it right away. and just trying to come to the trying to keep the efficient or the uh sorry the unit as efficient as possible and trying to keep everybody happy somehow at this stage. So hence the application for the variance. Thank you Mr. Cosgrove. Anything else councelor Patterson? Thank you. I have my speakers list councelor Watson and then Braithweight and then Appleton. Yeah thank you. I think my initial questions to staff please probably to Mr. Hatfield. Um with respect to um uh accessory dwelling units on laneways, I guess we have a few of them now. Um this isn't really directly addressed in the report, but you are suggesting fencing as one of the one of the options to address the concerns. I I was surprised that there wasn't a fence. So, I guess first of all, I just wanted to confirm a fence is not required on a laneway on on

at the edge of a laneway property or or is it just practice that people put them in? Mr. Hatfield, thank you through the mayor. Uh, that is correct. It is not a strict requirement to have a fence line along a way. It lane way. It is uh just common practice. Um, and I guess the next question then is maybe to the applicant and just about the sort of vulnerability of that unit sitting where it is on a lane way that can be traveled by vehicles. I was I went to look at it and I was just struck by the fact that it does seem I mean literally exposed but kind of vulnerability exposed as a piece of important mechanical equipment. And I just wondered um if you could comment on that if you're concerned about its physical vulnerability where it sits on a traveled roadway in effect.

Mr. Costco, thank you for the question through the mayor. The that is absolutely sort of subjective to who lives there and how they feel about it. So um being a home builder, we address uh this type of thing and it's it's by job by job. So if the client in this case um was worried about privacy or damage to the structure or in any any types of sort of uh like you said vulnerability, we we address it through the design phase. So the openness is what they kind of like about the design. Um, it's when I when I look at it, I really like the way the building looks and uh, but the vulnerability of that equipment isn't uh, like if somebody struck that with some type of vehicle or something like that, it wouldn't cause a catastrophic effect of any kind. Um, however, the building of a surround, which was part of the plan, we just didn't do it because we wanted to make sure that we could come up with well, if it was going to be worth it, if we granted the

variance, we come up with a surround to really have it look better. But no concerns on my end from this because its location is so close to the property line that uh something would be happening to travel like perpendicularly to the property to hit it as opposed parallel with the property line. Thank you. Thank you. That's all I had. Thank you councelor Watson and move next to councelor briefly and councelor Appleton. Uh thanks very much mayor. Um just a couple of questions are probably for staff I think. Um so in the report I think I read that um that the staff feel that once this unit would be screened that the visual impact would be negl negligible and so um just a clarification on that is that um the is that staff's opinion that it would be uh the visual impact would be negligible.

Mr. Hutfield thank you through the mayor. Um just to clarify that if if screened the visual impact would be negligible. If that if I'm understanding that question correctly, then yes, I would agree. Okay. Thank you. And then uh another clarification um and I think I read this in your report as well is that the current location is actually better from a neighbor's perspective because if it was moved, it would actually be more intrusive onto the neighbors uh the neighbors might hear it more or it be it might be more intrusive onto the onto any the neighbor's side um that it would be moved to. Is that correct?

Mr. Hatfield. Thank you through the mayor. Yeah, largely that is correct. You know, um in terms of the heat pump being, you know, this staffer staff's perspective is generally that this is a a positive from a a noise perspective, right? Okay. The heat pump is going to be further away from the homes that it would otherwise be closest to and theoretically most impactful on as a result and is closer to the backyards of properties. Right. Thank you so much. Thank you. I've then councelor Appleton Smart I've asked and answered your worship. My question was also about uh noise attenuation. So thank you. Thank you councelor Smart.

Yeah thank you. My question was just with regards to the letter uh received uh from the neighbor with regards to continued sound concerns. And I wondered if the applicant uh in as part of the proposed enclosure is considering an acoustic barrier or if those sound concerns were resolved with the neighbor. Not sure who to give that one to. Somebody to give it to the applicant. Give it to Mr. Cosgrave. Thank you for the question. Um, these units nowadays are far below the allowable decibb that would be infringing upon the neighbor properties, especially considering the size of it. Um, we can take uh decibel readings from it, but if you're thinking of something that would resonate or dampen the noise around it, it would mean almost in like we've done these in the past where they're concrete structures that would go further into the setback and they can sometimes amplify the sound because there's nothing to diffuse the noise. the they're very quiet units as it is.

If there was a noise complaint that somebody had and said that this thing is keeping them up, we'd absolutely investigate it immediately. But the the units are so quiet now you hardly even know they're on. So, but uh I'd be more than happy to address that. Like our our solution now is just a simple wood structure which does absorb actual sound. It's a cedar structure and allows thement that they were these units require for them to operate properly. So to be able to kind of capture and close something like that might actually hinder the performance of the unit. Um but if there was a concern and from this unit and if it's caused a concern, uh we would deal with it immediately and there was there was one letter sent in.

It's just the noise generated when the pump comes on. There's that sort of initial startup. Oh, the startup sound. So that that's that's the only that's that is that is what councelor I believe or councelor Smart is referring to is just that that one letter we got which was no concerns about it but would they would like to know if that could be mitigated that startup cost likely not but I'd argue it's far less than just a car starting in any of the neighborhood houses by a long shot but as far as mitigating the noise of these these units then uh no not without hindering the performance of it no councelor Smarter anything No, that's fine. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I um don't see any other questions. So, at this point, I'm going to invite any members of the public either online or in person to wishes to speak to council on this development variance permit for 1059 Rosland Road. This is a setback of a heat pump. Not seeing any people online or in person uh putting up their hands to speak. So I'll come back to this table. Right. Or I would be happy to move the staff recommendation. Second. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Go ahead. Councelor Patterson. Yeah, just to comment. I think that uh because heat pumps are becoming so common place now. I think we have to um make sure that we we do know where where they should be cited. And so hopefully this is a a good takeaway from this that we and I do know that we now have a a good guidance document to to give to residents. So that would be good. But I I also um I think that we should be mindful of equipment that is visible in some of these laneways because they're

quite popular walkway areas to many of the residents. And I think that if if uh we aspire as a community to um in fact encourage these these type types of accessory dwelling units that we want to um we want to make the areas feel like part of the community and feel attractive. And so I guess that's another thing that we have to work on going forward to to just ensure that that is what we're contributing to because if we have equipment all along the back lane, it it's not going to enhance either the walkability or the livability of that. So um learning experience. Thank you counselor. Um all right, I don't see any other discussion. Uh I will call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed?

None opposed. That carries. Good luck with the project. I'm I'm sure it'll be an improvement whatever you do there and uh and yeah, very interesting to see the uh one of our early uh ADUs going in and and how effective it is. So, good work on that project. Thank you very much, Mayor Andy. Thank you. Uh could someone just knock on the door to invite councelor uh Green back into the room? Oh, good. Um, welcome back, Councelor Green. Um, number 8.4, 1857, York Police Heritage Revitalization Agreement Amendment Application. Uh, this came to us a couple weeks ago and uh was sent back just to get some staff review of things.

It's now back in front of us again. Uh, I'll hand it over to you, you Mr. green for an introduction and we have the applicant here in the room with us as well if there's any questions. Thank you worship. Uh this next item relates to a heritage revitalization agreement amendment application for the property located at 1587 your place. Uh this report also responds to the council direction received on June the 22nd of this year that directed staff to inspect the subject property and report back to council regarding whether demolition or removal of any portion of the heritage structure has occurred and if so whether such work is consistent with applicable permits approvals and the proposed heritage revalization agreement amendment.

Following uh the council meeting on June 22nd, on the following day, planning staff visited the site and noted that the rear wing had been removed from the site with the exception of a dorma window and a window frame. The applicant acknowledged that the rear wing had been demolished and removed from the site on May the 19th, 2026 with the exception of a dorma and window frame that are hoped to be reused in the remaining portion of Anandale House. The applicant assumed that with council's direction on April the 27th uh to prepare bylaws based on the proposed changes that they could proceed. Staff subsequently issued a stopwork order in order to ensure that no further work took place on Anaddale House until such time as councilors considered the HA amendment bylaw application. The HA and the terms of the legal agreement provides for the building's preservation, rehabilitation and maintenance. In addition, the existing legal agreement sets out that the owner specifically agrees that the heritage building should not be demolished in whole or in part moved or removed

structurally altered altered as to its facade or any other exterior element or added to except in accordance with the heritage conservation plan. As such, the applicant is therefore in conservation of the existing leer agreement because the agreement has not yet been updated with a proposed removal of the rear wing. Um yeah, yeah, nothing further to add. The applicants are here to answer any questions on the amendment application that is also before council this evening. Um and I'm also happy to answer any questions that council may have on the H amendment application or the updates in relation to uh the council direction from June the 22nd.

Thank you very much, Mr. Green. Um before we get to any motions or anything else, I just are there any questions to either the applicant or to staff at this point? Uh yeah, go ahead, Councelor Braithweight. Uh thanks, Mayor. I'm just wondering, um was there any finer municipal ticket issued uh to go along with the stop work order? I'm just I'm not sure to make sure we're okay asking that question given that it's really into a bylaw enforcement side of the equation. It's okay. Go ahead, Mr. B. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um, through you, as as noted in the staff report, uh, because this is a heritage revitalization agreement, the enforcement process would be for the courts under the agreement, and it's not really there's no, we don't have tickets for this kind of situation. That's it would require a different process. Uh, as noted in the staff report, um, a stop work order was, uh, issued to make sure that there were no further changes

outside of the agreement made. And um so that's was the course of action that was taken. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Go ahead, councelor Brieweight. Uh so no no no penalty for for the actions taken. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Go ahead, councelor Appleton. Yeah, thank you worship. So, just for confirmation here, um I'm interested in this situation just because it just hasn't cropped up before, but um as outlined in the staff report, it indicates that um should council not approve the amendment bylaw, the owner would be required to rebuild the rear wing as per the previously approved plans that are set out in the HA. Is that automatically triggered by uh a denial of the HR application or is that does that require specific action on the part of council to tr to trigger it?

Go ahead. I think yes it will be helpful if council obviously if council is choosing to deny the amendment application that council also direct staff then to enforce the ex existing heritage revitalization agreement legal agreement that we have. the district has between the district of Oay and the current owner. Thank you. Don't see other hands for questions. So, any members of the public wish to address council on these either online or in person for 1587 York, please the HR a pretty empty room right now. I'll I don't think unless there's a specific questions or attached to this, I don't think there's any necessary for the applicant to come forward. Um, so with that, maybe I'll seek someone to put the motion on the floor for discussion.

I would move that 1587 York Place 16 1562 Prospect Place Heritage Revitalization Agreement Authorization bylaw number 4885 2025 amendment bylaw number 4975 2026 be read a first and second time. Seconded. Thank you. Uh discussion. Go ahead, Councelor Braithweight. Uh thank you, mayor. I'll be voting against the motion as I have done all along. So, and I my for the same reasons that I have stated before. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, Councelor Braithweight. Any other discussion? Okay, I will call the question then. All those in favor and those opposed. Councelor Braithweight opposed. That motion carries. your worship. I would further move that 1587 York Place 1562 Prospect Place Heritage Revitalization Agreement Authorization bylaw number 4885 2025 amendment bylaw number 4975 2026 be read a third time moved and seconded. Thank you. We don't debate on the third reading. So I'll call the question. All those in favor and those opposed council braith that carries. Uh we anticipate this to come back at the next council meeting in either next week or the or two weeks from now.

Correct. I think it said July the 20th that is currently scheduled for that bylaw to be placed on the agenda for adoption next week. Yeah, unfortunately. Yeah, this bylaw cannot be adopted on the same evening as for second third. Apologies required on that one. That's just the process. But we for those who don't know, we've just had a agenda review today and it looks like we'll probably do a half committee the whole half council. So we have an opportunity to deal with a few housekeeping things at the uh the council portion of that meeting as well. So I'd likely to come back to next week. Okay. Uh with that, that concludes that one. Good. Don't don't continue the project just yet. We wait till we [laughter] uh but we are uh that advances the uh the the project uh substantively. Um is there any new business? Oh, go ahead council.

May I ask a question mayor? Please go ahead. Thank you. Um and it's regard in regards to um the fact that um no um fine or municipal ticket has been um issued on on this particular um uh property. Uh, and I'm wondering if there's a a place where um myself or other uh residents could actually go and find out um more around why that is for something like this because I think it would be of interest to um residents within the municipality why someone who contravenes a a bylaw um is not ticketed. Um and so I think that would be interesting information for people and I was wondering if perhaps staff could give um some indication on where we could look for that kind of information, please. Thank you.

Sure. Thank you, Council. There was information in this report that lays out the the process for uh how we how the district is able to to address if there's a substantive contravention of of a HR or other agreement. Um is that not sufficient or do I'm not sure if that's I I was thinking that that probably wasn't sufficient. I'll go back and reread it again. Um but I think that from my point of view it wasn't sufficient because um I think we need more information on that and and perhaps residents might feel the same way. I don't know. Sure. Uh I probably best to ask that question offline. I don't know the the answer to that. I I do recognize that the asking the why a fine w would not. I mean if it's a policy piece staff can answer it and if it's in terms of an enforcement of a specific infraction then that becomes steps into the realm of of an enforcement issue that we can't

comment on. Correct. So, thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Uh, we move then to any new business or notices of motion. Seeing none, so we have two pieces of correspondence in front of us. Uh, the first is the uh uh 11.1 a funding request for an elders lunch at Songhesi Nation. Um, we just have it as a letter here. We don't have any sort of introductory report or anything else. Um I think for a little bit of context this is a uh a lunch that is that Sunis hosts for other first nations. So not uh not for our participation. Uh they have asked for us to provide funding in the past. Uh and certainly on two occasions we have provided funding. I think in the amount of 2500 that last time it was asked and provided. Um so that's the context of it. The recommendation here as is for all kind of this type of correspondence is for receipt. Um I might take questions first and then go to a motion. Actually what why don't we have a motion to receive first then for

people who wanted to speak to the potential of participant. Thank you. Okay. It's on the table so we can talk to about the uh whether or not to fund as well is is welcome council green. Thank you very much. I think because we have done this in the past I think it would be um proper for us to do it again. I don't know the amount though. I I you know that may be open for discussion. Uh but certainly I think it's worth the investment in relationship building ultimately even though we won't be there. So I'm going to just suggest if that's the will of council matching what we gave last time around $2,500 is probably appropriate. Um maybe to staff uh where would the source of those funds come from? I know we have some leftover grant money that we hold in reserve. Is that the would that be the appropriate place?

Yes. your worship. Uh the council reserves money in the grants and aid um account and that would be the place we would fund that from. Okay, that help councelor. Uh does a second do you wish to speak? Councelor Apple and then go to councelor Patterson. Just very quickly as a followup to your worship um do we have a and I don't mean to put staff on the spot, but do we have a sense of what's left in the community and the unallocated community grants? Uh yes. uh approximately $18,000. Thank you, Councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. And my question follows along a little bit uh the same as as councelor Green, and that that is about, you know, contribution to it. Um and uh you know it would be it would be nice to know um what the attendance was uh for this so that we could give feedback to our community. So if we could find out a little bit more information from the nations that would be nice. I mean I'm very supportive of the fact they're doing this. I think

this is a a wonderful um opportunity for them to um to engage elders from uh the broader community. So, it's wonderful. But I do also notice that they have contributions assist with event expenses including the meals, transportation, elder gifts, cultural programming. Um, and so I'm just wondering if there is the letter has been issued. I'm wondering if there is any other component of a package that comes out that might say these are the sponsorship opportunities. And so perhaps if staff can just follow up on that for for future consideration if we want to look at something. Thank you. Fair enough. Uh so right now the motion the floor is to receive. I think what I would do deal with is a motion arising to if council wishes to to direct some funding. So I'll call the question on the motion. Um uh motion to receive. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh, did someone wish to make a motion arising to direct $2,500? Councelor Green and seconded. Make that motion.

Thank you to come out of the the grant funding reserves. Any further discussion on that? Go ahead, councelor Appleton. Thank you, Marsh. I'm in support of this. I did want to uh just express my support for the comment that councelor Patterson made. I think that it would be useful for these types of things. Not to artificially constrain what the sis or any nation asks us for, but I do think that the point is very well made as far as, you know, when, for instance, when we support the South Island Pow-Wow, there's a more clear understanding of what the sponsorship structure is and how that's expected to be used or that's how expected to be applied. I'm not going to tell the the nations how to write that up, but I think that that's a reasonable request just not just reflective of because we want unnecessary information, but I think it helps communicate and I think the Song of Squimals know this is, you know, we're expending taxpayer funds on the, you know, on the sponsorship. Uh, we

need to get a good sense of what is involved with it or the best sense possible. So, thank you. Thank you, counselor. Councelor Green, I just have a very quick question through you to um our staff. What is our balance in the uh grants and aid account? I I I recall $18,000 $18,000. All right. Okay. So, we've started over again. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh seeing no other hands on the question, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed? That carries. Uh we move then to 11.2. There's a funding request on the miss program. Um we have we have the letter here. A motion recommendation again is for receipt. So if we have a mover and second for receipt moved seconded. Thank you. Um councelor Patterson you wanted to you intended to have a motion arising out of this as well. I understand. Yes.

For those who don't know councelor Patterson is online or or less he's on to the youth and family court committee. I do and I will make the motion arising. Um and then I will I will elaborate on kind of how I got to the motion arising because there was other work that was done in advance of this. Um but the motion uh arising from this is that council direct the mayor to Why don't I just hold that and we'll I'll just I'll come back to you on that one. Uh is there any other discussion on the motion to receive? Okay. All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. Go ahead. Council Patterson.

Yes. The motion arising is that council direct the mayor to send correspondence to the C CRD board and to the minister of public safety and solicitor general affirming the Oak Bay Affirming Oak Bay support for the integrated police unit including the civilian counselor position. Is there a seconder for that move and seconded? I don't think this needs a lot of articulation, councelor Patterson, unless you want to. I think it's pretty straightforward asking that unless yeah I and I will I will just be be very brief um when the the request uh to again advocate for funding for mist was made by um constable constable deputy chief constable Damian Koalawick and the uh the um officers of the team uh the family court uh committee did in fact respond to that and we decided made the decision to put it forward first to the CRD board. And so the the um the motion that went forward to the CRD board was that the CRD board direct staff to

report back on potential methodologies for funding the civilian counselor position affiliated with the mobile youth services team which operates as an integrated police unit under the direction of the Greater Victoria Police Chiefs and Detachment Commanders. So that's that's why now it is just coming to us to to back it up with a letter affirming our support for the team to the CRD. Thank you. Thank you. And just for the record that motion did get to the CRD board and it was in it passed. Uh so there's I I mean I think there was I will say that there was uh a number of statements about the concern about that is you know whether or not that could fit into a local government level of funding uh u that kind of service but uh certainly the exploration will happen at the CRD level uh and that report will come back to that table. So letter in support is essentially in support of that process and I I could speak to the other issues

further but that would take a lot longer and I I I don't that that wouldn't get us further tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Um I don't think we probably need a lot of debate on this but I go ahead councelor Appleton. Uh no debate your worship. I'd just take the opportunity to extend my thanks to councelor Patterson for continuing to advocate for this program and to continue to keep council well apprised of progress and how discussions happen offline. So, as liaison to this group and kind of uh keeping council informed about MIST and the significance of it, um councelor Patterson does a great job and I really appreciate it. Thank you. Go ahead, Council Green.

Yes. Very quickly, I'll add my voice to councelor Appleton's voice about that. I I I know the amount of work it's taken and um [laughter] um and and councelor um Patterson has been relentless in pursuing a financial framework for that committee and and for it its ongoing stability. So my my gratitude as well. Thank you. I can I'll third that motion if there was a motion. Uh thank you for your work on that. I I think is maybe worthwhile if anybody's watching this uh this uh we have one person in the audience still and maybe some people online. For those who don't know them, the Mist is a mobile youth services team. Uh it's an incredibly powerful team of uh a social worker uh and an undercover police or a planelo police officer uh who build uh direct relationships with youth at risk uh and youth on the street and help provide them interventions to help uh ensure that they can get out of that life. Um they've saved lives, they've changed lives, it's been incredibly powerful uh

entity. Um the funding for the um uh the non-p police half of that pair uh has been essentially cut. It's been sort of on on life support for a number of years, sort of year-over-year with grants and other things. And so um it's essentially disappearing and that with that it goes away the uh the the entirety of the entity. And so now everybody who recognizes the value is struggling for funding. and so to find funding and so that's part of this piece but I'm not sure everybody in the public is aware of what MIS does hopefully you never need them I guess is probably the bottom line um but they are a very powerful uh integrated unit for the region and so uh uh this is important 100% so thank you for that councelor Patterson with that I'll call the question all those in favor any opposed none opposed that carries uh that leaves us with just adjournment can I have a motion motion to adjourn your worship moved and seconded thank you all those in favor any opposed none opposed That carries. Uh thank you online. Uh

for those in the wee hours of the morning uh and those at home sick, thank you for your participation and we will uh see you all next week. Take care. Thank you.