Transcript: Special Council Meeting - 20 Jul 2026

Okay, good evening everyone and welcome back to the uh second half of our meeting which is the uh special council meeting for July 20th, 2026. Uh we call this meeting to order as we like to do with all of our meetings by just acknowledging that we're doing our work on the traditional territories of the coast and straight salish peoples specifically recognizing the Kongan speaking people known today as the Casapsum and the and nations and their connections to these historic lands and waters continue to this day. Uh first order of business approval of the agenda moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. I don't have any mayor's remarks. uh we had a chance for conversation at the committee of the whole which preceded this meeting. So with that we move to committee of the whole recommendations from the meeting held in July just just prior to this meeting. Um all of those motions were for receipt and to refer to this for formally receiving them. Um and so I'm I

think we can just can we move all four at once, Miss Anderson? So can I have a motion to to to move the recommendations from the prior meeting? Moved and seconded. Thank you. Uh any I can imagine we'll have any discussion on this one. Uh all those in favor any opposed? None opposed that carries. Uh we move to first of the special meeting matters our financial 2027 financial planning guidelines. Uh we have Miss Lockhart, our director of finance here with us to uh introduce. Uh this is subject to public input and so following the presentation and questions. We will invite the public to make any comments or questions and then we'll come back to this table for direction. Welcome Miss Lockhart.

Thank you. All right. The purpose of the financial planning guidelines is to set the framework for the 2027 to 2031 financial plan. Staff are seeking approval of the proposed budget schedule as well as the use of the 3% baseline inflationary increase. While the report does not provide an overall property tax percentage increase, it does highlight revenue considerations and significant cost pressures the municipality will be facing. The proposed approach will maintain a focus on long-term financial sustainability while preserving existing service levels. It also supports continued investment in infrastructure renewal and asset management to ensure the district's assets are maintained and replaced in a sustainable manner. Staff will begin the 2027 budget process earlier than in previous years to allow for additional time and a more thorough analysis and review. The new timeline will also ensure council has sufficient opportunity to guide the budget process and deliberate any new funding requests.

There is one other item I would like to to mention as well. I understand there has been some questions regarding the $9 million of borrowing mentioned in the report. So, I'd like to provide the following clarifications. The borrowing referenced in the report was previously approved as part of the 2025 and 2026 financial plans. The debt servicing payments of $868,820 for the borrowed funds will start in 2027, which is year 1 of the 15-year term for those borrowings. And the debt will be repaid over 15-year term uh with the final payment scheduled for 2041. And with that, I would uh welcome any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much, M. Lockhart. Uh questions for our staff.

Councelor Watson and Councelor Appleton. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mayor. I'll be first out of the gate here. Yes. Um um uh we appreciate getting this at this time and for the um the slight uh well the ch the proposed changes in the time uh timeline to allow for um maybe earlier deliberation uh in the coming year. I have one uh um question and concern around the timeline. You do mention in the report that the um police services provisional budget will um is expected in November. And um sorry, I'm confused because I've still got the heritage commission item in my in my package here and I'm looking for your here. Oh no, no, no.

Well, anyway, I'm getting distracted by machine. I can't find what I'm looking for. But yes, so that the the timeline in um uh in your report doesn't actually then reference that again, although I see it as a significant item in the budget process. And I just wondered um if you could comment on uh in the event that that provision or if that just on actually the legislative requirements for when that provisional budget needs to come to us and what the process would be and what the timelines would be. statutoily if council wanted to have a discussion or raise questions about the budget or send it back to the police services board for review if we had considerations we'd like them to uh look at locker.

Yes, thank you through the uh mayor. So to answer your question, um the legislative requirements underneath the police act um at section 27 state that honor before November 30th of each year, a municipal police board must prepare and submit to council for its approval a provisional budget for the following year to provide policing and law enforcement in the municipality. And so this is something we can certainly put into that schedule. And uh we are even thinking of having the schedule posted on the website. uh there is a budget website that uh we can probably add to and uh create more transparency. So happy to do that. Um the other thing we could probably add to that as well is the utility rates. Um that's something that was also missing from that. Now for your second question um you're asking about the legislation in terms of when can you make changes. So the section 27 um I guess it would be part two. It says any changes to the provisional budget

underneath section subsection one which I would have read before must be submitted to council on or before March 1st of the year to which the provisional budget relates. And so this is where we as internal staff would probably logistically have to figure out what this actually looks like with the police board and uh you know I guess uh provide you with uh some timelines around that and that could certainly be baked into that um schedule. Yeah, thank you. Just my comment would be I think that would be really helpful. It's a major component of our budget and it sort of is kind of you know that sort of what what would need to happen and and when it would have to happen by I think it's important for council to understand and for the public to understand. Thank you.

Thank you. If you if you don't mind I'll I'll just give a little bit of context. I said as chair of the police board so I don't vote on the budget there but I manage the process. Um so correct that the uh the budget is the provisional budget has to be submitted to council by the end of November. Uh council considers that basically and and has an opportunity at that point to provide either to say okay we accept this or provide feedback back to the police board saying we don't like this or is there any way you can sharpen your pencil on this or whatever that that piece is. Um and then ultimately the police board has to come back with well here's our final kind of sub submission by the end of March. Um the intention of that process is to uh ensure that there's an opportunity for a bit of back and forth. So if there's uh specific questions or concerns or things of that nature, the police board has a chance to consider that in their meetings between November and March um do their work,

look at options and bring back some perhaps some potential changes or options or or or justification to uh to the to the council uh for that. Um that is the final submission. Ultimately, council may not approve that as part of their budgeting process. Um, but there is an appeal process that the police board has option to to go to the province and and make a case to them directly about the rationale for the need. Um, generally related to uh meeting police standards is usually the the primary uh directive of that nature. Um, it's not a process we've had to follow in Oak Bay, but it's certainly not foreign to most uh councils and police boards over the years. Um, the intention there is an iterative back and forth to make sure that concerns of the council are reflected in the police budget. So that's the intent. Maybe that's a bit more context in the timeline, but that's I hope that helps a little bit. Councelor Watson.

Yes. And just I just really wanted to confirm and even asking these questions that between the 30th of November and the 1st I think Miss Lockart said the 1st of March there actually is given the police board's schedule um enough time for these discussions or back and forth to occur and that that's kind of ident that there there is room enough to do that is really was my my primary concern. Yeah, I I'll say I mean that there has to be because that's the legislative [laughter] requirements of doing it. But the police board does continue to meet. Uh I think that the trickier part here in an election year is people get elected in October, get sworn in in November, and then pretty much the first order of business is to consider a police budget uh before the end of the month by by statutory requirements. It's a bit trickier this year. Um but the police board meets uh October, November, December, January, February, March. So uh and and have the ability to do

special meetings in between if necessary. So I would anticipate yes there would be some opportunity. Um sorry I have councelor Appleton next. Thank you worship. So I just I wanted to ask a quick question just with regards to uh grant funding under revenue considerations and just with the uncertainty around LGCAP u and there's commentary here with respect to the climate planner position and being driven by that funding. And so that it's my understanding just for clarification that that funding that that position wasn't hired on term. That position is an ongoing position. And so in which case it's not a it's it's a uh essentially council would uh but given that so I'm just confirming that giving that or confirming that uh fact and then given that how would the position uh roll over if you will in the absence of LGCAP funding be considered at a five-year financial plan or at the financial plan debate level. Just before I get a answer to that question, we're we're wandering dangerously close to some identifiable staff positions in a

public forum here. Um I I yeah I'm just a little bit nervous about asking the question here. Um I mean we can certainly talk to you in general terms. This is this is a planning document. So you can if staff can maybe take that question talk about it more in general terms. How do we manage situations where there are staff or term positions and we're using external funding sources? how we how we manage that in the in the in the planning process. If you don't mind, councelor Appleton, um through the mayor, I think if we're talking in general terms and uh let's say we're not even talking about a person and we know that the funding is no longer going to be there, what my recommendation would be is that staff bring that resource request forward um in the financial planning process and uh it becomes part of the uh you know, package I guess that council would see.

And so we would outline very clearly um you know what it is that we're we're looking for and uh we would have to have a discussion I guess that uh you guys would have to approve it if if that's something that you wanted to continue with. So thank you Appleton. Uh thank you worship and and I appreciate the clarification on that and was not me meaning to you know to uh ask an untoward question and just you know just I guess I would then just take the opportunity to say uh I guess to somewhat editorialize and just uh express my support for the LGCAP funding and the uncertainty around that.

The ongoing availability of that funding at the local government level has uh you know brings me concern and it has been a s it has been an impactful grant program and as we look forward not specifically with this grant but with all different n types of grants and the impact that uh a potential withdrawal would have uh I think it's important for the public to understand that uh these are these are impactful grants uh driving decision-m at our level that we have essentially no control over. So I think it's important for uh folks to understand that. So in the context of financial planning guidelines and in my time on council having rolled out several different uh large-scale grant programs and being concerned about those being available in the future, um I'm I'm glad that this is being specifically identified. So thank you worship.

Thank you. Uh any other questions or comments on this item? More questions at this point, I suppose. Don't see any. Oh, council brisket. My apologies. That's okay, Mayor. Thank you very much. Um yeah, going on the the police budget. Um uh again, um because we have such a significant increase that's being anticipated for that um for the police department, um I'm wondering if staff has uh estimated what percentage tax increase that could represent before council receives the police board budget. Is that a possibility or um I'm not sure that staff are ready for that particular question at this point, but Miss Lockard through through the mayor um I don't have those numbers uh right now.

So uh yeah, no worries. Thank you. Um and then on the debt servicing, I know that the report identified that there was um I think it was a 1.97 1.97 percentage tax increase associated with debt servicing. And I'm wondering if that's already assumed within the 3% baseline or is that an in in addition to the 3% baseline? M Lard through the uh the mayor that would be in addition to the uh 3% baseline. Okay. Uh and then are we also would will staff also continue to recommend um the dedicated 2% infrastructure contribution or would we be looking at alternative approaches for that uh through the mayor? Yes, we would also be recommending that as well.

Okay. [clears throat] Um, Miss Hunt wanted to add one one context to that. Please go ahead, Miss Hunt. Yeah, thank you very much. Yes, council passed a uh a policy decision a number of years ago for the 2% infrastructure renewal uh levy, and I I I can't remember what year we're in, but I know that that that hasn't completed yet. So, we would be bringing that forward, and it would be a decision of council whether or not to continue with that. Um, but yes, staff would be following council's previous direction in that regard. Thank you. And then um I did just have I just wanted looking for some clarification around a sentence that I saw in the report and it was um one-time surpluses will only be used to reduce taxes in rare circumstances. I support that policy because I think it avoids using one-time money to fund ongoing expenses expenses. But um I was wondering if staff could provide examples of what they would consider a

rare circumstance um where using a one-time surplus to offset taxation might be appropriate. Sure, Miss Locker. I think you've actually done this recently, so but go ahead. Yes. Um through the mayor, I just uh need a moment to think about this. So um sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot with that. That's okay. So I'm just looking at the the bullet point. Onetime variances resulting in surplus are transferred to reserves to fund future capital liabilities and reduce future revenue requirements and only be applied to reduce tax rates tax rates in rare circumstances where the offset is sustainable and prescribed by the reserve fund bylaw. So what I would probably say here is that um we would probably uh need to you know find out I guess what the surplus is and if there is a need then that would be something where we would bring that forward. Um I mean in terms of using one-time surplus it's uh you know it would have to be a

pretty pretty important uh situation. I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but uh I know in past municipalities where I've worked, I mean, the onetime surplus is is basically allocated to a number of of different projects and um you know, council gets to decide or confirm what those uh are allocated towards and so I think um you know that's uh that's probably what I can comment on that. So we'll leave it at that. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank was not here during just arrived here a few weeks ago. So definitely with our past fast past history as well. Go ahead, Miss Hunt.

Thank you very much. Uh yes. Uh and I'm really glad councelor Braithweight mentioned this because it would not be prudent to be using onetime funding for one-time funding for ongoing um um expenditures. Where I've seen it used is where we're phasing in a particular ongoing expenditure. uh allows the tax increase or the tax impact to be phased in over a number of years uh versus taking the hit all in one year. Right. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for that. Um I I would say that this I I thought this was an excellent report. I really did. I thought it was organized and transparent and really realistic about the challenges that we have ahead which are are many. So thank you for the report.

Uh go ahead councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. I just had um a question um with regards to the financial management um strategies listed and the the guideline to only use revenue from new development taxation to fund only incremental costs of new development. And I just wondered is staff not recommending to use a portion of the um NTD as a strategy to offset tax increases because our new development um taxation has been so minimal to date, let alone predictable. And I'm just wondering like with the levels of property tax increases that we're predicting, um, how could council potentially be supported by staff to have a conversation or explore the benefit of how a portion of the new development tax could help offset property tax increases?

Sure. I'm going to go to Miss Hunt first on that one and Miss Aler if you wish to add. Yeah, thank you very much um through you mayor to councelor Smart. It's a it's a very good question and yeah, historically the district hasn't not had a lot of uh additional new development tax revenue. Uh in 2026 we did see uh a significant increase and with development activity I I imagine that will continue to grow. Um I I think it's very important to recognize that that new tax growth comes um sometimes from uh land use that that is uh creating it comes from land use changes that don't necessarily um mean that there's actually new population in the district at that time. And so sometimes it's more prudent to wait until the services um are being implemented to match that new revenue with the new expenses. So a good example of that is uh Canarvin uh redevelopment. Um when that facility comes online um you know we're going to

need to hire more staff and that is part of that is to service new growth. And so that would be a good time to use that new revenue from taxation to offset the expenses associated uh with that new facility and the growth that it's um providing services for. So a lot of it comes from on the other hand there may be uh tax growth that comes from people you know construction that is being finished and there's new units and there are people uh you know now living here and and in those cases yes using some of that taxation growth to offset the base budget and the tax increase um makes sense and so there's a bit of analysis I think that staff needs to do um as part of the financial planning process to determine what is driving that tax growth um so that we can make a recommendation to council.

Thank you for that. You anything you wish to add, Miss Lockhart? Uh, nope. Uh, through the mayor, I think that's absolutely perfect. Okay, councelor Smart, anything else? No. Councelor Patterson? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. And I I uh commend staff on on this report because I sat in the audience in years when um staffing positions was held off [laughter] to balance budgets and there was some [snorts] things like that that happened. So I think the transparency, the clarity and the consistency on the reporting is is greatly improved. One thing that is not in here because it talks about the drivers of of the taxes, but we have enjoyed um uh favorable investment returns in the last couple of years, significantly higher than the district has ever uh had before because we didn't have reserve funds. We actually have some reserve funds but as we draw them down that uh investment income will not be there in the future and the report talks about increases but it doesn't talk about

decreases to the um to the budget and so I guess I just throw there that out there as as something that we'll have to consider going forward because that has actually been income that we have been able to utilize and we won't have that. So I just it's because we're not going negative on this. So I just throw that in there. Miss Lockhart um through the mayor. Um yes, I totally agree that wasn't in the report and uh we will be doing an analysis um in terms of our investments to see where we expect that the interest rates will be coming and uh that will happen as part of the financial planning process so that we don't overestimate what the interest is or you know it's hard to say I guess uh you know how things will turn out but we will certainly take that into consideration. Thank you Miss Hunt.

Yeah, thank you. Just to provide a little bit of assurance to council, a lot of the interest um is is generated by our reserves and so it will be returned to our reserves. So it wouldn't necessarily have a tax impact, but obviously it will uh impact the growth of those reserves. Thank you for that. Um don't have any other questions from council. Any members of the public wish to make comments or have questions related to item 5.1, the financial planning guidelines? looking in the room, looking online, not seeing any hands. I'll come back to this table. Uh the motion here is uh to direct staff to prepare the financial plan based on the financial planning guidelines here. Moved, seconded. Thank you. Uh any further discussion?

I'll just add a comment. I think reflecting what I heard at this table, which is thank you very much for this report. I think it's uh we live in challenging times. I think it's everybody knows that in terms of keeping costs manageable and and meeting service levels, but I think this is a helpful stepping process and hopefully gives that a bit of a constraint framework to to work under as we come develop the budgeting planning over the next few months. So, thank you for this. Uh all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you. Um we now move to item 5.2, our Heritage Commission 2025 annual report and the 2026 2027 work plan. Mr. Bull is here to present but I know we have representation from the commission as well so please come forward. I may need to grab a second chair there for you. Oh, you got it.

Thank you. Uh Mr. Bull, why don't you provide the introduction and uh we'll take questions to you or to to the representatives. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Uh the Heritage Commission has prepared a work plan for the remainder of 2026 and early 2027. The work plan is a specific tool for this particular commission and it allows the commission to work on special projects based on a council approved and funded work plan. This work plan includes three initiatives and the first one seeks to strengthen the heritage protection framework with the help of a consultant. staff would work with the commission and a consultant to determine the exact topics uh because if given the budget probably not all topics listed in the work plan could be addressed in one go and the commission is interested to hear council's input on that as well.

One notable top topic that would benefit from council's input is the commission's interest in exploring new heritage conservation areas. The second initiative seeks to expand the heritage registry by adding properties with heritage value. The commission intends to combine efforts um with the heritage foundation who offer century plaques for homes that are celebrating their 100th anniversary. Letter writing as well as subsidizing the century plaque would be a way to find interested owners that are willing to list their home in the register. staff had noted have noted one concern in the report regarding subsidizing these plaques as it would create an overlap with the heritage foundation's work. Staff recommend leaving that portion out of the efforts to increase register participation.

The third initiative aims at building commission capacity and expertise and the commission members are currently pursuing speakers to expand the professional development of the commission. This concludes my introduction. I'm available for questions. We also have the chair of the commission here, Christy Horseman, as well as member Bronman Taylor. If council has any questions for the commission. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Bull. Um, I know I think you wanted to speak a little bit to the the request from the pler or were you just really happy to answer questions at this point? Happy to answer any questions at this point about the plaques or otherwise.

Okay, fabulous. Thank you for being here. I know you got tucked into this agenda a bit late in the in the in the process. uh uh you're here at 9:21, but we'll uh make this uh make this very interesting piece and all the work that you do. Uh turn to council. Are there and just for the record um there is an opportunity for public input on this agenda item. So if you are interested in speaking if you're online, I would invite you to raise your hands uh at this time and I'll get you at the point where we get to public input. Uh with that questions from council. Go ahead, Councelor Watson.

Yes. Um I I do have one. It's nice to see your work plan and I I can imagine there's been many areas of discussion around the table and and back at people's homes as they as they put this together. Um in in terms of the um the initiative to actually develop deepen the skill set of the commission members and um that sort of investment in in volunteers. I I did wonder if you'd given any consideration to making that investment wider in the community. I we're we're faced with all our boards and commissions of this rolling over um use of volunteers that they get appointments for maybe even one year or two years or whatever. So, um, an an investment that in in skilling people up who then because of our statutory limits leave within two years doesn't have maybe as lasting an impact as maybe making that investment wider in the community to those people in the community who are interested in the subject area and who then in future uh

want to volunteer to do this. So, I just wondered if that had had been a discussion point or if you could give some thought to that. Yeah, thank you. Um, sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Horseman. Go ahead. Um, one thing that is um on the work plan and something that has been a larger topic of discussion on the committee has been the broader education of the heritage committee's responsibilities, the foundation's responsibilities across the district of Oak Bay. um different ways that we can partner with the foundation to do that because that is part primarily most of the foundation's work is more of that community outreach pieces. But one of the pieces that's definitely on the work plan is um updating the materials on the the heritage website um associated with the the Oak Bay website um because we think that there's a lot more information we can share with people in a [snorts and clears throat] more digestible way quite frankly um that people can get acquainted with the work that we do. uh and how they could get involved. Um but definitely taking some

of the work that um that the the speakers do that come in the presentations and and putting that in a more digestible way on uh via content on the website for sure and that's um why we wanted to make sure we added those website updates uh to the work plan as well. Um I will note that um even though the the speakers coming in are really valuable for the commission members and you mentioned the term um this is uh for for myself who have been on the commission now for the last uh almost three years. Um while you're doing the work of the heritage commission itself, you're reviewing the applications in front of you. those uh uh sessions with consultants um or homeowners or actually other council members that come in are extremely valuable um in the moment as well.

And just a follow-up question about the materials. I know that there's a there's a webinar series. Is that proprietary information that can only be shared by subscription just to district staff and or commission members or can is there wider access for that material? I think everybody that belongs to um Heritage BC has those available to them. Membership in Heritage BC is the is the issue. Okay. Thank you. And also um oh the thought's just going on to my mind. Oh you mentioned our meetings are public. So if we have speakers and it's advertised u the public can tune in to see our meetings as well. And as far as people just being on the commission for a year or two our terms are up to six years. So education isn't lost all of a sudden.

Um on that note on the webinar front um one of the reasons why we are wanting to bring in more speakers um as well to educate the commission more broadly and take some of that knowledge and put it into content for the website um is because some of the heritage BC webinars are very dated. We're finding that the information is, you know, 2020, 2017, 2018, and a lot obviously has changed since then. And so, it is more helpful, I think, for commission members to have those in-person consults, uh, consultants or even, you know, like I said, uh, residents come in and speak to us. Thank you, Council Watson. Councelor Briew.

Uh, thanks very much, Mayor. Um I was looking when I was looking at the report I I think that probably the biggest policy issue is uh what the commission wants that that the commission wants to further explore the heritage conservation areas and and then staff uh specifically noted that um that council should provide direction on whether it's interested in exploring HCAS before significant work is undertaken. So I'm wondering before the commission undertakes that further work on the heritage conservation areas, what level of policy um direction is staff would staff be seeking from council? Mr. B. Thank you mayor through you. Um I think that could be either um or informally as part of this discussion or if council deems it necessary could also of course formulate an formal recommendation. It's in that realm. uh it's uh it's one of the ideas I think that the commission uh is interested in and that's for that reason included in the current work plan and the the work plan is here for your

review. Thanks Morman. Yeah on further to that I'd like to note that um we would love to work obviously handinhand with council. We know we have a limited budget and a lot of the action items that we've proposed would need consultant dollars which wouldn't go too far um across that list and so we would love to work on something that we would work on together that we know that would move forward. Um and there is a list obviously in the staff's report of potential items as well that are up for council discussion potentially into 2027. And so we'd love to um receive feedback or at least we could um be open to amending the work plan to include consultation with council to make sure that we're aligned on those items um that do get put in uh that section 1A where we would enlist a consultant's help um to further any of those.

Thank you. Thank you, Counc. Thank you so much. And that actually kind of leads into my next question which is around um staff capacity and uh because I know that there's uh um a lot of things that are being looked at being implemented and I'm wondering um how staff or if staff are comfortable with the proposed uh that the proposed work can actually be realistically be completed within what what we have as the existing resources. Mr. B. Yeah. Thank you mayor. after you um we touch on that in the staff report as well. Uh um limitations what we can do. Um that said um where where the the commission work plan touches on topics that are also on the council's uh long listed list of projects that have heritage uh aspects as well. A number of them they're listed in the staff report. um what would be helpful for the commission and and with some consultant money we could have some preparatory work done for the commission and that would then

lead into a potential cons priority project in the future if if council chooses so um so yeah that's that's that kind of shows that there's limited capacity to support that kind of work but also an opportunity to uh do some of the ground work for those future projects. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Braithweight. I have councelor Patterson next on my speaking list. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. And through you to our guests. Thank you so much for uh for the report and uh the commentary along with that. Um and I know certainly I think I think for a small community, OPE does have very good heritage programs for a community of of this size. I I um have not been too close to it for a while. So what I would like to um get some uh indication of is if we looked at our program in comparison with Heritage BC's strategic priorities and their current direction for the heritage sector, how we take that into

consideration in um how we contemplate and and and support heritage within this community. Horseman. So I think a few different ways that we um look to kind of support and um work alongside other heritage programs. Um obviously Heritage BC kind of being that overall umbrella that we look to and one of the things on um our work plan is is attending a conference that's uh you know the supported by Heritage BCA every year um where a lot of these like-minded individuals that uh passionate about heritage in their communities come together and talk about these things. Um but a few things and a few areas with that stood out to me when doing some research around updating this work plan because it hasn't been updated actually since I think 2022 um was uh one to consolidate some of the items and two to to do some alignment.

Um one is definitely around um the updating of some of the policies that we have around um I think climate readiness and heritage. Um definitely we have to find ways to continue to preserve in you know environments where there's more um weather systems coming in that could you know damage heritage properties. What does it look like further to that is what does it look like you know when properties are damaged how do we update the the the the language and bylaws um to help that um as an example. Um, the other area that we that that we wanted to kind of align with is um how do we preserve ongoing preservation of heritage properties as they obviously age continually. Um, again, what does maintenance look like? Um, how we've looked at that bylaw. Um, does it need updating or amendments? And then also, um, multi-use, right? that I think that one of the biggest things we see is is um as a committee is um a building preserved uh even if it's preserved in a different use way is still a building

preserved that the community can still enjoy. Um and so that's something we wanted to make sure that we are continually looking at as part of um our work plan. And then another one I think is that has come up a couple times actually just talking to the community as well um and is listed with Heritage BC is what happens when a building has actually come to its end of life. Um so uh you know what happens when a building is dismantled? Um how there are community members who would love to you know have access to the stonework or the flooring or anything that's of interest of preservation and that could be used in their own projects. Um and I think that we need to look at um potentially look at you know our our laws around or bylaws or as such around um that work as well. So those are three areas that we wanted to align with um that are mentioned in in the work plan um in section 1A of the potential areas we could look at again. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you. That was very interesting. Um I don't see any other questions. So I'm going to open this up for public input. Uh anybody in the audience wishes to address item 5.2 and the Heritage Commission uh annual report and work plan or online? I did ask if people could raise their hands earlier. I don't see any hands raised online at the moment. So, uh give another second or two for people to come in if they wish. But, uh not seeing any not seeing likely uh additional public comments. Uh we have uh a recommendation here for uh approval but removal of the portion on on subsidizing the uh the pieces. Um I I will just say I I tend to agree with the staff recommendation. And I think it gets very confusing if we're funding multiple places and the Heritage Foundation can apply to us for a grant uh and and seek some additional funding to help subsidize those if that's if that's seen as a net benefit if that's a priority. So just want to give you the opportunity though to talk to that that request here at this table.

Mrs. Taylor, with regards to the foundation uh funding that what the municipal grant now goes towards the administration of the foundation which includes our insurance filing fees, but primarily to be able to still give grants for heritage restoration. And the rest of all our activities has to come out of monies we find somewhere through donations or or whatever. But the municipal grant is simply used for homeowner grants and administration. Now that is true. I may get some clarification because my understanding is they are an independent society uh and as such can apply to the to the municipality for additional grants that for for specialized purposes. Is that not correct?

No. Is that not possible? Sorry. My apologies. That's my obvious my clarification question. If that's true, we've never been made aware of it. Mand if we don't have the answer to the question, I'll leave it there. Maybe we can't because the special nature of the heritage foundation that's part of our sorry councelor Appleton you speak. Sorry your worship just with respect to that as less under the heritage foundation. Are you talking about the comm the annual community granting process? No, no, just just the Heritage Foundation is a essentially an armslength society that we provide an annual funding to to provide grants and they they manage it on our behalf. But I I'm trying my assumption was as they are arms length third party society should they want to have some other grant for say a project or something else. There's no it wouldn't be a restriction from them applying to that through our normal granting process. Um I'm not sure maybe I'm wrong in that their their sort of slightly tighter relationship would would exclude them from that. I don't know but Miss Hunt.

Yeah. Thank you your worship. Yeah. I'm not aware of any reason why they could not um request additional funding from council um either through the granting process or as part of their uh on you know annual ongoing grant. Um they also have access to apply for you know for other grants uh from other organizations as well. Sorry, Miss Horseman. Yeah, I think just in respect to the plaques, um I I think that the committee is open to rethinking how they're funded, but we want to definitely preserve the initiative itself. Um it it really does speak directly to that pride of place that we're trying to reinforce as part of the commission's work and and um expanding the register. Um and I think that that is something that's really important to the underlying um fabric of Oak Bay. So um we're again open to changing the funding portion if it if the foundation is available to apply for that. Um our understanding was with the foundation this year that they did not get the same amount of grant funding and therefore we had you know

partnered with them on this initiative for the centennial plaques. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Chelsea Green I'm happy to move the mo the motion to approve and then I as heritage rea I can speak speak to it briefly. Sure. So are you make are you moving the staff recommendation that is the well we have to do them in order actually because one of them is is to amend and approve. So why don't we have a motion to receive the report for information first? Motion to receive this is the annual report moved and seconded. Don't usually discuss receipt. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And then you wish to uh move the amend the Heritage Commission work plan by removing the proposal to fund a portion of the heritage plaques under initiative 2A. Is that that was in the staff recommendation? Just want to make sure that we're moving the right thing here.

I'm moving the staff recommendation on that item. So that is so the next one I would do in that order would be the removal of the funding proposal to fund a portion. So is there a second? Okay. Thank you. So discussion on that. That's what we just been discussing. Go ahead, Councelor Smart. Yeah, I I'll just um echo some of the previous comments. I think it's a very important project and initiative, but um conceptually to me, it does fit better under the foundation um scope of work. So, I'm supportive of the staff's recommendation, but just want to mention that I'm also supportive of the initiative. Sure, Councelon.

Thank you, worship. So I'm supportive of what's in front of us, but I I will just sort of reiterate uh actually what Miss Taylor brought up, which is, you know, having been liaison for a couple of years, the amount of funding provided through the grant and name process to the Heritage Foundation has sort of decreased with, you know, decreased not it has gradually gone down over the last number of years due to all the demands that we have on our grant and aid process and and that uh well just basically that broad demand. So, I guess what I would uh bring to council's attention, I guess, would be potentially a bit of a mental bookmark for next year's grant and aid process or the community granting process. uh when that's considered uh I guess to uh cast our minds collectively backwards to this conversation where I I'm I'm in support of that being within the foundation's mandate but it should be understood that the foundation is receiving funding with a number of other organizations and as Miss Taylor notes has to balance that out with the operation of the foundation as well.

Thank you. Uh any other discussion? Councelor Green. Thank you. Um, I will say that this this commission is a very thoughtful group and I think they've spent a lot of time and effort on on the plan, but I also know that the plaque program was one aspect of growing that register. And I think that was the whole point that as you grow the register, you educate the community at the same time. And so I would hope and I I agree with councelor Appleton that that we make a mental note that uh perhaps the commission and the foundation can have a further discussion about the possibility of partnering if if it's um possible in terms of process.

But having chaired the heritage commission myself and and been on it as a member, it it's really frustrating not to be able to grow um heritage the way it should grow. And I think the other goals fall after that. Um, as Miss Horseman and Miss Taylor um suggested, uh, it's difficult to grow HCA neighborhoods. It's difficult to edu educate the public on maintenance on better care. It's difficult to talk about heritage conversions and how they can be multi-purpose when we haven't got a sort of a baseline educational approach. Um but that also speaks to uh mentorship and to succession planning for membership and that has always been an ongoing challenge I think. Um this year we have quite a young group which I think is great. So we have a succession plan is active now and hopefully that will carry on.

Thank you councelor Green. Um yeah I don't have much to add to this one. I think you already spoke but on this in principle I love the heritage block program. I think it has so much potential for getting people excited about heritage and and people starting that journey into learning about their houses and the value of the stories that are there. Um so yeah, if there's some mechanisms there that we can help with that overall process, I I think ultimately ideally to get people on a on a path to getting their buildings onto the heritage registration so that we capture those stories morely for the community. That's that's a huge plus. I am supportive of this recommendation. I do think that should be funneled in one place but um please don't take that as any way as not it being an incredibly good program and and and deserving of support and I yeah I'll leave it there.

Uh so on that portion of the motion I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And the last portion is to approve the amended heritage commission work plan with implementation subject to timing etc. That was moved seconded. Thank you. Any further discussion on that? I'll just leave it with a comment that you've already heard which is thank you for all the work that you're doing on this this work is there. It's hard to get all this work done in the course of a year and and really appreciate this this opportunity to hear from you and what you're doing. Uh so keep it up. Uh it's great to see all those in favor. Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you so much. Thanks for sticking around with us to line 42 and we will uh we'll see you soon. Um we move to section six which is uh special meeting matters not subject to public input. Um 6.1 is the council priority projects update to homebased business regulations. Uh we have the engagement results and proposed options.

We have Mr. Brown with us here our senior planner for housing policy. Welcome Mr. Brown. Yes. Thank you. So we're just loading a presentation here. Um I in acknowledging the time I will skip over some of the slides that I have. Um but but this this is the report Mr. Brown. It's 9:43. We're okay for time. Don't don't rush. I I think uh but we don't have lots of time for questions and perhaps potential directions for change. So AB: Absolutely. And so um yeah, this report and presentation is presentation of the engagement summary. um and some suggested uh options for for how this this project can proceed. Um so there's a lot of information in your package in the what we learned reports uh and the staff report to go over these options. So I am going to briefly go over some highlights of of the engagement summary uh but really sp uh save most time for to go over the options. Uh first of all, we definitely

need to send a thanks for everyone who participated in our in our questionnaire uh and came came to our events both this round of engagement and in in uh the rounds that we had uh in 2025 as well. Each round built on on each other. And so really the the principles and and the goals of this this time around was to narrow down on some of the details and drill down on some of the questions that we still had had to do and and so um the questions here highlight uh confirming kind of what what we've heard in previous engagements. So with with with some decent support for the exploring options to expand home based businesses. Um and then the the follow-up question is about the tiered systems is our response to build the program out of what we heard he heard last time. Um and and again was uh some really great support for for the approach that we have.

Um this question here. Most of the results from question eight for me are a big picture snapshot, a really good synopsis of what we heard overall. Um, it it broke down uh the the business types that were proposed and asked uh participants which housing types that they most appropriate in. And and for me it it really it this one slide encapsulates the the the wider story quite well where we have type one businesses which are like a home office with no no uh extra people no no um customers coming coming to the to the property fairly well supported across all housing types. Then then in type two where you have music lessons where you could have one uh customer at a time still some good support in infill housing but then diminishing reports uh uh support in town homes and in apartments. So in those multif family housing types more shared walls you had less support for the uh for businesses that have a little bit more impact. Um and then for type three businesses where

um as it were proposed uh you could allow up to seven customers at a time. Um just over half supporting uh this business type in infill housing but uh not supported in others and a significant number nearly 43% uh suggesting that this type should be nowhere. So, the remaining questions went went through some common concerns that we hear um and really break down potential sources of impact. Um so, I'm going to skip through through this one fairly quickly. Um we uh we did hold um an event specific for the business community uh with with limited turnout but we ended up having really good conversations with uh the the business owners that came. Um we also asked the wider community about potential impacts uh to existing commercial businesses and for the for the villages themselves with with some some mixed uh results.

One one of the things that we heard as well was that there may be too many businesses in one area or that this project might be too uh far far reaching. And I think one one of the things that happened with this project with at this stage is we are drilling down to details. So there's lots of little questions. Are you support or not? Not not sure. And it ends up being a lot of information to support those questions. So what we hear you there was a lot of information but uh necessary at at this stage of the process. Um and then the slide as well, it it really uh looks to indicators to try to um try to try to uh get an idea of what to expect.

How how many more businesses could we see? And I think it's important to show that right now we do allow uh businesses for tutoring and music lessons. There's only five of them in the district. And that com combined with the the questionnaire question three, h how many are looking to open a business? Not that many on a relative scale. And and so then we get to the revisions that we're putting forward. Um responding to the to the comments that we received, uh the first first option uh is to modify the type three businesses to reduce the the number of uh potential customers to to four instead of seven. Um and then going through the comments that we received for business hours to reduce business hours to Monday to Saturday from 9 to5 that that that allows um u potential to support uh the response aware responses from participants who would valuable value a walkable service within the neighborhood. um but also reduce the potential conflict so that the 9 to5 during business hours is when

there'll be less of the residents on that street as well. So it would offset some of those um some of those impacts on parking and other things. Um some of the other uh adjustments we're suggesting to um reduce the potential for noise and nuisances uh for for type two businesses as well to to by eliminating uh town houses and apartments uh for type two and for type three. Um and then just noting as well that um in the pre previous iteration we had had a list of example businesses. One of the things that we we heard as well to to have a broad list of business types. of personal services. Instead of listing out things like hair stylists and that have broad broad categories so that you have that flex flexibility to include something that that belongs um in that in that category as well. Uh and then a note on special businesses, child care and urban agriculture that they had really they were really well supported through throughout the responses and so

that they are uh being brought forward as presented. All right. Uh and then the option two um is is to eliminate the type three businesses altogether. Um and and all of the the other adjustments are there as well. I did want to point out one thing one change as well under non-resident employees. We we have added back one non-resident employee for the type one businesses. The the reason for that is our current B current regulations allow for one non-resident employee and so this way it doesn't uh suddenly make a current business non-conforming uh with that change. Um, I also wanted to point out out as well that um, regardless of where council lands on what the program says, there will be options for someone who has a really good idea that may not uh, fall within the framework or the regulations. The temporary permit uh, can be a really good option to test out a business ID at a particular location uh, that might work that may not be uh, appropriate across the district. Um, and these are C council decisions with with

with public notice. So, something uh can be looked at on a case- by case basis. And then property owners always have the opportunity to apply for a zoning amendment to change the zoning uh if they if they feel confident with their idea. I will skip over the licensing slide. There will be more information come forward on this depending on on uh which direction Council decides to go uh when this comes back. There will be more information exactly what the what what the adjustments on fees and enforcement might look like. Um all all all in the with this idea of smart regulation. We're trying to reduce the administrative burden that that that might come with this. There will certainly be a transition, but uh it's so that uh yeah, the expansion of homebased businesses doesn't uh overwhelm our system.

Uh so so finally, so we're looking for council's direction tonight on either option one or two or another option if council wants to uh to take her with us some more. Um and then um some direction on public hearing. um regardless of where council goes with this that there will be the option to hold a public hearing or not. Uh but the the the public notice timing changes with with that decision. So, uh, if we have, uh, direction on that, that will definitely make ensure that we have all of our [snorts] all of our ducks in a row [clears throat] and and that's again, thanks to everyone uh, who participated and uh, happy to answer your questions.

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. Uh, I will turn to members of council for questions. I have councelor Green, Patterson, Watson to start. smart. Thank Thank you very much um through you mayor to to Mr. Brown. Thank you very much for the report and the presentation. That's helpful. Um two questions. One I I'm a little concerned about the sample size on the responses to um uh this survey and and the questionnaire. And my second qu so I just wondered if there was any discussion about sample size. they it it just seems quite small to me and quite limited. Uh but I would love to hear your comments on that. And the second question is what would enforcement and regulation andor monitoring look like in terms of of making sure that these businesses adhere to the licency regulations. Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Yes. Uh through the mayor. Um yeah, so the sample size is quite small, especially the in-person events. Um and we've already had some discussion with our communication teams how how we could do uh better outreach next time. Um especially with the business owners, we actually had a really excellent discussion with the ones who did come and they had some suggestions how we would do better outreach uh for that group as well. As far as the uh questionnaires, um that the number questionnaires we felt was fairly healthy given that this really is a fairly niche topic and um but when we engaged previously in 2025, um the engagement was combined with the OCBP update which generated quite a few more. And so it for for me it's hard to say whether whether any more um responses could have been generated for that one. Um but yeah we defin we're always looking at at improve improving that.

You I thank you and I appreciate your honesty on that. Thank you. Thank you councelor Green. I have in my speaking order Patterson Watson smart braiths. Over to you councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you, Mayor, and through you to Mr. Brown. Thanks for the report, Mr. Brown. Um, first question is, uh, have staff considered using the North American industry classification system for Canada, um, so that we have a categorized list that is actually used by the industry and and and by municipalities. So you could actually do some benchmarking and it it's it's uh rather than trying to make up the categories ourselves if we considered doing that Mr. Brown.

Yes. Thank you. Through through the American Council Patterson. Yeah. You when when we're coming up with definitions where we don't usually start from scratch. We look for presidents and other communities kind of what others in the area are calling certain things. Um and so um the definitions that we've been working with so far have been come from that. Uh we we can again as we we land where the program ends we could definitely do some more uh review on that to to make sure that what we have have the um yeah that we have the the proper definitions that everyone uses. Councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you for that. Um, and I guess the the other comment I will make is that the feedback I have I've received was that for many members of the community, um, they the were not supportive of a complaint driven model.

And so they just didn't want to be involved because that was not really addressed. and they they felt that it was a municipality um pushing its work on the on the community and that that that is not viewed favorably and not something that most people felt that they had the skills to deal with. Um, and so I'm wondering if staff can comment on on feedback that they have received and and how we might what other course of action we might look at. Thank you, Council Patterson. I think it's a comment more broad than just business enforcement, but uh, Mr. Mr. Go ahead. Yes, through the council pattern asked a similar question about inforcement or as well that I didn't get back to you. Um, so one of one of the things that was proposed, actually our our APC brought it up, but it ca came up in the comments as well, something called smart regulation. And so it's a approach that the district is already

using to a degree with the short-term rentals where um the the onus really is on the on the applicant to to to provide a declaration or a management plan up front uh when they're applying for their license. And and it's a way so show so that uh there isn't an ownorous uh inspection program. It is an owner process. uh in there. Um once that's there, we um the district's disabled, again, it it does does rely on a complaint-based system to to report any violations of of of those regulations. Um, and once a complaint comes in, uh, we are able to to to work with the business owner and and potentially with the neighbors as well to to come up with a solution uh, that works for everybody. Um yeah I I'm not sure I can comment on the complaint based system and um all of our regulations are quite we thank you mayor for you just to add on that question and discussion um um as you can see in the in the staff report

right now homebased businesses don't result in a lot of formal complaints that said there may be uh concerns out there that we won't hear from because residents are hesitant to report or to not understanding exactly what they can do. Uh there is another model that we use for regular businesses. It's a bit different. It focuses on fire safety. Uh so our commercial businesses are inspected yearly by the fire department, but that's much more focused on fire safety. It has of some other benefits, but that's the only that's an example of something that is more proactive and and and recurring. uh yeah to set something up like that for homebased business maybe for a different reason. Maybe it's a spot check uh that could definitely be looked into as part of the implementation. Uh but it does will it will it would require resources and um yeah the the the current complaint uh based approach is a longstanding approach for the district and um um it

can be of course revisited and and tweaked and maybe dependent on certain businesses. It can be uh there could be maybe specific actions or programs maybe for a certain year for example. Those are options that could be considered um that would have some some implications for cost and staffing to to make that happen. Thank you. I'm going to go down to councelor Watson and Smart then Braithweight. Um Mayor, do we need a motion? Sorry, to extend the meeting. We uh No, because we started this meeting at 9 at just after 9:00. So, we're okay. Perfect. Thank you. But we should still try and finish soon just for the record. Uh, councelor Watson, thank you. And, uh, thank you staff for bringing this back to us. It really does focus the mind to have this in front of us now. And I really appreciate the table. The table in the report is really the the the crux of the matter and and so I'm going to be referring to that I guess in my questions. Um, the first and

sort of along three lines. The first thing I wanted to ask about is how the um in the background to the report you um staff reminds us that this this um push to actually consider a new regulatory framework really particularly got ahead of steam around COVID uh when um people's work habits changed quite dramatically and I wanted to really understand particularly with respect to type one business category your type one impacts what The practical difference would be or you think is between somebody who is working home working at home to earn their own income there versus somebody who is working at home for for their employer and also earning their income there and why we need to why we think we need a regulatory framework um to actually manage that when I I find I'm trying to think about what that would be but I wonder if staff or the consultant or any the discussion has ever gotten to that issue. What is what is the distinction between somebody working at home because they're working at home for their employer which many people do now up to five days a week and

the diff somebody who's in the the type one typology who's earning their own income independently in terms of impacts and in the policy rationale for regulatory framework. All right back to basics Mr. Mr. Brown. Yeah. Um thank you for the questions. I it it is very difficult to decipher one from the other. Um in many cases somebody sitting at a desk um one's has their their own uh billing system and taxes and one is being paid through an employer. Um that there really fundamentally isn't any difference in that. Um yeah thank you. I was Oh, go ahead, Mr. B. Yeah, thank you, mayor. Um um yeah, I find it a very interesting question because it does raise the question for type one. Should it be dealt with differently than uh employees working from home, not employees from the district, but in general. So, I think it's a fair question that we haven't quite broached so much. So we've been focusing on an existing business license process for these businesses and that currently is mostly well it's a bit of

type one and two type two but um so thanks for the question. Thanks Watson. Yeah thank you. My next question has to do with um the and I guess it would really be I think you'll hear my commentary later about type one and whether we need it but even with respect to type two the sort of space limits that are being set and how they would have been determined. Um I would certainly with respect to a type one business 300 square feet within the context of a larger home and the kind of activity that might actually go on. I was thinking about things like sewing rooms, workshops, weaving, somebody who does weaving, an artist who might need a larger studio for manipulate manipulating and storing canvases and stuff and how that number that 300 square foot or 28 square meters was was derived. I'm curious about that.

Mr. Brown. Yes. Uh thank you for the question. [snorts] So, so the the the thresholds for all all the types of businesses uh were drive out of research of policies in other communities um and um yeah looking at around I know that uh just uh either have adopted or in the process of updating their regulations and and they're in in in that same ballpark of yeah somewhere between 25 and 30% % of the gross floor area up up to a certain point. Um and and I would say that where our numbers are are consistent to to about where those those land. So so comparative analysis and when the policy work was done. Okay. Thank you.

Um my final question has to do with uh type two and the uh suggestion that um additional parking space would be required. And I I I guess I'm quite concerned when I see that given all the other work we've done in the municipality through our our small-cale multi-unit housing to really make sure that those changes don't impact our green space, our trees, our landscaped areas. And it seems really counterintuitive to me to be suggesting that we need an additional parking space. So I have a um I wondered um certainly in the consultation you refer to anticipated impacts. Has any parking study been done about uh what what would drive parking need or use? Um um just like we require parking studies for other developments, has there any been any formal work to look at whether in fact there would actually be an impact or are just people presuming that we should have an extra parking space? Mr. Brown.

Yes. Uh thank you for thank you for for the question. Um you you're correct. We we had a quite a long discussion about parking spaces as well and that and balancing um the what we heard from the community where the parking always comes up. It's always one of the the concerns um whether taking up taking up street parking or should it be off street um and balancing that. Okay. if if we need now an extra parking space, are we going to eventually take away space on that lot for another housing unit? Um or are or in that the whole discussion over peral surfaces as well?

And it's it's why that even in a type three we're still at one space and not going more than one. Um and and so yeah, no I wouldn't say that any formal study has been done on these um uh through the through the application process the way that this would work is we we would expect the applicant to identify where this actually parking space would be. Um and presumably um if working with the size of the lot um it may already exist. It just needs to be designated for the business. I just have what maybe I'm not sure it's going to lead to a question but just a comment about that. I know that I haven't looked at this stat [clears throat] recently but a few years ago the average length of a homeowner staying in a home was 5 years. I'm just concerned about a regulatory model that actually requires a parking space for a business that may only last for two or three years. And it really would change

our municipal landscape and our land patterns for no long-term benefit at all. And so I just I'm flagging that I'm really concerned about this suggestion. Um, and I will be speaking to it later. I'm going to just turn that into a question because similar thoughts that occurred to me and when I wasn't clear on it, I'll ask the question. Um because I think it needs to be asked is is it feasible within this because I think the the the parking concerns are always going to be legitimate, but is there is we talked about having a declaratory model of like you will comply with our pieces is going to be possible within our policy or piece that that part of that declaration is that the homebased business especially for type one and type two that they could just declare that they would make available an off-site parking spot would be available should they have clients attending their home as opposed to having to build a new

parking spot for clients should one ever arrive at their home. I'm just wondering if that's a model that we could possibly implement as opposed to the rather than the physical piece have as part of more of a declarative with of course subject to enforcement. Yes, thank you for the question. I I think that would certainly be the approach with with the declaration or management plan, right? to give us say plan. Okay, there's an X spot in the driveway for for the business. They would reserve it if they were having people visiting, etc. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Councelor Smart and then Braithweight. Yeah. Thank you. Um, I guess I'll start first with my through you mayor with my question regarding the the parking and I guess that was just to elaborate on I just wondered if staff considered putting a similar regulation that we have for secondary suites where like potentially we would allow for the provision of a bike rack um uh instead of a parking space. Uh just again

building on that um you know sustainability model like the whole concept of us allowing home businesses is for those smaller walkable communities and so people are ideally walking and biking to these home businesses and not driving a car. So I just wondered if if staff had considered um not providing a um a requirement for a vehicle. Well, actually it doesn't actually say it says one additional off streetet parking space. It doesn't actually say car spot. [laughter] Um but that that could be cycling infrastructure instead. Yes, thank you for the suggestion. I would say that um yeah, if council wanted to to put that forward as direction to have either parking space or bike parking or another TDM measure, um that could that may be appropriate.

Thank you um through you mayor. Um my next question is just with regards to um the potential deletion of of town houses from the type 2 um uh typology and I just wondered in my review of the material it wasn't entirely um clear but did staff interpret that there was significant feedback against townous and all type two businesses because I could see that there'd be a reaction to potentially music lessons and and town houses, even though our construction of town houses um um currently provides a lot of um soundproofing with with new construction, but I just wondered what the actual concern was of of potentially somebody providing tutoring in a townhouse and that kind of potentially creating an inequitable situation where we're not allowing for a lot of those other type two businesses to to occur in in townhouse development. So I just wondered if with that sort of finer green was the feedback really against all type two businesses or just particularly obviously the the music one in townous.

Mr. Brown, yes, thank you for the question. Um I would say that the feedback overall was more of of the concern over noise and disturbances to neighbors. Um not necessarily about a specific type of type two business. Um yeah going going back to the slides um type two businesses were supported in town houses 65%. So there was there was some decent support there. Um again whether or not we need to put to shape that a little bit more or simply analog that there is the possibility. Um, another option as well is to look at the the permitting process and whether or not it should be the the district, right, regulating the townouses or maybe it should be a strata regulating what can go in that into that that complex.

Go ahead. Uh, thank you through you, Mayor. Uh my next question is with regards to um how will staff categorize whether an artist maker business fits into one two or three. Um thank you Mr. Brown. Thank you. So that that would come in the decl declaration the application what whether or not the business expects to have customers and how many customers to their business. Um thank you through you mayor. My next question is with regards to um in our OCP we've allowed for worklive units on the ground floor in in condominium buildings. Will the wording um going forward still allow for um type two businesses to be in work live um units um because they technically might be considered residential in apartment buildings.

Mr. Brown, Mr. Bull, sorry. Uh thank you for the mayor. Um I'm not aware there may be specific zones that have live work units but we don't have a general uh option for it in the zoning banner right now. Uh I think if we were to follow up in the future on that OCP policy and create a framework for it that would probably mean that we need to revisit this program as well make sure it's it's aligned right now. I don't think we anticipate those units in the current program because simply we don't really have an avenue for them right now. And and and the other thing is um thinking back to some of my experience with other arrangement about live work, it's a bit of a different model where the the amount of floor area for the business is actually higher than what we intend to achieve with this program.

This is truly an accessory business in a home live work is more of a truly mixed use. So bit of a different category that will probably warrant its own review and and customized regulation. Thank you. Go ahead, councelor Smart. Thanks. And my last question through your mayor is just with regards to um uh just a second. Sorry, I just want to make sure this wasn't asked already. Um the so the staff um recommendation that's at the beginning of the report um has a few line items but doesn't include everything in the the blue chart that is option one and two. And so is the staff recommended motion actually the entirety of the chart labeled option one um that I have on page 168 of the agenda or is it um just wording that is in the recommendation and and the the main difference I see is particularly the the parking aspect is not listed in the wording of the staff recommendation currently and so I just wanted to clarify If we move the staff recommendation, are we moving the staff recommendation literally or are we

moving what staff assumes to be the entirety of option one on page um 168? Thank you, Mr. Brown. Yes, thank you for for checking your motion. Um I would definitely say say that um if you were to move option one and include the parking that to to please amend the motion to add that line as something that that we missed in our recommendation Mr. B. So yeah just to be clear clear that option one as outlined at the table is the staff recommendation and we missed one item in the staff recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. I think we understand what's happening there, but we will walk through it when we get a motion on the floor. Um, this is not subject to public input. Uh, I do have councelor Braithweight still on the speaking list. Please go ahead, councelor Braithweight.

Uh, thanks very much, Mayor. And I I I'm going to um go on with the parking um um comments and questions um because I I feel pretty strongly about the the the parking spot being there. And the reason for that is um because I I believe our our regulatory model right now for um for commercial businesses is that um they do have to have parking spaces and if they don't supply parking spaces uh for certain businesses then they have to pay a fee and I would hate to think that we would treat um the homebased businesses differently because I think that the um uh the uh the commercial businesses might um take a take homage to that. Um, so I I I think that we need to be a little bit careful on that. So my question around the parking would be um uh and I think that this might have been answered already, but um will the staff inspect the parking availability before issuing the license or will they actually just rely on the applicant declarations?

Mr. Brown, what's the current plan? Yes. Uh thank you for the for the question. Yes, if if council result that a parking space would be required um through that declaration or right uh there there would be a requirement for a site plan and it it may not be to the same standard if you're building a house but uh to indicate where where on the property that parking space would be located. Okay. Thank thank you very much. And if I may, mayor, um around the enforcement, um how will staff ensure that the businesses remain within their approved category after licensing? Would that be um based on complaints or would um is there a check process in place where um where we could be checking uh to ensure that that business is within their approved category?

Mr. Mr. Brown, go ahead. Yes. Thank you. Um yeah, it'd be Thank you for the question. Um it it would be wouldn't be so unlike many many of our regulations once an inspection is done. What happens inside a building is really really hard to to predict. No different than than the restriction on floor area whether they actually stick stick within that. Um yeah, in enforcement for for the homebased businesses a after licensing has occurred would be on a complaint basis. And so when once we would have a complaint, maybe there is more activity than than than what what should be for that category. that that's when bylaw can uh follow up with with the license holder uh to education and and that try to find a reasonable solution or if or if if they are um not not in the correct category then then we can uh take action to to to rectify that.

Thank you. doing if I may, mayor. Um and then um would that still be based on uh like two complaints um against that business? And also what kind of enforcement resources will be available for this? Because I'm imagining that um the uh bylaw officers that we have right now already have their hands full. So are we going to need more resources for enforcement? Thank you, Mayor. um for you. Um let me see. I'm looking back at the table that shows current complaints. Um two to three a year. It depends a bit what happens and are there more complaints. Uh it would require two complaints. That's based on our current enforcement policy. Um so if the volume doesn't change much then it can be just absorbed in the regular workload. If it increases maybe because the business license numbers do increase over time substantially then that probably would incre the number of complaints might increase as well then it might need to be revisited. Uh but given the current history I think a lot of most of our

complaints that we deal with for bor compliance are not related to to businesses. Thanks. Thank you. And if I may, mayor, um do we have any idea? I know that in the past, uh before we um agreed to have secondary suites, we kind of had an estimate of how many illegal or non-conforming secondary suites we had within the district. And I'm wondering if we have any idea on how many businesses we have that don't have licenses because when I saw the figure of I think it was five um uh tutoring or music lesson licenses that we had, I was actually quite shocked at that. So I'm wondering if we have an estimate of how many businesses are within the district that that don't have a business license.

If we knew we'd be after them, councelor Braithweight. Uh [laughter] Mr. Brown. Yes. Thank you. Um we do not we do not have any numbers or estimate how many. Uh we believe they they're there and there's evidence in the comments from the questionnaire that they're there. How many of them and to what extent uh is is tough tough to estimate. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And my my last question, mayor, would be um about the business concentration. Uh and I'm wondering if if staff have considered limiting the concentration of the of higher impact impact home businesses within one neighborhood, um if that ever became an issue. So I guess if you know there were 12 people on a on a street who wanted to have music lessons or something like that, is there is there a consideration to limit um the concentration of higher impact home businesses?

Mr. Brown. [clears throat] Yes, thank you for the question. Um, it can it can be really difficult to put in some kind of cap on the number of licenses. You um I'd have to go back and look at the community charter and some other places to see if we can actually do it. Um yeah going back to the comments uh Mr. Pool and uh in the report as well um ju just about understanding the expectations of where just just because uh a new type of business is permitted doesn't mean that there's they're going to happen. Um I I will I will also highlight part of the report as well that's not part of the recommendation tonight that when bylaws do come come forward uh the recommendation is to set a review point a couple of years down the road uh where we can can look at what change has happened and if f further regulation and further restriction is uh required potentially look at that at that time. Just looking at the past history of our business

licensing, it's it's hard to know exactly how many new businesses, whether or not you're going to have them all concentrated in one area or not. Thank you. Thank you. This you wouldn't have noise complaints if they were all having music lessons at the same time on the same street. That' be one advantage. Um Um Okay. I just have I just have one question on this one and and that is the um uh I should maybe I don't even have to ask that question to be totally honest. Yeah, I guess I will. The the um the the feedback that we got suggesting that we keep um uh you know type two and three businesses out of um uh to infill housing only not in multif family. These were as I understand it primarily driven by noise concerns. I guess you know I'm tend to be of the nature of wanting to I mean we can't enforce that much and these things get very complicated very quickly. I mean do I mean is it not if it's a noise issue with not most stratas or multifamilies uh have rules about

noise that they could enforce on their own and and that would not normally fall to us for for management. If if someone for instance turned off a music studio in their apartment they would probably be a contravention. I'm trying to get a sense here of how much of this would realistically fall to the municipality should there be allowance for some uh type two businesses at least in the um uh in multif family or strata Mr. Brown. Yes, thank you for the question. Um I just confirming whether it is our practice right now to to require uh shadow authorization before a business license is issued. That's now I I I know from uh previous stops that that that tool has been used as well where the strata council gets the gets gets to say whether business license is in issued in the first place. Um and and that would that would allow the the strata to be the primary um uh in enforcement body for that business. Um c certainly the

the the district could step in if it if it became an issue um for for other other neighbors as well. Um but that is it is something that where um we we could look look at our per renting structure and our enforcement. That's fine. Thank you. Uh that's good enough. Thanks. I just uh um I've heard questions around the table here. just in the interest of getting us to a to a a resolution to advance um you know if we're if we're looking at option one I think there's what I've heard around the table is there's some consideration of whether or not um both type two and three businesses should be limited to infill housing only if only type three should and I've heard concerns about the parking requirement to be part of the bylaw or if there's some other softer approach to make sure that pro parking is provided but leave that to the um to the business to to find a solution for that essentially uh for the depending on their on their on their customer base.

So those are the two things I've kind of heard around the table. Um there may be something else there. So before we get to a motion, go ahead councelor Watson or you can even move. No no I I think the other thing you've heard particular for me is whether type one businesses should actually be regulated at all. It creates an terrible inequity between two exactly identical sets of behaviors in within buildings and I just think it's inappropriate. Can I just uh I'm going to take that question because I I I I again minimal is good for me, but I I do understand that all businesses are required to have a business license. So if you're a homebased business doing business as a corporation, you're going to be required to have a business license. And so if it's just a single person working at home, they're going to need a business license. And if it has no impact on neighbors, having a lowcost basic business license for a type one business to me makes a certain amount of sense.

But I might just turn to staff. I'm not 100% sure what the legal requirements are, but I know in my personal experience that if you're running a business, you need to have a business license. It's just a requirement for all kinds of things from insurance to just getting a bank account. Mr. Bull, thank you, Mayor. U yeah, we cannot confirm if that's through the provincial legislation, but our business licensing bylaw indeed does require anybody conducting a business to have a license. And that's uh there's also another category of very minor impact or minor scope businesses. For example, people teaching classes in our rec centers. They also require to take out a business license, but we also get regularly hear about that's a little bit concerning if there's only say five or 10 classes a year. However, that's how the current business license pilot is indeed set up. Thank you.

Yeah, that's right. I think council was my might might take this one. you may want to just consider like an even cheaper version of that or uh or something, but it is going to probably be a requirement for a number of businesses to have that piece. Councelor Smart, thank you. Um through Mura staff, I guess I just wanted to ask following up on that line of thinking that what is the logic behind having business hours for a type one business that doesn't have any customers? like what is the difference between somebody knitting a sweater on the sofa versus knitting a sweater on the sofa that they're going to sell the next day? Um, I guess I just wonder what like what the reasoning for having business hours is if if there are no customers, what the concern is that we're trying to regulate.

I don't think we can regulate that at that point, but go ahead, Mr. Yeah. Thank you. Um yeah, when we we originally constructed the the three business types, um uh the the business hours is something that other other places do regulate as well. Um the 7 a.m. to 7 a.m. lines up with our construction noise bylaw. And so really it it would come into play if there was ever a complaint and we needed needed a framework to regulate it. may be unlikely for the tape ones as as you mentioned. Um, so we have a recommendation here for option one. It sounds like we'll probably have some motions to amend, but maybe it's worthwhile for us to get it on the table so we can start that process.

Excuse me, mayor. Sorry, I have my hand up. Sorry. Sorry. Tell us to briefly. Go ahead. Did you say you we have an a recom Oh, we have a recommendation for option one. I think that we also should not you you mentioned option one and option two. I don't think we should discount option three personally because I do feel pretty strongly that we should be having a public hearing around this and I know that I've heard from the business community uh the BIA that they would prefer to have a a public hearing around this as well. So um when it comes time for motions I I'll be wanting to put that motion on the floor.

That's fine. I think the uh there's there's [snorts] three sections to the recommendations. One is a receive, one is the make amendments and then the third is to whether or not to wave the public hearing. So we'll certainly get a chance to talk about that but as a separate item in that. So why don't we start at the easy one. Why don't we have a motion to receive the report? Move seconded. Thank you. Uh any discussion? Uh councelor bra you had your hand still up? Nope. You're that was it. Okay. Uh all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Um I'll turn to council to get direction. Go ahead.

Councelor Green. I just have a a process question. Um on on page 11 of the report. It shows option three with with two conditions. And I I just wondered is that the option three that is being referenced. The one that says, "Receive what we learned. Homebased business engagement report for information to direct staff to prepare the necessary amendment bylaws to implement the proposed updates to homebased business regulations without the proposed tier for type three homebased businesses." So, and that would be providing direction to hold a public hearing as well in the opening preamble. Is that the option three we're looking at? Uh, sorry. I mean, I there's no motion on the floor at this point. Option one uh is I was just Yeah, I wasn't sure which which um Okay, it's fine. I I I took number three as is the third third part of the Yeah, component three of the motion which I would consider to be a separate motion from all of them.

So, um turn to members of council. I think probably easiest to take one of the option one or option two or option three, but option three doesn't make it very easy to make amendments to get to something that's workable. So probably option one is my recommendation but take option one or option two in the table. Council what councelor Appleton thought I saw your hand pop up. Sure. I will move option one for consideration your okay so just for clarification everybody looking at this this is direct staff to prepare the necessary amendment bylaws but for type three things there's those changes specifically for type three and limiting and then the second part of that is limiting type two and three businesses to infill housing only. So that's the those are the changes to the the pieces that are in front of us. So on the floor open for uh options for amendments. Go ahead councelor. You want to speak to it councelor Appleton before I go?

Uh thank you worship to be very brief. I I think this is probably broadly supportable although I expect some amendments and if and that I would also bring some amendments of my own if those are not already addressed. So I do think that some of these components do need to be I think option one is the broad basis but I do have some ideas for amendments. Okay. Uh councelor Smart you wish to speak? I just wish to add a couple of amendments um to the motion. Um uh the first one would be with regards to um 2B um to limit type two to infill housing and town houses and type three businesses to infill housing only.

So it's essentially just adding town houses um for type two. Second. Okay. So the motion is to amend the 2B to limit Yep. to limit type two to infill and town houses and type three to infill housing only. Okay, that's moved and seconded. Is there discussion on that? I'm sorry, mayor. Is that 2B? Because on on the what I'm looking at for 2B, it says reduce the permitted hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. I type 2C for me is type three businesses not permitted on Sundays and statuto holidays. I'm I'm very confused here. So option one. Yes. So, fair enough. So, we're we'll look at option one within the um Yeah, because the motion that's at the front of the report doesn't include option 2 C. Um but option 2B is still I forgot.

No, I'm looking at page um sorry, I'm looking at page 11. Yeah, I understand that. But I'm just looking at the the recommendation report at the beginning of the report is actually It's not the same. It's not the same. Yeah, it's very confusing. Your your worship, I think it's the same. The numbering has been um is is not consistent. Um but I think the So, you could go with either one. It's it's that in the front it's 2 a and then um Roman numeral one, two, and three. in the in the so the formatting is definitely clearer within the uh page 11. So I think everybody should go there for that for that language.

So, um, yeah. So, it's just a little, it's just a little confusing because there's two twos here. Should be probably two III. So, uh, we have 21 A, B, and C. 2.1AB and C and then 2.2 businesses to infill housing. So, what we're talking about here is amending the um uh item that 2.2 to limit type two and type three businesses to infill housing only. And that's that's the change. So, I'll thank you for that catch and clarification. Councelor Braith, you still have the floor if you wish. So, yes. So, I'm sorry. Could you just repeat what the um what the motion is again, please?

Sure. So the the amendment is to amend section two or point 2.2 of the recommendation to limit type two businesses to infill and town homes only and type three businesses to infill housing only. Thank you. Uh yeah, and I I actually uh will be voting against the amendment because I don't uh I would prefer not to have type three businesses included in um the original motion. Thank you. Okay. Um you may we give you an opportunity to make that that amendment proposal, but you may still want to consider the the if this improves or doesn't improve the overall motion um to your to your feelings. So, uh, there's on the amendment, councelor Watson, just to say that I'll support that. I think it makes sense. Uh, we're we're in a at a time when we're actually trying to encourage townhouse development in our community. Town houses are beautifully separated spaces which um allow because they're typically on three floors this kind of division and space for different uses. And I think it would

be really um kind of snobby or something to exclude town houses from from the ability to have type two businesses in them. So I think it's a completely reasonable suggestion. Councelor Green. Thank you. Um I will be voting against this particular option. I would have supported option three which um is is self-explanatory and I think we should have a public hearing. I don't know how many of you have talked to the the the business improvement association, but they're very concerned about the impacts on local small businesses here and on the local economy. So, I think it I I think it would behoove us to go forward with a public hearing at at the very an option will be for consideration.

This is this is that is that is a separate motion that we will consider. Yeah, I know. I know that. Thank you. Thank you. Uh so, I'll speak briefly to the motion. Uh or councelor Braith, did you wish to speak to the motion? Oh, your hand is still up. That's all. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, so I'll speak in favor of it. In fact, personally, I I don't think I know the feedback we had was some concerns about type two businesses and in in multif family and and other pieces, but I just I honestly don't see this being our place to to manage. someone wants to do a tutoring or or music or or other small impact pieces. I mean, they would have to comply with the rules of either the rental company or the strata council who can uh it's been a long time since I've been on a strata council, but you can set rules that's that limit the businesses and what they do and that's really up to the culture of the building. Um, so I personally, this

doesn't go far enough to me, but I'm fine with it. I think it's a good it's a step and if we want to change it in future, we can consider that. That'd be probably part of the review process. Um, so yeah, totally supportive of this. I just think it's uh we get into in our own way sometimes on some of the the minutia of some of these rules. So supportive of this motion to include town houses. Any other discussion? All right. All those in favor of the amendment and any opposed? I have councelor Green and Councelor Braithweight opposed. Uh, you had one other amendment. Yes. Um, with regards to the um, parking requirement, I'm just trying to find in this new newly revised um, option one if the parking is actually in here. I'm just I think there is [snorts] so right now there's a requirement for a parking additional parking spot and for type two and three businesses or is it just type three businesses?

Type two and three. Yeah. So, it's not actually in the motion right now, but it's assumed to be. Um, no, I think council would have to add it in. Just sorry for clarification. The the the preliminary required a bit did not require a parking permit. So, this the the if we want to include a parking permit requirement, it would have to be added in at this point or vice versa. I'm not going to scroll around on my screen because I've got my motion in front of me and I want to make sure I keep it here. Mr. Brown. Yes. Um, yeah, it was in the the table in the report, but it wasn't in the the original motion. and and so if if council wanted to add in the requirement for her parking space need to add it to the motion.

Okay. So currently as the motion has worded there is no requirement for additional parking for type 1, two or three. Is that correct? That's right. Okay. With that clarification I have no amendment to make. Okay. Councelor Watson. I have an amendment to the motion. I would like councelor brief. Yeah. Go ahead. I would like to move that um um the type one um business um be implementation of type one business licensing be suspended pending uh um um the receipt of a staff report on whether or not we are required to license business. I know that we have the under the community charter we have the option to license businesses, but I'm not sure it's actually a requirement. We've got the power to do it if we wish. And I I just don't think I I have enough clarity on whether whether we need to be doing this for type one businesses at this present time.

Okay. Uh that's the motion. Is there a second or seconded? Oh, no. I'm looking for second for discussion. Okay. Go ahead. So, it's seconded. Go ahead, Councelor Watson. Yes. Um, I I think we I don't sitting here right now, I don't have clarity on whether we actually are required to license businesses. I I know that the community charter gives us powers to do it if we wish to, but I'm just because we have a business bylaw that's done this as before. We're in a but we're in a bylaw review process right now to look at how we regulate homebased businesses. And I am not convinced that we need to regulate type one businesses given that that there's no discernable difference between those kinds of businesses and people just working at home for their employer. Um and so I while there may be arguments to be made or we are required to do this, I don't think we know that at this present time. So moving forward with a regulatory regime where we're not even clear about the basis for it seems

to me premature. So I would like before we actually implement this to actually understand whether we have to do it or not. Thank you. Councelor Smart then Patterson. Yeah. Thank you. I I seconded the motion um for discussion. Um but I won't actually be um supporting it. Um as a business owner, I I do require to have business license for a variety of different things and I so I would need the mechanism of the municipality to provide me with that for um BC business registry. um for my architectural association. Um so it does logistically provide a purpose and I understand the point of do we really need to be regulating it but the actual physical piece of paper is surprisingly very important. Councelor Patterson.

Yes. Thank you mayor. I will not support the proposed amendment because I I don't think we should confuse the activity with the operation of a business. If you're an employee of a business, the business the employer has the business license. If you're operating the business, you carry the license. So, I think there's there's a distinct difference. And so, it's not what the activity is. And I I realize, you know, that perhaps it um while the activity is the same, there's still a business license required. And so, I won't support it. Councelor Braithweight. Yeah, for the same reasons I won't be supporting it either. Thank you. Thank you. And and I'll just chip in.

I'm not won't support it, but and and one of the reasons not mentioned is just that because it is required for so many purposes. We effectively force everybody into paying for a type two business license which doubles the cost if we don't implement the type one. Um so I'm kind of the mind that we should make this available and I think the tiered model is a reasonable one for that purpose. So um all right, I'll leave it there. Any other discussion before I call the question? This is on the motion to amend to suspend the implementation of type one business licenses. Okay, seeing no other discussion, all those in favor and opposed, I have councelor Patterson, Smart Appleton, Green, Braithweight, and myself opposed.

That motion fails. Anything else, Councelor Watson? Okay. Um I think councelor Braithweight I had you on my list for motions. Thank you so much mayor. And so I will um put a motion on the floor to require one additional off- streetet parking space uh for both type two and type three businesses. Okay. It's moved and seconded. Go ahead. Uh yeah, I I think I I spoke about this a little bit before in in regards to uh commercial businesses um have have that requirement and I don't think that we should um not require homebased businesses to do the same especially because uh commercial businesses do um have to pay into the parking fund if they don't um have the required number of parking spaces available. Uh so I think that it would be uh it'll send a good message to our business improvement association um that we are um protecting them at least um as far as this this goes. Thank you.

Thank you councelor Braithweight. Uh there discussion councelor Smart and then Patter did you wish to speak? Yeah, I was I was just going to I seconded it. So I I was just going to um to also state what uh Council Braithweight did and it's parody with with the business community and I think we you know while wanting to support homebased businesses I still want to concretely support our business community because that's really important to the community also. Go ahead councelor Smart and then Apple on the table. Thank you. I won't be supporting um the motion. I feel like one of the primary objectives of homebased businesses is walkable communities where we are not bringing a vehicle to the business that is walking or cycling. Um I also just see how this plays out. So either somebody has a driveway that accommodates an extra spot already and then it's just a bureaucratic um paperwork thing where somebody has to actually draw a site plan and it results

in no difference. or they need to now widen their driveway um in order to accommodate this extra parking spot. That results in a loss of green space, potentially a loss of tree and uh no net gain of parking because they have now taken away a parking spot on the street to create an extra parking spot in their driveway. So, it says a negative um impact from an environmental point of view. It has an significant cost impact and um as was already pointed out in this meeting may result in somebody actually deciding um to to move if they um want a home business and they don't currently have enough parking. So I I don't see any um benefit um to this whatsoever and I see it actually working against promoting homebased businesses.

Councelor Appleton then Watson and Green. Uh thank you your worship. Opposed to the motion for much the same reasons. Um, we are looking for locally supported businesses, especially for type 2 businesses. The provision of an additional off- streetet parking spot makes no sense. Uh, we want people to be frequenting local businesses. We want people to be able to be uh motivated and supported and be facilitated in running a homebased business. That's the purpose of the whole exploration and the purpose of us putting in place the bylaws. If you're going to incur if you're going to incur the massive cost and the ma and the potentially significant impact to green space to construct an off- streetet parking spot to uh to facilitate a homebased business, most people are going to walk away or there's going to be a net negative impact to the community that surrounds it. Uh and erodess support and erodess uh uptake of homebased businesses. So, uh, we need to not be driving decisions like of this nature towards parking. Uh, and especially for I I can see a potential

argument for a type three business of a certain nature needing some additional parking provision, but certainly not type two businesses. So, there's I I can't I can't support this motion. You worship, Mr. Watson Green. Thank you, Mayor. I I will not be supporting the motion. Um I think first of all I would like to address uh the the the quite different circumstances of uh commercial businesses and commercial zones and in neighborhood villages. The context for the parking requirements there are very different. We're talking about a building form and lomeration of activities that do generate parking demand and we provide for it in our planning and our zoning. It's very different from um thinking about uh the odd activity within a neighborhood. And so to suggest that somebody needs a parking space in the neighborhood just because businesses in our villages need them, I just don't think that that argument really holds much water. It's a very different form and it's for a different purpose. I also would be very concerned about requiring additional parking spaces when really these businesses are very temporary. they're

being rellicensed on an annual basis as opposed to our commercial enterprises in our villages which are pretty much there for good. So um that a permanent establishments their their their clientele or their ownership may change but their activity is still there in that place as opposed to the comingings and goings in our neighborhoods where people move they they sell they move to Winnipeg whatever. So it would be it would be um uh very unfortunate to take away green space uh for a very temporary need. I also think that it's really we we actually don't have any information at all to suggest it's necessary. So to actually create rules without having u good foundational data um makes no sense to me at all. And I think that it's completely counter to everything we've been doing as we've tried to do gentle densification in our neighborhoods. All the regulations we've put in place and come back to review to u to make sure that we've got less um impermeable surface to protect the open space to

make sure that that the green space is consolidated so we have large chunks of it to support the natural environment. I just think um it it it would be a very very very big mistake to be asking for uh for more parking in this particular situation. And I just want to say one more thing. The people come and go in the community that's part of actually having life in healthy communities and to so to have somebody coming to visit your house for a massage therapy appointment. They can come by bike, they can walk, they can come on the bus, maybe they drive, but the reality is people drive through our neighborhoods all the time and park for all sorts of different reasons that we cannot and do not regulate. So to require additional parking in this instance, I think is would be would really be a tragedy, frankly. Thank you, Chelsea Green.

Thank you. Uh I appreciate all the comments. Uh but we still haven't actually heard from the public on this issue. Um, I will support the motion and I will do so because we already face severe parking issues in a lot of our neighborhoods now and we're we are aware of that information. So there is some baseline data around parking and parking crowding and around traffic management. So I will support the motion. I think it's also a matter of equity and I I have said this again. Um, our local small businesses pay commercial taxes. um they are not there forever. They have to renew their business licenses and so on and they pay hefty rent to some of these u building owners. So I think um retail business is struggling and I I know that because I've been watching a lot of uh information and reports about it. They're particularly struggling um in buildings where there is housing above. So, anything that helps our local small businesses, they do a lot for this

community um is something that I will continue to do. But I, as I say, we have not heard from them directly. Um nor have we heard from the public directly through a public hearing. Thank you. Uh thank you very much, Councelor Green. Um uh I'm I'll make a comment and I'll see if the mover is interested in in in perhaps amending their the motion on the floor, but uh I can't support the motion as it stands. I don't think the additional parking space for type two and three businesses uh is the right approach. If I look at what type two is. It really is a homebased business that has periodic people coming uh for music lessons for other type of things. it's not it's not the kind of lesson or business that that you're that would support you know any kind of additional cost of building a new parking spot for it. Um where that changes to me and I think the logic of the tiered approach that we've come up with is that we have the option that there is now a bit of a

middle ground. Type one and type two have always existed in the community and they've pretty much existed without too much without pain occasional transitory pain but not nothing substantive but type three changes the motion the idea and I think that's the place that I would support uh a parking requirement if you're going to have three four people visiting a single family or yeah single family infill housing home um and that's a regular thing and you you have enough of it to justify getting that kind of license then to my mind that's the point where you need to start actually dealing with parking issues much like any other commercial entity that that starts having larger numbers of clients. Um you know I I so I I would support it for for type three. I just can't support it for type two. I just think it's it's too much ownerness and I think the only result of it will be that we will just not have people applying for business licenses. People will just

say I it's not reasonable. It's not it's cost too much and so I can't do it. So yeah, I I can't support the motion as it is in the floor. I would I I could support if it was just type three, but I can't support it with type two and three as it is currently. So, mayor, after listening to what you have to say, I would um actually be happy to change it to just type three. Um I'm not sure if the secondary would be in approval with that, but um after hearing what you have to say, I I I I understand where you're coming from and I think that yes, just having it for type three, I will change my motion to that.

Is it second or amendable? So the motion on the floor then is to require an additional parking space for only for type three businesses. Okay. Um I'm happy to take more conversation. Go ahead. Councelor Smart. Um I just wondered um through you if the mover is um also amendable to um adding or alternative TDM measures to the um amendment. Council Brit, are you amendable to changing that to parking spot? I'm thinking about that. I'll let you think. I I think I'll leave the motion as it is and and perhaps we can add that in as another motion afterwards. Okay. If it's I'll I'll leave it there. I don't have any great wisdom on how to suggest a change on that one, so I'll leave it. Anything else, Councelor Smart?

Uh, no. I mean, I won't be supporting the um amendment as as worded. Just as I stated earlier, just I think there's going to be situations where there's going to be um businesses that know they have customers that don't have cars, businesses that are on frequent transit routes. So, if there's not an alternative um uh that staff could could use to address some of these um different situations, I can't support the motion. Thank you, worship. So, not in support for very similar reasons. If we're going to again let's focus on the actual like the to create an additional off streetet parking spot is a significant expense with significant impact. So if we're going to make such a specification we have to provide in my opinion we have to provide an alternative for transportation demand management. We've done this with actual residential buildings. We've done it with other commercial sites around the district. So there is precedent for us reducing a standing parking requirement in with

respect to providing alternative transportation demand me measures. So I can't support this without there being at least some language for somebody to provide an alternative given the cost to your point your worship. these the costs and the investment in an off- streetet parking spot even for a type three this scale of business could present a strong disincentive for the types of businesses that we're trying to encourage. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just for clarification purposes? I'm not entirely clear on if a building license requires uh if you want a type three business, it may require a parking stall. What is like is there a variance process? Is there a appeal process or is it just you must meet these criteria or you don't get a business license?

I'm not I'm sorry. I'm just not clear on that process. Maybe everybody else is. Mr. Brown. Yeah, just for clarification. So the question is about for business license in particular. Correct. I'm just just we're having a conversation here around is do we put into our bylaws [snorts] uh parking or equivalent TDM or is that a process? Is there a process if a business has a license application and they say it's not it's not practical. I'm at this corner. I'm just servicing my local neighborhood. I don't I don't need an extra parking spot. Is there an appeal? Like I'm just curious about what that process would look like. Have we thought about Yeah, it it it would likely end up [clears throat] be being a variance. um uh to the parking requirement. Um yeah, as it as it would be that the homebased business would get regulated through the zoning bylaw, parking through the parking facilities by law.

Okay. Um yeah, and and yeah, the appeal would be through a variance through a variance process. Okay. Okay. Councelor Watson, did you do you have your hand up on this? I I won't be able to support the motion unless it had the bid about transportation demand management for the type three businesses. So, thank you. Okay. I don't see any other hands on this. And the motion right now is that uh to amend this to require one additional parking space for type three businesses. And if I might just ask that when if this passes, if staff can come back with a uh just clarification on what that process would be just I think that does actually matter um for if there's a an appeal or a variance process that would be helpful. Um so going to call the question on the on the motion. All those in favor and those opposed councelor Watson, Appleton, and Smart opposed. That motion carries.

Uh are there other amendments to Yes. I still have another amendment please. Go ahead. Councelor briefly. Uh yeah, I'd like to um take out uh point three on option one, which is to wave the requirement to hold a public hearing for the necessary zoning bylaw. I would I would like to um hold a public hearing. Okay. Uh I I will I I'm going to call the question on the entirety of part two which is the this is where we are and then that I'll take as part three is a separate uh motion because I think it is different than the um than the uh amendment piece to the bylaws. So I'll go to councelor Appleton for amendments.

Thank you worship. So for clarity amendment to component two not moving on to correct component three at this point. Um so to the discussion I would like uh the to the motion the amendment motion that was just passed. I would like to further amend that motion uh for the [snorts] provision of an off- streetet parking spot or alternative transportation demand measures. Well probably it would have been more appropriate when a motion to amend was on the table but uh let me think of how I managed that procedurally. Um it's not a motion to amend at this point. I guess it's a motion to amend the main motion as amended uh to just so your motion is to add language that allows for alternate transportation demand management in in as an alternative to what has now been to the parking spot to parking spot requirement for type three. Okay. Is there a second with a second? Go ahead.

Thank you, worship. Well, I've sort of motivated to this point already. Um there are significant impacts to creating off- streetet parking spaces. Um and I feel that this requirement under type 3 is a significant disincentive. We want to encourage local businesses and local clientele. Local clientele are more likely to arrive not by car. If we can arrive, if we can provide transportation demand demand management in terms of off in terms of facilities for larger bikes, cargo bikes, ebikes, those types of things or even something creative as far as getting people there by public transit, then I would like people to explore that. I there there are uh significant impacts to creating an off- street parking space. So I think that if somebody was contemplating a type three business that they would be highly motivated to look at other alternatives to provide to accommodate people to arrive at their business.

Council Washington, do you wish to I think you've already spoken to it, but you can speak more if you wish. Yeah, I I I support totally councelor Appleton's reasoning and rationale for for why there should be alternatives. And I also just want to comment that I think one of the alternatives is the curb and that transportation demand management and I mean we ask building developers to come up with um um traffic and parking estimates. And I would argue that if somebody in a type three business can look to their street and argue that there is always x amount of curb space that they've met the requirement if they need it because there's lots of neighborhoods in this community where there is parking to burn on the streets. Uh definitely not near our villages, but uh there's lots of parts of town where there is where an extra car on the street would make not one iota of difference. Uh and would then, you know, support somebody who may actually want to drive to the business, but lots of people would I I I the point

is not lost in me that there's lots of other ways to get there too. Riding, biking, and taking the bus, walking, biking, and taking the bus. Thank you. Thank you, councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. I support the motion. Uh I just feel this gives flexibility and creativity for situations that we can't yet imagine. Um and yeah, as is previously discussed, like I can only conceive of the tens of thousands of dollars to create an extra um uh parking space. Uh, so I just think we need to be providing um options so that we're not actually creating a policy that discourages homebased businesses. Uh, any other discussion on the motion?

I'll go ahead, Council Green. I um I I just want to say that we're not discouraging homebased businesses. What we are trying to do is preserve um neighborhood um harmony because parking is a very contentious issue and um yes there are neighborhoods that have a great amount of parking but very few of them do and and and it's changing with with densification is changing. So um I I think it's a really important point that we are not against homebased businesses but we need to regulate parking in some way. Yeah, thank you. I don't see other hands. I'll I'll I'm speaking to this one unsure about where to go on it to be totally honest. I think I I agree with the um with the motivational portion of what's been said in favor of having asking for a TDM approach. Um but my my my sense here is is in some ways that uh if the variance process is is a viable one for people to to make a case and

they would make that case uh on a case by case basis that they have a unique situation that they don't need that their typical business doesn't require it. Um and now that we've reduced some of the minor variance application cost that's a significantly cheaper process than it was in the past. So I'm um and I'm not sure that's the right process. I'm kind of curious when it comes back on the bylaw piece, if this doesn't pass, what that would what that would look like. Um, but I think it may have some more accountability to go through that process than just to say that TDM is an option. But on the other hand, I yeah, I'm torn on this one. I'm not going to lie. I think that the the intention here of saying, well, there there are going to be, you know, cases where that's not required. Um, yeah, I guess if I'm going to fall down on this one, it's probably that the default piece should probably make to be if you're going to have multiple clients visiting concurrently at a at a business, you should have an obligation of providing at least one parking spot.

Uh, and if that isn't the necessary case, because the type three business isn't the type that requires it, you can make that case um that there's a there's other options there, but I do think that probably at that point becomes a point for council or for for staff consideration under parameters. So probably not I don't think I'm going to support this as it stands right now. Um but I'm not certainly not close-minded to it. I think there has it has some potential value if that's a better way. So I'm going to wait and see what I think at this point unless well ultimately we see where this vote goes. Councelor Patterson.

Yes, Mayor. Thank you. I I too am torn on this but what I am seeing play out physically right now in the neighborhood uh would make me not not supported. I I do think that because it's not just one for type three businesses, they can have up to four people at a time. So, it's not it's not necessarily just one car either. And you know, putting multiples on on some of the streets are uh it's a challenge and uh not all streets, but on many of them there are. So, I would like to see staff come back with alternatives so that if if a business uh was able to verify that their clientele will not be traveling by vehicles that require parking spots or something a different TDM type of application, uh then I would like to see them come and apply for it that way. But otherwise, I'd like to see them provide at least one parking spot. What I'm seeing right now is is front yards and backyards quite full of vehicles because it isn't just homebased

businesses. There's a lot of pressure on some of the neighborhoods right now. on. So, um I would rather uh be more cautious to to start and see how it plays out and come back and amend at a later date if that's required or be able to have them apply for for some sort of a a variance without uh great deal of um difficulty in doing so. Councelor Braithweight, I'll call the Yeah, I would agree with councelor Patterson and I think a variance would be the way to do it. So, I'll be voting against the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Don't see their hands. I'll call the question then. All those in favor of the motion to include uh alternate for TDM moved and those opposed councelor Brie sorry councelor Green, councelor Braithweed, councelor Patterson and myself.

My button that portion does not pass. Uh so we have recurrently section two of the of the motion which is to prepare necessary amendment bylaws with a number of uh amendments to it uh to include uh town houses and type two businesses to include part required parking stall for type three businesses. Are there any other amendments before I get to the main to calling the question? I don't see any. So I'm going to call the question. Uh we have a multi multi time multiple time amended piece here. So in the balance of things, we'll test to whether it meets the the capacity for most people. All those in favor?

Oh, sorry. Any opposed? Sorry, mayor. I was going to speak to my opposition because I I I do think that um uh I would prefer to have gone with um option number three. So I don't actually agree with having type three business included. That's fine. You're welcome to. Sorry, before I call the question, you will certainly make it available to everybody to speak. So speaking to part two of the overall motion, please go ahead. So yeah, so I'll be speaking against that. Um I I won't be voting for it. Thank you very much. So can you just state again for the the rale? Yes. Sorry. Um and because I I would actually prefer um option three um on the table because I do not want type three businesses included. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks for that uh that comment. I always like it when people are voting opposed that they they speak as to the reason why. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion as amended? Please go ahead, councelor Green. Thank you. I too will be voting against the motion as as proposed. Again, I feel that we we we need to um do a wider broader consultation with our small businesses in the village and the BIA in particular. So, thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I'm going to call the question then on the motion as amended. All those in favor and those opposed if councelor briefly and green opposed. That motion passes. Uh we have this third section here. The recommendation I'll put the recommendation on the on the floor perhaps. Or if nobody wants to do that, we'll take another motion to to ask for a public hearing.

I I would I would like to put a motion on the floor to ask for a public hearing, please. Uh in fact, I'm not sure we need a motion to pass the public hearing. Basically, if there's no motion to wave the public hearing, then it will happen. I will make the motion to wave the public hearing. Your worship. Is there a second or move and seconded? Okay. I think it probably worth just having a brief discussion about the rationale for for waving the public hearing. So, go ahead and motivate if you wish. [clears throat] your worship. This is really a matter of uh you know I really see this as something that the community has charged us with us with for many years and because of the needs of the district we have uh needed to defer uh the discussion around homebased businesses many times and there's not been capacity in building and planning in order to address this. This is long overdue and I can recall uh people

asking me you know many years ago about uh the changes necessary when this was going to happen especially on the heels of legalization of secondary suites and and facing up to the reality of how people now live [snorts] and work and what it takes frankly to be able to run a small business and to be able to afford to live in greater Victoria. And so I see this as as critically necessary and and long overdue. And I think that you would hear uh strong support for for uh homebased businesses. I'm not sure that the public hearing is going to give us information about the tech. It is to council to decide on the technical aspects of the governance of this.

Not a public hearing would more accurately be to gather support or not support for the concept of homebased business overall and how it should be broken down. We have that information. We've heard from the public and we have a reasonable and rational breakdown of the types of businesses that are there. So unless council is interested in revisiting the breakdown of business types and whether or not there is support for homebased business in its entirety then I'm not sure what new technical information or what new specific information a public hearing would afford council for the basis of their decision-making your worship. Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion? I think I had councelor SMS and then Watson then green.

Yeah thank you. Um we have heard clearly from the community that we need a home-based business policy and so we have now um achieved getting to this milestone and we have already proactively engaged the community and asked them questions um and incorporated that feedback um into this. So we have engaged the community um and we will continue to review and modify this as we go forward. Um, so I I feel that there's been adequate community involvement in what will be a a process that continues to evolve um in our community. Thank you. Have councelor Watson and Green and Patterson. Yes, thank you. I I don't think that a public hearing really uh would add any value to this process right now. We we asked staff to go back after we had sort of general outlines of how to proceed.

And this is as councelor Appleton has pointed out um is a process that got delayed because of other priorities that were thrust upon us. But this is long overdue this work and the and the community is expecting it. We've um there there are people desperately waiting for these changes to be made so that they can manage their livelihoods and actually pay their own bills and their mortgages. Um uh and I think that we asked staff to go back and do some additional consultation. It was well structured and it involved the business community. So I don't think they've been cut out of the process. I think their views about this are fairly accurately reflected and have been consolidated and reported back to us. So I think that um it's our job now to actually just move this forward because we have enough information to create a a reasonably robust regulatory regime that has support across the community. Thank you councelor Green and then Patterson.

Thank you. I [clears throat] will not support the motion as it stated. I would support a public hearing and I'm I I guess I'm I'm a little confused. A lot of the people that I've been talking to are very concerned and they themselves are confused about how this will be implemented and how it will play out. I totally support homebased businesses. Um, no question about it, particularly tiers one and two. Um, but I have talked to the BIA members. Um, a few of them have approached me and asked me about this and and as I mentioned and this is no um um diminuation of of staff whatsoever, but this is a pretty small sample. 21 people attended an open house. 315 answered a questionnaire and I think the community deserves a voice on something that is as important as this in terms of potential neighborhood impact and impact on housing as well. So I see absolutely nothing wrong. We have um in many ways we have removed uh the public voice from a number of our

processes. The province has done that also. I think people are anxious to have input and I think that's why you see the anxiety in the community over change. So um these are changes. I I support most of them and and I certainly support the tier tiers one and two for homebased businesses. But I think our community deserves a voice in this process. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Green. Councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I I too support a public hearing on this. Um especially I Yes, I I believe that the community has long wanted homebased businesses. I agree with that statement. However, the the forms of homebased business as I think most of the community were originally talking about were type one and type two. But when I look at what we the results back on type three business, 175 supported it in infill housing, 135 wanted it nowhere. And so that to me is not definitive. And I I think the type one and type two most of us are in agreement that that that is what the community is envisioning and we we want

to move ahead with it. But the type three is is perhaps more than what they originally envisioned. Um they also did not understand I think they that much of the community thought when we issued a business license we would be enforcing regulatory framework on the business and to have a complaintbased model where you have to find someone else to join you in the complaint does really put the um responsibility for management of of a lot of this on the neighbors in a residential setting. And so I I think particularly with the consideration of type three businesses, we need to uh in fact go do the reach out to the public and uh take a second run at this and and see and I think give the the business community another look at what we are intending to do because they have expressed concerns. they were not part of the first run of um analysis that was done on this and uh I I think that they

deserve consideration too. So for that reason I I won't be supporting waving it. Thank you. Thank you councelor Patterson. I turn to councelor Braithweight online. Thank you very much mayor. Yeah I won't be supporting uh the motion either. You know, I I I agree that um we've been trying to encourage local entrepreneurship and work from home opportunities all along and we really have been trying to support that, but we still have to ensure that our residential neighborhoods continue to to to feel primarily residential and and I think that's where um where we really need to have a public hearing because it does affect every residential neighborhood and it does change the permitted uses in residential zones. Um, I also have a concern about the number of respondents. Uh, I think we we needed a wider net for that. Um, and I I I would agree with counselor Green. I have been approached by the BIA. The BIA would definitely like to have a um public hearing on this and I believe that we should be supporting our local businesses that are here already. Um,

and and we are going to have um we are going to have homebased businesses. It's just we need a little bit more information from people as to exactly what they're looking for. Um so I I will not be supporting the um the motion as it is. I would prefer to uh have a public hearing. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Braithweight. Uh comments made raised a question in my mind. I'm going to turn to Miss Anderson on this one if I may. Uh, Miss Anderson, um, what happens if we if the motion to, uh, wave the requirement to hold a public hearing happens? Is there notification provided in the paper, uh, of the of the bylaw changes? Is there an opportunity for people to write to council or is it just essentially it just comes back and we deal with that in a meeting uh, when it comes forward?

Mr. Bull, sorry, not Miss Anderson. Thank you, Mayor. Um yeah, we happened to have different topic earlier this year that that run into similar things. So um if there's two the there's two notices here. So either for the hearing if it's held or a notice of not holding a a hearing. So if there's no hearing, there's still notice about not having a hearing. Uh the second layer to this, it's a bit more complex, but the business license bylaw itself also requires a notice a little bit later in the process. So that's another notice. So there's going to be two notices no matter what. And then what you could add as council is that public hearing for the zoning by changes. Thank you.

So just for my clarification that so I'm I'm a little confused now. So what is the public hearing for? Is it for all aspects of the business license change or is it only for the zoning changes that would enable the business license? Uh thank you mayor. I believe it's only for the zoning by changes technically. Uh, but it would be around the same time that we cut our input for the business license bylaw as well if I'm not mistaken. Miss Anderson. Yes, thank you. The the public hearing would only be on the zoning bylaw, the changes to the zoning bylaw. The opportunity for input on the business license would be um a separate process and that process would be notification in the papers and people could write essentially to council on the topic prior to it coming to act to council. Is that is that the process? Uh yes, thank you uh your mayor. It would also provide an opportunity for public input at the council meeting that they're being considered.

Okay, thank you for that. Um yeah, I think based on that information, if we're if we're providing notification and people can come to the council meeting to provide input and write us. um you know this is public hearings are incredibly important piece of our decision-m and they're an important piece of making it as broad as possible but to my mind if we're going to provide a written notification in the paper uh I feel like that's that is achieves the same outcome uh as a coming back to council so I think and again uh the second half of that would be if I have to manage a meeting a public hearing in which I have to manage control over discussion only on the topic of the zoning when the primary concerns are about the nuances of the zoning bylaw. I think I'd rather have the notification go out on the zoning bylaw, share that information, and follow that process. I think in this case, I'm supportive of the motion. I think we get more focus and and

appropriate response to a notification process uh than we would to a public hearing. Um, so I'm I'm inclined here to support the motion on the floor, which is to wave the public hearing and just follow the regular not the the other alternate notification process that would still allow for that public input and the concerns I've heard from other counselors at the table, which I I share. I don't want to in any way shout out the opportunity for the business improvement association or local businesses or residents to to weigh in, but I don't I'm not hearing that's the issue here. The issue here is really just a more procedural piece of clarity and I think it's actually more clear to wave the public hearing in this case. So I'll support the motion on the floor.

Is there any other further discussion on the motion? The motion live is to wave the requirement for a public hearing. So with that, I'll call the question. All those in favor and opposed have councelor Green, Councelor Patterson, and Councelor Braithweight opposed. That motion does carry. Um, I believe that is all of the items on this I now of course scrolled away from my motion list. Was there any other motions attached to this item? I don't think so. Okay. So, this will we probably don't have an exact timeline yet for when this will come back. There's notifications that have to be done. The bylaws have to be drafted. Are we looking at any estimate?

Uh, likely September. Likely September. Okay. I won't hold you to that, but I appreciate the estimate. Um, okay. Thank you very much. Sorry that was that took longer than I anticipated, but I thought it was very good debate and discussion in terms of what we got to. So, thank you for all of that. We have one last item on the agenda, which is 6.2, a 1587 York Place heritage revitalization agreement. Um, this was a a bylaw that had first, second, and third reading at a prior meeting. This is an if I can ask someone to read the uh adoption motion into the record. Hey, worship. I would move that 1587 York Place 1562 Prospect Place Heritage Revitalization Agreement Authorization bylaw number 4885 2025 amendment bylaw number 4975 2026 be adopted moved and seconded usually do a lot of debate on adoption but uh I know I understand council bra you want to just restate your reasons for opposition please go ahead yes I will be um opposing the motion as

per all of the uh prior the reasons is the same as all the prior ones. Thank you. Thank you for that. Uh I'll call the question. All those in favor and opposed council braithweight opposed that carries. Uh any other new business or notices a motion. Uh we will see you all here for our last meeting in July next week. Uh need a motion to adjurnn. Moved seconded. Lots of hopefully lots of seconds. All those in favor? Any opposed? None oppose. Thank you everyone. Good night. Good night. Council briefly.