[2:27] This is just audio check online. Thank

[2:29] you.

[7:21] Um,

[7:23] well, at home you might have a secure

[7:24] one. So, it's really I mean, you're just

[7:26] accessing Sorry.

[14:53] Good evening everyone and welcome to our

[14:55] regularly scheduled council meeting for

[14:57] May the 26th. Uh I'm Kevin Murdoch the

[14:59] mayor of Oak Bay and it's my pleasure to

[15:01] welcome you all. Uh as we start our

[15:03] meeting, we just like to take some time

[15:04] to acknowledge that we are gathered on

[15:06] the traditional territories of the coast

[15:07] and straight Salish peoples and

[15:09] specifically we acknowledge the Lquangan

[15:11] people known today as the Songhes and

[15:14] Casapsum nations and how the connections

[15:16] to these lands and adjoining waters

[15:17] continues to this day. Uh up first in

[15:20] orders of business is approval of the

[15:21] agenda. Can have a mover and a seconder.

[15:23] Moved and seconded. Thank you. Any

[15:25] changes or amendments? No. All those in

[15:28] favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. We have

[15:31] adoption of minutes of May 12th, the 6

[15:33] and 7 p.m. Moved and seconded. Um any

[15:37] other

[15:38] discussion? Seeing none, all those in

[15:40] favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh we

[15:43] have received the committee minutes. Oh,

[15:45] I should just make a clarification um to

[15:47] Miss Plof on the council minutes. Uh

[15:50] there was a change there. Was that

[15:52] correction made in the um in the

[15:54] minutes? Uh yes, your worship. Yes, that

[15:57] was just the notice of motion wording

[15:58] was slightly off. So, thank you for

[16:00] changing that. Make sure we approve the

[16:01] right ones. Uh, and then moving to 4.1,

[16:03] which is committee of the whole minutes.

[16:05] Um, sorry, this is receipt of the

[16:07] minutes moved and seconded. All those in

[16:10] favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh, we

[16:12] have a rise and report. Uh, we don't

[16:14] need to do anything other than move the

[16:16] rise and report and move and second.

[16:18] Thank you. All those in favor? Any

[16:20] opposed? None opposed. If we get to move

[16:23] through some procedural things fairly

[16:24] quickly at the beginning of our

[16:25] meetings. Trust me, it'll slow down uh

[16:27] probably faster than you want. Um

[16:29] mayor's remarks. Uh I just want to

[16:31] express my appreciation to the

[16:32] organizers of the Oak Bay half marathon

[16:34] which happened on Sunday. Uh a great

[16:36] event. I think probably the most

[16:38] smileiest run I've I get to have a

[16:40] chance of attending. Um, I also just

[16:43] want to let people know a few weeks ago

[16:45] council uh supported an ask uh that was

[16:48] made by the view royal council uh asking

[16:50] the school district 61 to explore

[16:52] electoral area representation on school

[16:54] boards. Uh something they've agreed to

[16:56] do and have called their first meeting

[16:58] on that for the mayors of the various uh

[17:00] uh u communities that make up school

[17:02] district 61. So we'll see where that

[17:04] goes. It's early exploration time for

[17:06] that.

[17:07] Uh I want to just remind people that we

[17:09] have a community survey uh that's gone

[17:11] out and that's closing on July 2nd. So

[17:13] if there's um it went out with the tax

[17:15] notices and also with a mail

[17:16] notification. Um but you have until July

[17:19] 2nd to provide that. That gives helps

[17:20] gives us some feedback as we go into uh

[17:22] priorities in the fall. Uh and we also

[17:26] have official community plan

[17:27] engagements. So two of uh inerson events

[17:30] have completed with great turnout. So

[17:31] thank you everybody who's made it. Um,

[17:33] but there's two more coming up this week

[17:34] as well. On Thursday at uh UIC and

[17:37] Saturday at the Windsor Pavilion. Uh, if

[17:39] you have the opportunity, it's worth

[17:40] going in person. There's a lot of really

[17:42] good uh panel boards and things to

[17:44] inform and uh and you can provide your

[17:47] feedback either in person or through a

[17:50] um through the online uh survey process

[17:52] as well. Um, but just I keep reiterating

[17:55] this to people. this is our chance to

[17:57] inform where uh and what kind and what

[18:00] shape of housing we want in our

[18:02] community. Um it's probably the the best

[18:04] chance we have to have that conversation

[18:06] in the next number of years. So we

[18:07] really do look for public input on that

[18:10] on that decision-m

[18:11] process. Um those are all the things

[18:14] directly related here. I just uh going

[18:16] to take a moment to do something I very

[18:17] very rarely do which is speaking on

[18:19] matters that are related to other levels

[18:20] of government. Um, but I just wanted to

[18:23] take a moment and just amplify uh some

[18:25] significant concerns raised by the unit

[18:27] of BC municipalities and quite a few

[18:29] others regarding the bills of 13 and 15

[18:31] that are uh sitting at the province

[18:33] right now. We're waiting approval in

[18:35] legislature. Um, and it's just really

[18:38] for awareness. The, uh, as described,

[18:39] there's a Vancouver Sun article a couple

[18:41] weeks ago, uh, which described bill 13,

[18:43] which was named the Miscellaneous

[18:44] Statutes Amendment Act, amends the

[18:46] Housing Supply Act, and the local

[18:47] government act to give the provincial

[18:49] government the power to nullify any

[18:51] municipal bylaw that conflicts with

[18:53] provincial housing mandates. So, that's

[18:55] zoning, subdivision controls, building

[18:56] permits, affordable housing provisions.

[18:58] There are all uh, they would all be

[19:00] subordinate to the provincial um, uh,

[19:04] input. And bill 15 probably has had more

[19:07] press, but it's noted same article, the

[19:09] infrastructure projects act allows the

[19:11] province to take over permitting for any

[19:13] infrastructure project deemed to be a

[19:14] provincial significance. Um, so

[19:17] obviously particularly in areas with a

[19:18] designated transit areas, it's

[19:19] essentially total provincial planning

[19:21] authority within those. So I raise it

[19:24] just um province has long had their

[19:26] right uh we delegated authority from the

[19:28] province to overrule municipalities uh

[19:30] in areas that they feel are critical. Um

[19:32] but that's been a public process and and

[19:35] clear um this essentially just enables

[19:38] the um bypass of local municipal

[19:41] knowledge and authority. Um

[19:44] theoretically under the community

[19:45] charter we uh these kind of changes are

[19:47] supposed to happen in consultation with

[19:48] municipalities but as the union of BC

[19:51] municipalities has noted um that

[19:52] consultation has not happened. Um I'm

[19:55] just raising it tonight just to raise

[19:56] awareness. I think a lot of these things

[19:58] bypass unnoticed. uh they are out of the

[20:01] realm of our authority obviously at the

[20:02] municipal level but I think uh for

[20:04] anybody interested in uh good governance

[20:07] they're probably of of probably some

[20:09] personal

[20:11] interest thank you that concludes my

[20:13] remarks I am now going to open it up for

[20:16] we have a section of the every council

[20:18] and committee of the whole meeting

[20:19] allowing for public input um this is for

[20:22] items not on the agenda this evening but

[20:24] items that might be of general interest

[20:26] to the community um so With that, I'm

[20:29] just going to invite uh we can if you're

[20:31] on the online application, you can raise

[20:33] your hand to speak to council. If you're

[20:36] uh in the room, you can just put up your

[20:37] hand and come

[20:39] forward. Please come

[20:42] forward.

[20:47] Oh, you can be our our demo here.

[20:51] There's Cochran. Uh so, yes, push the

[20:53] button in the middle to turn it on. Is

[20:55] it not turning on? We may have to turn

[20:58] turn the whole thing

[21:02] on. Oh, there we

[21:04] go. Uh, name, municipality of residence,

[21:07] and then you have up to three minutes.

[21:09] Thank you so much. My name is Heather

[21:11] Cochran. I am an Oak Bay resident, and

[21:13] I'm here to talk to you this evening

[21:14] about pedestrian safety at Windsor Park

[21:16] and in particular the need for a

[21:18] crosswalk. I have handed to the director

[21:20] of corporate services a map as a visual

[21:22] aid for my little presentation. And I've

[21:25] also handed up a petition with over 200

[21:27] signatures uh collected in just one

[21:29] week's time in favor of a crosswalk as

[21:32] well as other trafficcoming measures at

[21:34] Windsor Park. As you all know, I'm sure

[21:36] Windsor Park has a great new playground.

[21:38] It's home to expanded recreational

[21:40] facilities, licensed child care, soon to

[21:43] start up summer camps, sporting events.

[21:46] There's also a wonderful new ice cream

[21:48] shop across the street, as well as the

[21:50] Windsor Cafe. As my six-year-old child,

[21:52] sitting behind me, will attest, it is a

[21:54] child's dream come true. Except for one

[21:56] thing. There are no crosswalks anywhere

[21:58] around Windsor Park. There are not even

[22:01] curb cuts that would allow you to easily

[22:03] roll a stroller, a scooter, or a

[22:05] children's bike easily across the road.

[22:07] So instead, pedestrians need to contend

[22:10] with buses, traffic, trucks, and those

[22:14] raised curbs to access the park. I

[22:16] actually called the engineering

[22:17] department about this um last week and

[22:19] when I asked them if they considered

[22:20] putting in a crosswalk at Windsor Park,

[22:22] they told me that they didn't think

[22:23] there was any need because most people

[22:25] drive to Windsor Park and there's

[22:26] parking available on the playground side

[22:29] of the park, which is true that there's

[22:31] parking there and there's parking across

[22:32] the street, but it's this council's

[22:35] priority to encourage active

[22:37] transportation. And if you walk down to

[22:39] Windsor Park on a weekday evening or on

[22:41] a weekend, then as any parent of young

[22:43] children or other park user will attest,

[22:45] it's full of people who bike, walk,

[22:47] scooter, stroller down there, as well of

[22:49] course as dog walkers who make regular

[22:52] use of the park on foot and on paw.

[22:55] Um, so as I said, we started a petition

[22:58] to gauge whether it's just us or whether

[23:00] there's public support for this. And

[23:02] indeed, in just over one week between

[23:04] working and whatnot, we collected over

[23:06] 200 signatures while Elliot very

[23:08] obligingly played on the playground. Um,

[23:10] and I chatted with other park users. Um,

[23:13] so as you'll know, pursuant to section 4

[23:16] sub 2 subc of the streets and traffic

[23:19] bylaw, council may designate crosswalks.

[23:22] And we would like to urge council to

[23:24] designate a crosswalk for Windsor Park,

[23:26] especially sooner rather than later

[23:28] before the summer season truly kicks in

[23:30] and we have more playground users and

[23:32] ice cream shop visitors who

[23:33] unfortunately have to dodge between

[23:35] those vehicles to access that. On the

[23:38] map that I've handed up, I've

[23:39] highlighted the playground in purple in

[23:40] the bottom left. Um, do you have the

[23:42] map? We do. Okay, thank you. Um, and

[23:44] I've shown the ice cream shop and cafe

[23:46] in orange in the top right. In red, I've

[23:49] shown where there's stall parking along

[23:51] one stretch of the north side of Windsor

[23:52] Park, but there's only a sidewalk, which

[23:54] I've shown in blue on the other side.

[23:56] So, even if you do drive to Windsor

[23:58] Park, there's not going to be a sidewalk

[23:59] to assist you on that side, and you'll

[24:01] still struggle to cross the road if you

[24:02] choose to get something from the cafe.

[24:05] So, again, I would urge council to at

[24:07] least designate a crosswalk where I've

[24:08] placed a yellow X on the map. I've also

[24:11] shown in some kind of inset photos to

[24:13] the best of my technological abilities

[24:15] what the view is like looking across

[24:18] that paved pathway in front of Windsor

[24:20] Park to the property across the street.

[24:22] And we've got the owner of that property

[24:24] here who's going to speak to you as well

[24:26] um in support of this. Um and I would

[24:29] suggest as well other trafficcoming

[24:30] measures on other parts of the the

[24:32] street or the around the park. So I'm

[24:34] sure my three minutes is up. It's just 5

[24:36] seconds over now. So thank you very much

[24:38] background. Thanks so much for your

[24:39] time. Thank you. Uh and certainly invite

[24:42] the next person to come forward to

[24:43] speak. I think I saw a hand at the one

[24:45] in the front and one in the middle

[24:47] second row, third row. I uh also want to

[24:50] uh as you come forward uh just

[24:52] procedurally here, thank you for the

[24:54] request. Uh just procedurally here we

[24:56] would consider perhaps uh notices a

[24:59] motion uh at the in in under new

[25:01] business at the end of our meeting. So

[25:02] we don't at the um public input portion

[25:05] have any motions arising at this point.

[25:07] So, just make that clear there in case

[25:10] anybody's wondering what we're doing

[25:11] with these comments. I really do

[25:12] appreciate your your your comments. Uh,

[25:14] welcome. Uh, thank you. Hello. My name

[25:17] is Eric Zelka. I am an Oak Bay resident.

[25:19] Um, is that the information you need

[25:20] from me? That is it. Welcome, Mr. Zulka.

[25:23] Thank you. Uh, first of all, let me

[25:24] start my comments by saying God saved

[25:26] the king. uh so pleased to see that uh

[25:28] our sovereign is uh is uh in in the

[25:31] country and I do note that uh the

[25:35] picture of the of our head of state is

[25:36] not on the wall. I took the liberty of

[25:38] getting a copy uh of the latest official

[25:41] version that if you'll allow me to give

[25:44] to um our CEO uh for possible framing as

[25:49] as council sees fit, I would very much

[25:51] appreciate that. I certainly you could

[25:53] give a gift to the district. I will let

[25:54] you know, Mr. Zelka that we did uh put a

[25:57] request in and receive our official

[25:59] portrait and it's just in the process of

[26:00] being framed for this room. So, I'm not

[26:04] sure what we're going to where that's

[26:05] going to hang because we already have a

[26:07] version that's going to be coming in

[26:09] here. Um so, I don't want you to give

[26:11] that away if you have another good use

[26:13] for it because I'm not sure what we're I

[26:14] think I can get another one. It's all

[26:15] right. Okay. U allow me to continue. Um

[26:18] uh first of all uh to uh m uh um your

[26:21] your uh your honor uh mayor and

[26:24] counselors uh I wish to make um uh uh

[26:26] reference to uh I I don't believe I'm

[26:28] may not be allowed to to speak to one of

[26:30] the items on the agenda 11.1 um since it

[26:34] doesn't say not for public input. I'm

[26:35] hoping everyone here knows that I'm not

[26:37] in favor of bike lanes and uh and uh

[26:39] that's probably going to be going going

[26:41] to be enough for the comments for that.

[26:43] But I did want to make reference to the

[26:45] whole concept of compromise. Um I did

[26:47] note in Oak Bay news um a very

[26:49] interesting article about uh this

[26:51] particular item that's coming forward uh

[26:53] on today's agenda and um I just want uh

[26:56] I'm very much looking forward to seeing

[26:58] uh the counselors demonstrate what

[27:00] compromise looks like. I know there's

[27:02] the deadlock and I know that this is

[27:04] very contentious issue and I know

[27:06] there's people from across uh uh the

[27:08] Victoria area not Oakberry residents who

[27:11] are would love to speak and love to see

[27:12] changes here. I am an Oak Bay resident.

[27:15] I don't want to see changes here. I

[27:16] think uh the way we have it right now

[27:18] where it's a shared space for our very

[27:19] small roads, if there is any action that

[27:22] needs to be done, I would hope that you

[27:24] would just simply lower the speed limit.

[27:25] I think that might be the appropriate

[27:26] thing. In which case, the only speeding

[27:28] tickets would be from the cyclists as

[27:31] they zoom through crosswalks and those

[27:33] other things. But we'll we'll we'll see

[27:35] whether whether that happens or not. Um,

[27:37] I did also note um that the province has

[27:40] brought forward uh their comments with

[27:42] respect to uh bylaw changes. I'm so

[27:45] pleased to see you're receiving them and

[27:46] I do look forward to you enacting them

[27:48] as quickly as possible. I do note that

[27:51] some of the suggestions have been before

[27:52] council three or four times. It would be

[27:54] great to see them done so that staff can

[27:56] actually do some work without everything

[27:58] being micromanaged at the uh head table.

[28:01] So, thank you very much and I do look

[28:02] forward to seeing some common sense.

[28:05] Cheers.

[28:06] Thank you. Mr.

[28:09] Za, please come

[28:17] forward. Um, Mr. Mayor, your honor and

[28:22] council members, my name is Karen

[28:24] Wonders. I live at the corner of uh

[28:28] Windsor Road and uh transit. And so

[28:31] that's where the uh Oak Bay Half

[28:33] Marathon began and ended on Saturday. I

[28:37] think maybe a thousand people were

[28:39] there. It's very well-known corner. And

[28:42] um uh I've circulated now a letter I

[28:46] wrote uh eight years ago in 2017

[28:49] regarding uh traffic uh problems on

[28:52] Windsor Road. And I've just um written

[28:56] another letter today uh some of the same

[28:58] points. And um so I don't I don't think

[29:01] I need to address those points. Um

[29:04] Heather's done a good job on that. What

[29:06] I'd like to just uh mention is uh my uh

[29:12] experience, which is virtually every day

[29:14] I I meet my neighbor in the park. She

[29:17] has a dog and I have two dogs. Uh the

[29:20] mayor has met my dogs, I believe, almost

[29:23] adopted one. Um, and Joselyn Harris has

[29:27] lived on Windsor Road and Oliver for

[29:30] over 50 years. And she's a

[29:33] psychotherapist. Her office is here on

[29:35] Oak Bay Avenue. Um, and she she comes to

[29:39] the park with her dog and we walk

[29:41] through the park and then uh to get her

[29:45] home she takes the asphalt path that was

[29:48] put in I don't know about 10 years ago.

[29:50] Bay got a grant in order to make um some

[29:53] sort of pavement from the pavilion to

[29:55] the play park. There was no way for

[29:58] people in wheelchairs or with strollers

[30:00] to get easily to the park. So, there was

[30:02] a pathway created inside the park. So,

[30:05] we go down that pathway and then we get

[30:07] to the corner of uh transit and Windsor

[30:11] and there's no sidewalk on the south

[30:13] side of Windsor Road. It's an extra wide

[30:16] road and the intersection there is extra

[30:19] wide and so I have to go with her um

[30:23] across uh first uh transit and then

[30:27] across Windsor and it's very difficult

[30:30] because she's a mobility challenge.

[30:33] She's 87 years old uh moves with great

[30:37] um difficulty and is in pain and is very

[30:41] slow. So we we go together and with all

[30:44] the dogs and just pray that whoever is

[30:47] coming down uh Windsor Road toward the

[30:50] park is if uh they see us that they will

[30:54] slow down because we can't get across

[30:56] that road fast enough and and this is my

[30:59] daily experience and it's really

[31:01] nerve-wracking and I think it needs to

[31:04] be addressed. Um I I mention in my

[31:06] letter I've seen two dogs hit by

[31:09] speeding uh cars and I myself was hit on

[31:13] Windsor Road two weeks ago. Windsor Road

[31:15] is not a small road. It's a it's a wide

[31:17] road and I was uh cycling and and over

[31:21] to the side and it certainly uh was just

[31:26] um totally frightening to be uh accosted

[31:30] from behind a driver, an aggressive

[31:32] driver. And uh I I'm very concerned that

[31:37] uh the traffic issues be addressed

[31:40] especially at the park where there are

[31:42] so many people that that is our three

[31:44] minutes. So thank you very much. No,

[31:46] thank you very much. I'll just try and

[31:47] keep people on time so that we have make

[31:49] sure everybody has a chance to speak.

[31:50] Yes, please come forward.

[31:59] Honorable mayor and council, it's

[32:00] Kathleen Matthews. I also live at

[32:02] Windsor Park and I'm absolutely

[32:03] delighted to have learned that there is

[32:06] a survey that has gone on with now 200

[32:10] signatures I know and my name is on that

[32:12] I have sat here a couple of times and

[32:14] mentioned the need for crosswalks into

[32:16] Windsor Park and I have sent many

[32:18] emails. I've never had any response and

[32:21] nothing's ever happened. I'll speak to

[32:23] the Curry side of the street. I too have

[32:25] a dog and I have grandchildren that come

[32:26] to

[32:27] visit in the morning with the dogs. It's

[32:31] not the dog drivers much. It's the

[32:33] people coming into Oak Bay to do

[32:36] gardening repairs, you know, very

[32:38] they're coming in in their in their big

[32:40] pickup trucks. They come around the

[32:41] corner at transit and they, you know,

[32:44] Curry is a really straight flat road and

[32:47] they just roar down there. They don't

[32:49] see the stop signs. They don't see the

[32:51] warnings. They don't see anything. And

[32:52] there is, of course, Monterey School at

[32:54] the end of that. There's a lot of people

[32:56] going back and forth on that sidewalk. I

[32:58] think I would like to be clear. I think

[33:00] you need I was going to say three

[33:02] sidewalks, but having listened to the

[33:04] ice cream shop one, you need four

[33:06] sidewalks. You need two coming in where

[33:08] the pavement is to Windsor Park, you

[33:11] need one where the rugby shack is, and

[33:14] you need another one, I guess, from the

[33:15] ice cream shop. People are just

[33:17] wandering all over the place. And when

[33:19] my grandkids come, they just I can't

[33:21] say, you know, go to the crosswalk and

[33:23] make sure you're careful. They just run

[33:25] all over the place. So I think I really

[33:27] support the need and I have for many

[33:29] years. So I'm just so grateful for you

[33:31] folks for having come up with a a survey

[33:34] and so thank you very much. I just want

[33:36] to let you know it is so essential

[33:38] especially when the number of cars but

[33:41] also it's the workers they they just

[33:43] roar down there and then young people

[33:45] too down and then these bicycles that

[33:47] roar down there as well. Okay. Thank you

[33:49] Miss Matthews.

[33:52] Anybody else wish to speak to council on

[33:54] matters? Yeah, please come

[33:57] forward. You learn the process now. Just

[33:59] name and municipality and you're welcome

[34:01] to speak. Do I need to press Oh, you

[34:03] don't. Perfect. All right. Uh my name is

[34:05] Sonia Sun. I live here in uh Oak Bay and

[34:09] I am just speaking on behalf of

[34:11] supporting the crosswalk at Windsor

[34:14] Park. I too have a young child. Um she

[34:17] is 5 years old and we go to Windsor

[34:19] Park. Uh we're walking distance to the

[34:21] park and we go there on a very regular

[34:24] basis, especially since the ice cream

[34:25] shop has opened. And I have to say that

[34:29] um um I am always nervous when we

[34:32] approach the park from both sides, both

[34:34] coming from the curry side of the street

[34:36] as well as when we go to the ice cream

[34:38] shop and come back. um many times um

[34:43] when we're about to cross um because

[34:45] there are cars parked on both sides of

[34:47] the street as well right up to where the

[34:50] uh air the the marked part of it it is

[34:53] um the cars will come and it is very

[34:56] difficult for us to see the cars and the

[34:57] bikes and so in terms I'll keep it short

[35:00] because I believe that my neighbors have

[35:02] done a good job explaining but I wanted

[35:04] to just add my voice to uh to u the

[35:08] thank you thank you

[35:12] Uh, anybody else in the room or

[35:17] online last chance to come talk to us

[35:19] about anything of interest in Oak

[35:22] Bay? Okay, I will uh conclude this

[35:24] portion of the meeting. Thank you very

[35:26] much to all those who spoke. Um, we

[35:29] don't hold it against you. If you've

[35:30] come here to speak but want to leave,

[35:32] you're more than welcome to do so.

[35:34] Appreciate, especially with families,

[35:35] it's sometimes nice to head out again.

[35:38] Um um moving on to section to number

[35:42] 8.1, we have a streets and traffic bylaw

[35:44] amendment, elephant's feet, quote

[35:46] unquote. Uh we have Mr. Renick, our

[35:48] director of engineering and public works

[35:50] here to do a brief introduction.

[35:53] Uh thank you very much uh Mr. Mayor,

[35:56] members of council. Uh as the mayor

[35:58] said, I'll be very brief. Elephant's

[36:00] feet crossing are a type of marking that

[36:02] is being used in a lot of jurisdictions

[36:05] around British Columbia, particularly in

[36:07] the capital region. An elephant's feet

[36:09] crossing indicates an area where a

[36:11] cyclist is allowed to cross a road

[36:13] without dismounting. Some people refer

[36:15] to them as cross rides because they

[36:18] operate in the same manner as a

[36:19] crosswalk where a pedestrian has the

[36:21] right of way. Cross bikes or elephants

[36:25] feet markings themselves do not alone

[36:28] indicate right ofway, but they are often

[36:29] used in conjunction with another form of

[36:32] traffic control such as a flashing

[36:35] beacon. Uh the amendments before you

[36:37] tonight are simply to allow Oak Bay to

[36:40] have the ability to create these. We are

[36:42] not currently seeking to add any.

[36:45] However, there are a few elephants feet

[36:47] marking in the Henderson and Hala

[36:50] design. Uh so as was referenced when the

[36:53] Henderson Hala design was first brought

[36:55] to council, there would need to be a

[36:57] bylaw amendment in order to uh authorize

[37:00] the creation of elephants feet marking

[37:01] and so that bylaw amendment is before

[37:03] you tonight. I am happy to take any

[37:05] questions. Uh thank you Mr. Renick. I

[37:08] think this is fairly straightforward but

[37:09] I'll turn to council and see if there's

[37:10] any questions. Oh councelor Green and

[37:13] then Patterson.

[37:16] [Music]

[37:18] Thank you. Thank you very much and

[37:19] through you to Mr. Renick. Thank you for

[37:22] the report and the bylaw draft. Um just

[37:26] one question and that is what is the

[37:28] experience from other communities? I'm

[37:30] thinking of Sanin Victoria in the use of

[37:32] elephants feet. Um I'm I'm just

[37:36] wondering what their what their

[37:37] experiences have been like in terms of

[37:39] traffic patterns and movement and so on.

[37:42] Thank you, Mr. Renick. uh through the

[37:45] mayor. Elephant's feet have generally

[37:47] been wellreceived. Um they're generally

[37:49] advocated for by uh through the

[37:52] provincial design guidance. Um I think

[37:55] that they're used in a lot of places.

[37:57] City of Victoria has used them on the

[37:59] crossings on Bay Street. Districts of

[38:01] Sanage uses them a great deal and uh

[38:05] they generally seem to be wellreceived

[38:06] and I have not heard a lot of uh

[38:08] negative feedback on them. Thank you,

[38:11] Councelor Patterson.

[38:14] Yeah. Yes. Thank you, Mayor, and through

[38:16] you to um Director Renick, if I could um

[38:20] just just for clarification. Thank you

[38:22] for the report. Um where the elephant

[38:26] feet crosswalks would be used. If they

[38:28] are used in conjunction with pedestrians

[38:30] and you have two-way pedestrian paths

[38:32] and two-way um cycling

[38:37] paths, does that not expand the amount

[38:40] of um width of the uh the corridor? And

[38:44] if so, um how how did how is it

[38:47] accommodated?

[38:49] Mr. Renick, through the mayor, there's

[38:52] two types of applications that are used.

[38:54] There's ones that are combination of

[38:56] bike and crosswalks and there are also

[38:58] areas where there are separate bike

[39:00] crossings from separate crosswalks.

[39:02] Really depends on how much room you have

[39:04] available. We tried to keep the bylaw

[39:06] language flexible. But I would note that

[39:08] in the proposed bylaw, it states that a

[39:11] person riding a bicycle in a crosswalk

[39:14] must yield the right of way to

[39:15] pedestrians who are using that same

[39:17] crosswalk. just to address that

[39:20] hierarchy of movement that pedestrians

[39:22] always have the right of way over

[39:24] cyclists who are using shared

[39:26] facilities.

[39:30] Any? Yes, thank you. And and just

[39:32] another um clarification if I might uh

[39:35] mayor through you to Mr. Renick. um just

[39:38] to perhaps share with us where how the

[39:42] decisions are made where um

[39:44] circumstances are crosswalks limited to

[39:47] pedestrians only and where where you do

[39:49] the elephant feet crossings

[39:54] through the mayor. The elephant's feet

[39:55] crossings would typically be restricted

[39:57] to areas that are on a designated

[39:59] bikeway. Um we are not looking to

[40:02] wholesale replace pedestrian crosswalks

[40:04] with cross rides at this time.

[40:08] Thank you. I didn't see any other hands.

[40:09] So, um this is good practice for the

[40:12] audience if uh this is our standard

[40:14] process. Uh we have matters that come

[40:16] before council. Staff will do a brief

[40:17] introduction. Uh members of council have

[40:19] the opportunity to ask questions and

[40:21] then I turn to the a where there's

[40:22] public input uh allowed under a

[40:24] procedure bylaw. I will turn to members

[40:26] of the public if they wish to if they

[40:28] have questions or have any comments on

[40:29] an item. Mr. Zulka will come and

[40:31] demonstrate uh the uh uh we'll just

[40:36] invite people up but the conclusion of

[40:37] public input. We will close the public

[40:39] input portion and come back here and

[40:41] seek a motion from council to advance or

[40:43] direct next steps for the matter at

[40:45] hand. Um we have a number of items on

[40:47] the agenda tonight that are for public

[40:49] input. So uh this will be the standard

[40:51] process. Staff introduction, council

[40:54] questions, public input and then back to

[40:56] this table for direction. Mr. Zelka,

[40:58] welcome. Uh, your honor, mayor,

[41:00] councelors, thank you for this

[41:01] opportunity to speak to this item. Uh,

[41:03] my name is Eric Zaka. I live in Oak Bay.

[41:05] In fact, I live in the northern part of

[41:06] Oak Bay. I'm very pleased to see that

[41:08] Oak Bay has been piloting Elephant's

[41:10] Feet in the uh um University of Victoria

[41:13] area. uh uh the corner of Midgard and um

[41:16] and Gordon Head if anyone is familiar

[41:18] with that that that uh that uh corner.

[41:21] Uh I go by there every almost every day

[41:24] taking my child up to uh Mount Doug High

[41:26] School and I get to see uh the effects

[41:29] of um these elephant feeds in Oak Bay.

[41:32] Um uh first of all, they're in Oak Bay

[41:35] and I see they're just being made legal

[41:37] possibly today. Very strange to see

[41:40] something already in use. But on the

[41:41] other hand, maybe there was a a

[41:43] temporary by I wasn't familiar with but

[41:45] uh I didn't wasn't aware of. Um my

[41:48] experience as a as a uh first of all as

[41:50] a as a um vehicle um um uh driver is

[41:54] that uh this elephant feet uh has makes

[41:58] the crosswalks much less safe. Um what I

[42:02] found um at the time usually is at the

[42:04] beginning of school or at the end of

[42:06] school when there's lots of children

[42:07] around. Um, of course you you I'm I'm

[42:10] busy as a driver trying to be very very

[42:12] careful already. It's it's a reduced

[42:13] speed limit and and at that particular

[42:15] intersection it it's even got a got a

[42:17] raised crosswalk. So uh you have to slow

[42:20] down no matter what. But even with all

[42:21] of those um shall we say traffic calming

[42:25] mechanisms. What um absolutely surprised

[42:28] me was the number of bicyclists who

[42:30] would fly through the intersection. They

[42:32] would come down Midgard. I I I I there's

[42:34] nobody in the intersection. And I think

[42:36] I've got got a way through. And I if

[42:38] they didn't hit me, I would have hit

[42:39] them. Unbelievable how fast they would

[42:41] go through. Not bothering to stop, not

[42:44] bothering to press the button, not

[42:45] bothering to flash the lights, but

[42:48] basically taking the right of way. Now,

[42:51] this is what concerns me about some of

[42:52] the comments that I heard from your from

[42:53] your um from your staff that that that

[42:56] there's no as of right uh right of way

[42:58] with the elephant feet. But

[43:00] unfortunately with some of the signs

[43:01] that we've been putting up for our our

[43:03] for our um bicyclists with with words

[43:06] such as take the lane, we are teaching

[43:09] our cyclists to be very not just

[43:11] assertive but frankly aggressive and

[43:13] they think they have the right of way.

[43:15] What I would like to see as an amendment

[43:17] to this, and I would suggest you take

[43:19] option three on this and ask staff to

[43:20] come back with amendment, is to please

[43:22] put a stop sign on both sides of a

[43:25] crosswalk with elephant feet because at

[43:28] on the Oak Bay side of this particular

[43:31] intersection at Midgard, there is no

[43:33] stop sign essentially. And and now

[43:35] there's a there's a lovely little uh um

[43:37] opportunity there for a cyclist to

[43:38] possibly stop, press the button, and

[43:41] then proceed and cycle across.

[43:43] Unfortunately, there's no stop sign

[43:45] there. They don't have to do that. In

[43:46] fact, most cyclists weren't doing this.

[43:49] So, please put a stop sign in to let the

[43:52] cyclist know they have to stop to make

[43:55] sure the way is clear and that they do

[43:56] not have the right of way unless there

[43:59] is an obvious sign up in there. And in

[44:01] this case, there isn't. The second place

[44:02] I noticed where where um elephant feets

[44:05] are in use is at the southern end of uh

[44:07] Oak Bay, excuse me, of UC campus. uh uh

[44:10] at at at the at the bike lane that goes

[44:12] across the the circle into the campus.

[44:15] Um the signs there are all over the

[44:16] place. I'll admit it it I'm sure the

[44:19] whoever designed that did was trying to

[44:20] do a good job. Uh again, there's no stop

[44:23] signs on either side giving the um uh no

[44:26] indication that the bicyclist cyclists

[44:28] need to stop for the pedestrians and no

[44:30] indication that they need to stop for

[44:31] for for cars who may not see them.

[44:34] Please, dear God, we want this to be

[44:36] safe. We want this to be traffic

[44:38] calming. I do hear calls for uh for um

[44:42] crosswalks to be put in all around

[44:44] because there's a belief that it's

[44:46] traffic calming. Unfortunately, those of

[44:48] us who pay attention to mathematics and

[44:49] statistics know the most unsafe place in

[44:52] the entire road is a controlled

[44:54] intersection for a pedestrian. That's

[44:57] where all the accidents are because

[44:58] pedestrians think they're safe with

[45:01] those magic lines. Unfortunately,

[45:04] they're not. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

[45:07] Zulka.

[45:10] Anyone else wish to address council on

[45:11] this item? Please come forward.

[45:21] Welcome.

[45:22] Oh, we need to push the button to turn

[45:24] on. I think I think it's on. It's not.

[45:26] You just need to push. There we go. It's

[45:29] on. There you go. My name is Judith

[45:31] Slimman. I live in Oak Bay. I wasn't

[45:33] intending to talk tonight, but the these

[45:35] elephants feet uh have brought up a

[45:38] question for me um through the mayor. Am

[45:41] I to understand that the elephant's feet

[45:44] at a

[45:46] crosswalk means that a person on a

[45:50] bike can ride their bike across a

[45:54] crosswalk? Is is that what elf's feet

[45:57] are intended to do? No. Uh um I was

[46:00] going to answer your question, but I

[46:01] think I'll hand this over to Mr. Renick

[46:02] just maybe just take a moment. Uh I

[46:04] appreciate it's not common terminology.

[46:07] So why don't we explain and perhaps Mr.

[46:08] Renick you could also just talk to I

[46:10] know in the current designs where we've

[46:12] contemplated them as been stop signs but

[46:14] uh perhaps just talk a little bit about

[46:15] best practices for design.

[46:18] Uh thank you very much Mr. Mayor. There

[46:21] are a number of different bre best

[46:23] practice treatments and it would depend

[46:25] on the type of road that's being

[46:27] crossed. Sometimes they are paired with

[46:29] stop signs. Sometimes they're paired

[46:30] with a traffic light. Uh in response to

[46:33] the direct question from the resident,

[46:35] yes, a crosswalk with an elephant's feet

[46:37] does indicate that a cyclist may use it

[46:39] without dismounting their bicycle. Thank

[46:42] you. So that but but it's not just a

[46:46] bikeway. It's also a pedestrian

[46:48] crosswalk. Is that accurate? So it's

[46:50] combining both a pedestrian c crosswalk

[46:53] and a bike.

[46:54] So there's they're they're called

[46:57] they're as he's mentioned they're

[46:58] sometimes called a a rideway. So they're

[47:00] just an indicating like a crosswalk that

[47:02] it's a place that bicycles may be

[47:03] crossing. So um I'm sure there's

[47:06] anything else you wish to add to that

[47:07] Mr. Renick.

[47:09] Um just as I I'm sorry through the

[47:11] mayor. Um, as I stated earlier in the

[47:14] proposed bylaw language for council in

[47:16] situations where a cyclist and a

[47:18] pedestrian may be using one of these at

[47:20] the same time, the proposed bylaw

[47:22] language is that the cyclist must give

[47:24] way to any pedestrian using the

[47:26] crossing. Thank you. The comment I have

[47:29] to make about that, which is an ongoing

[47:31] concern that I have on our roads in Oak

[47:33] Bay, is that in reality that does not

[47:37] happen. In reality, what happens is that

[47:40] pedestrians give way to bikes because

[47:43] they're afraid if they don't, they're

[47:45] going to get hit. That is just the

[47:47] reality of those two different ways of

[47:51] getting around when when they're in the

[47:53] same space, pedestrians

[47:55] yield. So, I'm not sure that it's an

[47:58] effective thing. Thank you. Thank you

[48:00] for your

[48:01] comments. Uh, anyone else wish to

[48:04] address council on this item?

[48:08] Don't see any other hands either online

[48:09] or here. So I'm going to bring back to

[48:12] this

[48:13] table. Uh probably any any other

[48:16] questions we'll take first and if not

[48:17] I'll go to motions. Last seen questions.

[48:19] Go ahead. Councelor Appleton. I thought

[48:21] you were move receipt of the staff

[48:23] report. Moved and seconded. Thank you.

[48:26] Any discussion for receipt usually? All

[48:28] those in

[48:29] favor? Opposed? Not opposed.

[48:32] Uh your worship I would move that

[48:34] streets and traffic bylaw number 4100

[48:36] 2000 amendment bylaw number

[48:38] 4908205 be read a first and second time

[48:41] and seconded. Thank you. Um this is our

[48:44] chance to debate and discuss any

[48:46] discussion.

[48:48] Yeah. Go ahead. Councelor Smart is a

[48:49] second and then councelor Green.

[48:52] Oh thank you. I I just want to um

[48:54] address and I really appreciate um

[48:56] members of um the public coming up and

[48:58] and sharing their concerns today that

[49:00] what we have in front of us right now is

[49:01] a a bylaw allowing us to use this new

[49:03] tool and I as we go forward and use this

[49:06] tool in new situations. We um will very

[49:09] much have your thoughts. Um thank you

[49:11] very much

[49:13] Green. Thank you. I I would really

[49:16] appreciate some use user data on on on

[49:19] these um on these mitigations, elephant

[49:22] feet. I'm not saying that they're not

[49:23] popular or that they don't work, but I

[49:25] am mindful of the comments from from

[49:27] pedestrians and I myself have have

[49:30] experienced that as well in a crosswalk.

[49:33] Um, so it would be I would really

[49:36] appreciate more information um and some

[49:39] traffic uh some traffic data from other

[49:42] communities, specific data to the use of

[49:45] this tool. I'm not against using the

[49:46] tool, but I think I need more

[49:48] information. Thank you.

[49:50] Thank you, Councelor Appleton.

[49:53] Thank you, worship. So, in in favor made

[49:56] the motion. Uh the the thing with

[49:58] elephants feet, you know, being on the

[50:00] on the on on the road network and and

[50:02] cycling pretty regularly is is that

[50:04] they're in the greater Victoria area,

[50:07] they're more or less cosmopolitan now.

[50:08] They've become sort of the standard

[50:10] indication that a bicycle may cross at

[50:12] that point. And so I I take the view

[50:15] that actually because we haven't been

[50:17] able to employ that really uh distinct

[50:20] visual cue for all types of road users

[50:23] in Oak Bay because we haven't been able

[50:24] to because there's been no bylaw that

[50:26] allows it. Uh we actually stand kind of

[50:28] apart from the rest of municipalities.

[50:30] The these were uncommon maybe 10 years

[50:33] ago but are now pretty much

[50:35] cosmopolitan. All types of road

[50:36] crossings all through the CRD. Um, so I

[50:40] think staying consistent with standard

[50:43] practice across the region actually

[50:44] makes things more predictable for all

[50:45] road users.

[50:47] Thank you, Maria. Thank

[50:50] you. See any other discussion? Uh, I'm

[50:54] just going to speak in support of the uh

[50:55] of the amendments to the bylaw. I think

[50:57] it's another tool that we can use in our

[50:59] design pieces. Uh, I take the point that

[51:01] it's true that most accidents do happen

[51:03] in crossings. Even marked crossings are

[51:05] are a key problem. Um I do think there

[51:08] is going to be pros and cons to this

[51:10] that we'll have to look at. But I think

[51:11] there is one of the positive approaches

[51:13] and this is touched on by councelor

[51:14] Appleton. Um just having this this the

[51:17] pieces on the road. Uh these can exist

[51:19] where there's not a crosswalk. Uh and

[51:20] they can indicate um crossing so that uh

[51:23] cars and other bicycles can be aware

[51:25] that there may be cyclists crossing at

[51:26] that point which hopefully will erase

[51:28] some of that awareness. So I think it's

[51:30] useful to have these tools in our

[51:31] toolkit and uh supportive of that uh

[51:34] just having that tool in our tool

[51:35] toolbox. Go ahead, councelor Patterson.

[51:38] Yes, thank you, Mayor. And I do

[51:40] appreciate people coming forward um from

[51:42] the gallery to speak about this because

[51:44] yes, crosswalks can be um quite

[51:47] intimidating places for um for

[51:49] pedestrians and um and uh unfortunately

[51:54] it doesn't really matter what you're

[51:56] driving. Aggressive drivers are

[51:58] aggressive drivers and and um cautious

[52:02] drivers are cautious drivers. I what the

[52:04] what I I will support this though

[52:06] because the bylaw enables it doesn't

[52:08] mandate us to do it. It enables us to do

[52:11] it and um monitor whatever changes are

[52:15] made. And so uh by just allowing us to

[52:19] enable it, it allows us to in fact um to

[52:23] utilize these and to monitor how they

[52:26] are used and whether more modifications

[52:29] are necessary. Thank you. Oh, councelor

[52:32] Reed for a second time. Very quickly, I

[52:34] I will support the motion, but I want to

[52:36] say that I would like us to practice

[52:38] real v

[52:40] vigilance on this particular bylaw and

[52:42] that in fact that we do monitor it and

[52:45] and make sure that people are safe

[52:47] because the mix is challenging

[52:49] especially with ebikes. Thanks. House

[52:52] agreeing. Seeing no other hands, I'm

[52:54] going to call the question. This is for

[52:55] first and second reading. All those in

[52:57] favor? Any opposed? None oppose. Can I

[53:00] have a mover third reading?

[53:03] Your worship, I would move the streets

[53:04] and traffic by line number 4100 2000

[53:06] amendment bylaw number 4908 2025 be read

[53:09] a third time. Is there a seconder? Thank

[53:12] you. Uh all those in favor. Any opposed?

[53:14] None opposed. That'll come back for

[53:16] consideration of adoption at the next

[53:17] council meeting. Uh we move to item

[53:20] number

[53:21] 8.2. I'm not surprised that there isn't

[53:23] a didn't think anybody was here just to

[53:25] see that one item. So we'll continue on

[53:27] to other items on the agenda. uh

[53:29] development variance permit DVP

[53:31] 000175 at 181383 St. David Street. We

[53:35] have Mr. Green, our deputy director of

[53:37] community building and planning uh to

[53:39] introduce the item. Welcome.

[53:41] Uh good evening worship members of

[53:43] council. Uh the district has received a

[53:46] development variance permit application

[53:48] for the property located at 1383 St

[53:50] David Street. The requested variance is

[53:52] to reduce the setback for the sighting

[53:54] of a new heat pump from 1.5 m to 1.5 to

[53:58] 1.0 meters from the property line, a

[54:01] variance of.5 m. The new heat pump

[54:04] replaces an existing heat pump that was

[54:06] subject to a bylaw compliance file

[54:07] following complaint that the district

[54:09] receive. Staff are recommending that the

[54:11] requested various be supported and

[54:13] development variance permit DVP 00175

[54:16] for 1383 St David Davis Street be

[54:18] approved. Two pieces of correspondence

[54:20] have been received following the

[54:21] district giving notice of the

[54:22] application and which is attached to

[54:24] council's agenda. The applicant is also

[54:26] here to answer any questions that

[54:28] council may have on the application and

[54:30] likewise I'm also yeah concludes my

[54:33] presentation and happy to answer any

[54:34] questions that council may have on the

[54:35] application.

[54:38] Thank you very much Mr. Green. We have

[54:39] the report in front of us. Uh are there

[54:42] questions from members of council either

[54:44] to the applicant or to staff? Please go

[54:47] ahead. Councelor Smart.

[54:49] Uh, thank you. Um, through Merit to

[54:51] staff, I I just wondered if it could be

[54:53] clarified a little bit further. Um, in

[54:55] the report, it mentions um anticipating

[54:57] causing the least disturbance to

[54:59] neighboring properties. I was having um

[55:02] difficulty in looking at the drawings

[55:04] and reading the report and understanding

[55:06] how placing the heat pump in the front

[55:09] yard, which seems to be more than 25 ft

[55:12] away from a sidewalk, could actually be

[55:15] more disturbing than placing a heat

[55:17] pump, just feet away from a neighboring

[55:20] house. Um but maybe I'm missing

[55:22] something. So, I just wondered if staff

[55:23] could clarify how uh the front location

[55:27] would be more disruptive. Thank you.

[55:31] Mr.

[55:32] Green for your worship. I think the

[55:34] applicants are proposing or suggesting

[55:36] that it would be more visually intrusive

[55:38] if that heat pump was located on the on

[55:40] the on the on the in the front yard or

[55:42] on the on the front of the property, I

[55:44] should add. It would have been in the

[55:45] front yard. It would be on the front of

[55:46] the house. And so I think they think

[55:48] from a visual perspective that they

[55:50] think it would be better to be screened

[55:51] in the side of the house rather than the

[55:53] front. and uh the need for further

[55:55] screening to uh to u which is now

[55:57] required in in the

[55:59] bylaw. Now I believe that if the the

[56:01] applicant may wish to add something to

[56:02] that effect if they are here I believe

[56:05] they were invited to the meeting. Seeing

[56:09] them yes good afternoon Mr. Mayor and

[56:11] council. Thank you. Um yes to answer

[56:14] that question um I believe the the the

[56:16] essential essentially the um the

[56:19] variance is requesting for 0.5 meters.

[56:22] um should we essentially looked at two

[56:24] locations with one which is the current

[56:25] location where we require the variance

[56:26] of 0.5 meters um and in that location

[56:29] and the current location um which is

[56:31] again only one meter from the property

[56:33] line there is a 6ft cedar fence that

[56:35] runs along the entire property line so

[56:37] the heat pump in its current location

[56:39] and where we're requesting a variance to

[56:42] retain it we're replacing it of course

[56:43] with a new high efficiency quiet model

[56:45] um would be essentially equally or even

[56:48] more quiet for the immediate neighbors

[56:50] at 1387 given that um six foot cedar

[56:53] fence which does not exist at the front

[56:54] of the house. So the alternative

[56:56] location at the front of the house would

[56:57] not only be visible from the street, it

[56:59] would also not have that that cedar

[57:01] fence between the property line which we

[57:02] believe would would essentially mean

[57:04] that extra 0.5 meters would would not

[57:07] reduce the sound any further. Hopefully

[57:08] that answers your question. Yes. Thank

[57:10] you. Mr. Borland, can I just ask you to

[57:11] just state your name and municipality of

[57:13] residents just for the record? Sure.

[57:15] Mark Borland, Oak Bay, 138 David Street.

[57:18] Thank you very much. Um, smart. Anything

[57:20] else? No other questions? Any other

[57:23] questions for members of council for the

[57:25] applicant or

[57:27] staff? Okay. Uh, at that point then

[57:29] we're going to go to members of the

[57:30] public. We have received some

[57:32] correspondence on this uh expressing uh

[57:36] their opinions on the application. Um,

[57:38] happy to uh take anybody who wishes to

[57:41] speak to us in person as

[57:44] well. and we can take if this if

[57:46] anybody's online and wishes to speak,

[57:48] you can raise your hand within the Zoom

[57:49] app by using the react tab. If you're

[57:52] listening and calling into the 1855

[57:54] number, you would hit star 9. It's star

[57:56] 9, not pound 9, star9 to uh uh raise

[57:59] your hand. I see one hand raised online,

[58:01] but we have a somebody in the audience.

[58:03] Uh please state your name. Municipality

[58:04] residents and welcome. Thank you, Mr.

[58:06] Mayor. John Armitage. I'm a resident of

[58:08] Oak Bay. I I came here not intending to

[58:12] speak to this issue but um

[58:15] professionally as an architect I've had

[58:18] fair bit of experience with heat pumps

[58:20] of various size up to multi-ton units

[58:25] one of which uh was required to be shut

[58:27] down on a project

[58:29] because it was placed on a roof with uh

[58:33] an upstand wall of about a story or so

[58:35] behind it and that projected the sound

[58:39] out uh a very large

[58:42] distance such that

[58:44] neighbors at the other end of a sports

[58:46] field and across the road were disturbed

[58:49] by it because these things come on at

[58:50] 2:00 a.m. and so forth and it's so um

[58:55] that's my professional experience and my

[58:57] professional experience dealing with

[58:58] acoustic engineers is that um a

[59:02] hedge is acoustically

[59:05] transparent. A cedar fence is

[59:07] acoustically

[59:09] transparent. Um, any kind of house

[59:11] structure is a

[59:13] reflector. So, it doesn't matter whether

[59:16] it's half a meter variance

[59:19] or some other number. Um, it will still

[59:23] project whatever sound, which may be

[59:26] minimal when the unit is new, it will

[59:28] project that onto the neighboring

[59:29] property. If it's at the front of the

[59:31] house, you can screen it visually by

[59:33] other means. Um, and it will project

[59:36] that sound over a greater distance where

[59:38] there's more environmental friction in

[59:41] the way of uh other vegetation and and

[59:44] obstacles that break up the uh the

[59:47] impact of of sound. So that's the extent

[59:49] of my comments. Thank you. Thank you

[59:52] very much.

[59:55] We have a hand up online. Uh uh Johan

[59:58] Boseman, if you could just again state

[1:00:00] your name, municipality of residents,

[1:00:02] and uh you're welcome to address

[1:00:03] council. Yeah. Um good evening, mayor

[1:00:06] and council. I'm Yan Bosman, 1387 St.

[1:00:09] David Street, and I'm speaking to oppose

[1:00:11] this development uh development variance

[1:00:13] permit. Um this variant seeks to

[1:00:16] legitimize a heat pump that's placed

[1:00:18] just 1 meter from my property line and

[1:00:20] directly opposite our bedroom windows.

[1:00:23] Uh there are three critical reasons to

[1:00:25] uh deny this application. Um first of

[1:00:28] all, there's no real hardship here.

[1:00:30] There's only convenience. Uh the

[1:00:32] applicants own a large 10,000t property

[1:00:35] that offers them many compliant

[1:00:37] locations, including the entire south

[1:00:39] side of the property where there are no

[1:00:41] direct neighbors and a right-of-way

[1:00:43] laneway and also front and uh rear yard

[1:00:47] locations that would be much further

[1:00:48] away from the property line.

[1:00:51] We are the uh only property directly

[1:00:53] affected by this noise pollution and

[1:00:55] literally any other location on their

[1:00:57] property would have less or zero noise

[1:00:59] impact to us as their neighbors and also

[1:01:02] not require a variance. Uh the reason

[1:01:05] that there's existing duct work is not a

[1:01:06] hardship, it's a convenience. Uh the

[1:01:09] reason to avoid the south side of the

[1:01:10] property is simply because that's where

[1:01:12] all the applicants bedroom windows are

[1:01:14] located. They're not facing hardship.

[1:01:16] They're just seeking convenience at our

[1:01:18] expense.

[1:01:20] The second reason, uh, there's

[1:01:21] documented noise nuisance and health

[1:01:23] impact. Uh, this isn't theoretical. We

[1:01:26] filed many repeat noise complaints,

[1:01:28] sound level recordings, even a log book

[1:01:30] documenting all the noise pollution. And

[1:01:33] for nearly 2 years, we've endured uh,

[1:01:35] sleepless nights due to continuous

[1:01:37] mechanical noise and compressor cycling,

[1:01:40] uh, forced closure of our bedroom

[1:01:41] windows at night with no ventilation or

[1:01:43] fresh air, and real health impacts from

[1:01:46] chronic sleep disruption. Uh, the heat

[1:01:49] pump's location directly opposite our

[1:01:50] bedroom window makes a normal quality of

[1:01:52] sleep almost impossible, especially

[1:01:55] during the colder months when the heat

[1:01:56] pump is always cycling on or off and

[1:01:58] almost constantly

[1:02:00] running. Uh, in third, uh, they're

[1:02:03] acting in in bad faith. Um they've

[1:02:05] violated the bylaws multiple times and

[1:02:08] after operating the heat pump illegally,

[1:02:10] receiving many repeat noise complaints

[1:02:12] without taking action and finally

[1:02:14] disabling the equipment as instructed by

[1:02:16] the district. Uh they've now installed a

[1:02:19] new heat new heat pump in the exact uh

[1:02:21] same illegal location just last week uh

[1:02:25] without approval on this variance

[1:02:26] application pending before you. During

[1:02:29] that installation, the HVAC company

[1:02:31] cycled on the new heat pump several

[1:02:33] times to verify proper installation and

[1:02:35] the noise level at the property line

[1:02:37] averaged 58 dB while in operation uh

[1:02:40] which does not meet the allowable noise

[1:02:42] level set by OP bylaw especially the

[1:02:44] maximum 45 dB at night. So this proves

[1:02:48] that the proposed sighting cannot meet

[1:02:50] the maximum allowable noise level. In

[1:02:53] summary, there's no hardship. Uh there

[1:02:55] are many alternate sighting options

[1:02:56] available. Uh this is directly affecting

[1:02:59] our enjoyment of our property, our

[1:03:00] sleep, and our health. Uh there's a

[1:03:02] lengthy documented bylaw file with noise

[1:03:04] pollution complaints. Uh the noise

[1:03:06] limits can simply not be met in this

[1:03:08] location, and the applicants have acted

[1:03:10] in bad faith by installing a new heat

[1:03:12] pump without variance

[1:03:14] approval. So there are viable

[1:03:16] alternatives. Uh they've simply chosen

[1:03:18] not to use them because it's more

[1:03:20] convenient and less expensive to violate

[1:03:22] the bylaw. So, I ask that you deny this

[1:03:24] various application, that you uphold

[1:03:27] OPE's new zoning setbacks for heat

[1:03:28] pumps, and that you require immediate

[1:03:30] compliance with the existing bylaw.

[1:03:32] Thank you. Thank you for your comments,

[1:03:35] Mr. Boseman. Uh, we can't address the

[1:03:38] compliance issues at this table, but I

[1:03:39] appreciate they're related to the to the

[1:03:41] variance concerns.

[1:03:44] Um, anybody else wish to speak? Please

[1:03:46] come forward.

[1:03:57] I'm Terry Batrit and I'm in Oak Bay and

[1:04:00] I was the original installer of the heat

[1:04:03] pump in 1383 St. David Street. I wrote a

[1:04:07] letter to council. I'm just going to

[1:04:08] read it again so that we do have your

[1:04:10] letter on here so you don't need to read

[1:04:12] it aloud. So then I will um maybe

[1:04:15] correct some of the misinformation in

[1:04:17] the letter uh that you received from the

[1:04:21] neighbor opposing this. By the way,

[1:04:25] um we did not illegally install the heat

[1:04:28] pump. There were no bylaws when it was

[1:04:31] installed. Um the new unit, the the the

[1:04:36] current owners installed the new unit to

[1:04:39] be in compliance.

[1:04:41] We installed the new we installed the

[1:04:43] heat bomb originally because we wanted

[1:04:47] to be environmentally conscious and to

[1:04:50] do our

[1:04:51] part. Um, so you understand that when we

[1:04:55] heard that we uh our neighbors left

[1:04:59] their bedroom windows open all the time,

[1:05:01] we changed uh the cycles of the heat

[1:05:04] pump and after that there were no

[1:05:06] problems, no complaints. So, the only

[1:05:08] complaints about the heat pump are from

[1:05:11] the current

[1:05:12] owners. Um, when this uh the

[1:05:17] complaintant who just spoke spoke about

[1:05:21] the zoning regulations and protections

[1:05:23] of the neighborhood

[1:05:24] character. I I find

[1:05:28] it startling that they would say that

[1:05:31] after having received a much larger

[1:05:34] variance to have

[1:05:37] a secondary dwelling on their property

[1:05:41] that hadn't been

[1:05:44] approved. Um I think that contradicted

[1:05:47] the neighborhood's character and I think

[1:05:50] that the current owners are trying to do

[1:05:52] everything they can to make this

[1:05:54] situation work.

[1:05:56] um they're being environmentally

[1:05:59] responsible and I think their efforts

[1:06:01] should be um applauded and

[1:06:05] encouraged. Um there's also just there's

[1:06:08] some errors in the timeline for when it

[1:06:12] was installed. It was not installed in

[1:06:13] 2008

[1:06:15] um and things like that. But the only

[1:06:19] uh and I think it's important to

[1:06:21] understand that yeah, the current heat

[1:06:23] pump is well within the guidelines and

[1:06:26] they're asking for only a half a meter

[1:06:28] variance. So I would encourage you to u

[1:06:32] approve this variance. Thank you. Oh,

[1:06:34] and I wanted to say thank you for all

[1:06:35] the work you do. I know it's a thankless

[1:06:38] job and I appreciate it. See, not a

[1:06:40] thankless job. You said thank you. Thank

[1:06:43] you.

[1:06:45] Uh any other members of the public wish

[1:06:47] to speak? Please come

[1:06:50] forward. Just want to point out we had a

[1:06:53] couple of comments are drifting off into

[1:06:54] other aspects. I just really want to

[1:06:55] keep our focus both at this table and

[1:06:57] from the public on the merits or lack

[1:06:58] thereof of the variance application. So

[1:07:01] welcome sir and just the same process

[1:07:02] name and municipality of residence. You

[1:07:04] do have to hit the button on the on the

[1:07:05] microphone.

[1:07:07] James Stockell uh resident of Oak Bay

[1:07:10] 1397 St. David Street. Uh my wife uh

[1:07:14] Deborah Stockdale and I uh support this

[1:07:17] uh variance. We are two houses away from

[1:07:21] uh the house that is requesting this

[1:07:24] variance. I I believe this is an issue

[1:07:27] related to sound. It's not a uh any

[1:07:32] other issue involved. The distances I I

[1:07:35] understand are uh in the bylaws saying

[1:07:38] you should place a heat pump but it's

[1:07:41] basically about sound. From what I

[1:07:44] understand uh it has not been connected.

[1:07:48] They have not connected uh the owners uh

[1:07:51] at any time or the company providing uh

[1:07:54] the heat pump. Uh so some thoughts or

[1:07:59] suggestions that it had been done are I

[1:08:02] believe incorrect. I think the owners uh

[1:08:05] when they speak to you will be able to

[1:08:07] uh clarify uh that situation. Um cuz I

[1:08:11] believe that uh this heat pump only puts

[1:08:14] out 48 uh dB and uh that will decrease

[1:08:19] uh as you get close to the property

[1:08:21] line. and I think it's a decibel uh per

[1:08:24] foot which should put it in the

[1:08:27] acceptable range. I the owners of 1383

[1:08:32] have gone to uh considerable efforts uh

[1:08:36] to mitigate the sound uh with the uh

[1:08:40] cedar uh fence that they've placed up

[1:08:43] and putting in an expensive heat pump

[1:08:46] that's uh I understand is

[1:08:49] state-of-the-art.

[1:08:51] Uh I I think the thought of putting it

[1:08:55] in front of the house is aesthetically

[1:08:58] not pleasing and not necessary and would

[1:09:02] incur a significant further sum of money

[1:09:05] on top of what they have already spent.

[1:09:08] And we're talking about a young couple

[1:09:10] here with two young children. And I

[1:09:12] think we have to be respectful of uh of

[1:09:15] their uh very sensible wise uh uh

[1:09:21] approach here. And I would think uh the

[1:09:24] mayor, if I could paraphrase one of your

[1:09:27] statements, is this would seem to be a

[1:09:30] very reasonable ask of the or Thank you.

[1:09:34] Thank you.

[1:09:37] Uh, any other members of the public

[1:09:39] online or in person who wish to speak to

[1:09:41] the

[1:09:42] application? Yep. Oh, I see Mark online.

[1:09:44] Please go ahead. Are you the uh are you

[1:09:46] the owner? Yes, that's correct. I am the

[1:09:48] applicant, Mark Borland, 1383 St. David.

[1:09:50] Um, yes. I just want to clarify. I'm not

[1:09:52] going to go into um some of the the he

[1:09:54] said she said. I just want to clarify

[1:09:55] that we did speak with five different

[1:09:57] HVAC companies and um they each carry

[1:10:00] multiple models of heat pump and the

[1:10:01] heat pump that we have chosen to replace

[1:10:03] the existing unit is the single quietest

[1:10:06] model that we can find. It produces 48

[1:10:08] dB as Mr. Stockdale said at the unit

[1:10:11] which uh 3 ft away from the property

[1:10:13] line translates to 45 dB at the property

[1:10:15] line. So even at with only 1 meter from

[1:10:18] the property line it will produce 45 dB.

[1:10:21] We also understand that that um regular

[1:10:23] servicing is necessary and the warranty

[1:10:25] on the heat pump requires annual

[1:10:26] servicing to be valid. So um rest

[1:10:29] assured that we will continue to ensure

[1:10:32] that it stays at 45 dB at the property

[1:10:34] line. Um yeah, that's pretty much all I

[1:10:37] have to say and uh thank you for your

[1:10:38] consideration.

[1:10:40] Thank you, Mr.

[1:10:41] Borland. Any other members of the public

[1:10:43] wish to talk to council on this matter

[1:10:44] before I bring it back to this table?

[1:10:46] Oh, do I see a hand online? Yes, I do.

[1:10:48] Uh Pamela online, please name and

[1:10:51] municipality of residence. Yeah, I'm

[1:10:53] Pamela. I'm the next door neighbor at

[1:10:55] 1387 St. David Street, uh Oak

[1:10:58] Bay. Um we are the only neighbor that

[1:11:02] hears this heat pump and I would hope

[1:11:04] that you would take our uh lengthy

[1:11:08] history into consideration. Um, if I had

[1:11:12] confidence

[1:11:14] that this heat pump could be maintained

[1:11:17] and that I could have communications

[1:11:19] with the neighbor to to discuss the

[1:11:22] matter or if bylaw could support any

[1:11:26] issues I'm having in in sleeping at

[1:11:29] night, um, then, you know, it might be a

[1:11:32] different story. But I've got two and a

[1:11:33] half years of documented problems. Uh

[1:11:37] initially we we went to them directly

[1:11:40] and talked to them about it and it's

[1:11:42] actually not true that the previous

[1:11:43] owners of our house did not have uh

[1:11:45] problems. Uh they they did have

[1:11:46] problems. We found out later. Um we also

[1:11:50] have young children. We can't put in

[1:11:51] earplugs because we need to hear our

[1:11:52] children at night. Um we can't sleep

[1:11:56] with windows closed because it's you

[1:11:58] know it's not uh conducive to sleeping.

[1:12:03] Um, and what has been said already is

[1:12:05] that the new PE heat pump has already

[1:12:07] been installed. Um, and when it was

[1:12:10] installed, we called bylaw and bylaw

[1:12:11] came to visit and we provided them the

[1:12:13] readings from the property line of of 58

[1:12:18] dB. And so bylaw allowed that heat pump

[1:12:22] to continue being installed. They did

[1:12:24] not stop the installation. They

[1:12:25] authorized a continuation of the

[1:12:27] installation. And so that was an

[1:12:29] additional frustration on our part given

[1:12:32] the you know 2 and a half year history

[1:12:34] um we've had with this issue. Um

[1:12:39] I know you have to be able to take um

[1:12:43] comments from everybody but I think you

[1:12:46] know the history of this part of the

[1:12:47] neighborhood and um I would hope that

[1:12:49] you do not consider opinions of people

[1:12:52] who do not sleep in my bedroom at night.

[1:12:54] Uh I appreciate the previous architect's

[1:12:57] comments. Uh it is completely true that

[1:12:58] a hedge and a fence do not block sound.

[1:13:02] Um and

[1:13:05] um that heat pumps can actually be run

[1:13:08] up to 150 ft away from the source of

[1:13:11] ducting. And so even turning it around

[1:13:13] the corner to face the front yard of

[1:13:15] which there is a large roto which would

[1:13:17] hide the the heat pump from the public.

[1:13:20] Um you know I think there are still

[1:13:23] other locations that would not disturb

[1:13:25] anybody.

[1:13:26] Um, so you know, that's all I have to

[1:13:29] say. It's not very eloquent, but you

[1:13:31] know, this is since we moved into this

[1:13:32] house, it's been a problem and it's

[1:13:34] pretty upsetting when you can't get a

[1:13:36] good night's sleep uh and can't speak to

[1:13:37] your neighbor about it and can't depend

[1:13:40] on bylaw to help enforce things. So, I I

[1:13:42] we ask that you deny this variance and

[1:13:45] thank you very much. Thank you, Miss

[1:13:47] Uvea. Um, anybody else wish to speak to

[1:13:50] the council on this matter?

[1:13:54] See no other members of the public

[1:13:56] wishing to speak. I will uh just bring

[1:13:59] it back to this table. We have the uh

[1:14:01] the report in front of us. I'm going to

[1:14:02] ask that we have a motion to receive the

[1:14:04] report. Thank you. Moved and seconded.

[1:14:06] All those in favor? Any opposed? Un

[1:14:08] opposed. I'll move the staff

[1:14:10] recommendation. Uh just to be clear,

[1:14:12] this is the uh to approve the variance.

[1:14:15] Moved. Is there a seconder for the move?

[1:14:16] Move and seconded. Motion is now live on

[1:14:19] the floor for debate. Go to councelor

[1:14:21] Smart.

[1:14:23] Yeah, thank you. I won't be supporting

[1:14:25] um uh the motion on the table. I already

[1:14:27] expressed concern when we recently

[1:14:28] revised our bylaws to the um 5t away

[1:14:32] from the property line and and because

[1:14:35] there's not been enough room to create

[1:14:39] soundproofing when there are issues in

[1:14:41] this very situation. Um I also work in

[1:14:43] architecture. This comes up a lot. Um

[1:14:46] and I concur with the comments about a a

[1:14:49] fence um you know often if nothing else

[1:14:52] making uh the sound issues worse and

[1:14:53] certainly not better. Uh this is a

[1:14:56] quality of life issue for the neighbor

[1:14:58] and there are many other um locations

[1:15:00] particularly in the front yard that

[1:15:02] would be available without a variance

[1:15:04] that would have less impact on

[1:15:06] neighbors. Um there is not enough space

[1:15:10] with this reduced variance to create

[1:15:12] what would be needed to mitigate the

[1:15:13] sound, which would be um a structure

[1:15:16] with insulation. There's a lot of

[1:15:18] different structures out there, but in

[1:15:19] creating such a structure to mitigate

[1:15:21] the sound, you wouldn't be able to

[1:15:22] actually access access that side of the

[1:15:24] house with such a small setback. So I'm

[1:15:27] not in favor of this.

[1:15:31] Thank you. Any other

[1:15:34] discussion, Appleton? No, thank you.

[1:15:37] worship. So, I too am not in favor of

[1:15:40] the variance uh on the floor. If if for

[1:15:44] no other reason than I think it's really

[1:15:45] important we we as councelor Smart

[1:15:47] mentions, we've had we've had an

[1:15:48] extensive discussion around the council

[1:15:50] table quite recently about proper

[1:15:53] sighting and placement of heat pumps. Um

[1:15:56] and I think it's a timely one because

[1:15:58] with the push to electrification, you

[1:16:00] know, this is just going to become a

[1:16:02] very very significant issue. So I would

[1:16:05] like to see us be as consistent and as

[1:16:09] uh and following as closely as possible

[1:16:11] the standard that council has just

[1:16:12] adopted. Thank you worship.

[1:16:16] Thank

[1:16:17] you. Uh other discussion around the

[1:16:22] table don't see any. Um thank you. Um I

[1:16:26] think there's anything I want to talk

[1:16:28] this one I will just say I struggle with

[1:16:29] a little bit. I I hear the uh the

[1:16:32] comments made by my uh counselors around

[1:16:34] the table here um both sides of the

[1:16:37] equation. I do I tend to be fairly

[1:16:39] flexible on these if the owner has gone

[1:16:41] to significant lengths to reduce noise

[1:16:44] and um just recognize these are

[1:16:47] sometimes difficult especially if

[1:16:48] they're replacing legacy. Um, so I think

[1:16:51] the owner has gone to lengths that they

[1:16:52] can to mitigate noise. And so the

[1:16:54] question then becomes whether or not we

[1:16:57] control this by the sighting in this

[1:16:58] situation or do we do it by the noise

[1:17:00] bylaw uh aspects of it. I think that's a

[1:17:03] tricky part about this. We are here

[1:17:05] considering the variance versus for

[1:17:07] sideyard. But it's really ultimately

[1:17:08] going to be the impact on the noise to

[1:17:10] the neighbors. So um I I struggle with

[1:17:13] that one. I'm not going to lie. I think

[1:17:14] there's there's pros and cons to both

[1:17:16] sides of this equation. I'd be happy to

[1:17:18] hear anybody else's thoughts before I

[1:17:20] call the question, but Oh, there we go.

[1:17:21] Councelor Watson.

[1:17:24] Yeah, very interesting multifaceted

[1:17:26] issue. Um I um having heard an architect

[1:17:30] speak and our own counselor SM speak on

[1:17:33] this issue um while I first thought you

[1:17:36] know it's minor whatever just I I do

[1:17:39] think that um it makes sense to approve

[1:17:42] it because if we grant the variance and

[1:17:44] there isn't and then there becomes an

[1:17:46] issue we do have a mechanism to deal

[1:17:48] with that and so then it's kind of in a

[1:17:50] way at the owner's risk if they they've

[1:17:53] come with an application that that seems

[1:17:55] in very in many ways minor and uh u with

[1:17:59] um uh

[1:18:02] um cert sort of certifying or suggesting

[1:18:06] that there won't be an issue if things

[1:18:08] are left as they are. Um so um I'm

[1:18:13] prepared to support the variance request

[1:18:15] and then um things will you know follow

[1:18:18] the course they follow. So that's my

[1:18:21] it's a more expedient approach to it I

[1:18:23] think but I'm happy to do that.

[1:18:26] Thank you, Council Patterson. Yes, thank

[1:18:28] you, Mayor. Um, you know, I'm I'm kind

[1:18:31] of on a third generation heat pump, I

[1:18:33] think, in the home that I'm in. And and

[1:18:36] obviously, the first two were um uh

[1:18:39] certainly produced more sound. However,

[1:18:42] the newer units, particularly if they

[1:18:44] are highquality units, are extremely

[1:18:47] quiet. And we do have many situations in

[1:18:51] Oak Bay where um the installations of

[1:18:55] the duct work etc inside the house were

[1:18:57] done for where heat pumps were cited and

[1:19:00] we haven't until recently had um any

[1:19:03] guidance for for homeowners on that. So

[1:19:06] I will support this as it is and I

[1:19:10] believe as the staff recommendation

[1:19:11] before us and um I believe too that

[1:19:14] there is uh remedy through the through

[1:19:17] the noise bylaw if that should occur.

[1:19:20] However, with with a quality system in

[1:19:23] quality maintenance, it really should be

[1:19:26] the the sound quality should be

[1:19:28] minimized. Thank you.

[1:19:31] Thank you. I don't see any other hands.

[1:19:34] I appreciate the the the debate. I'm

[1:19:37] going to call the question. The motion

[1:19:38] of the floor is to approve the variance

[1:19:40] as put here. All those in

[1:19:42] favor and those opposed. I have

[1:19:44] councelor Smart and Appleton opposed.

[1:19:47] That motion carries. With that, the

[1:19:49] variance is approved. Um I hope the two

[1:19:52] neighbors can have open communication.

[1:19:53] So if there is noise issues, you can

[1:19:55] share it and the owner of the heat pump

[1:19:57] can make any mitigations required to

[1:19:59] keep the neighbors happy. Moving on to

[1:20:02] 8.2, Two, we move to uh development

[1:20:04] variance permit DVP

[1:20:07] 0000001 175 at 1383. Oops,

[1:20:12] sorry, forgot to change my uh page 8.3

[1:20:15] developments variant for DBP 00174 at

[1:20:19] 1311 Victoria Avenue. Uh we have Mr.

[1:20:21] Green again to introduce the matter.

[1:20:24] Thank you, your worship. Uh the district

[1:20:26] has received a development variance

[1:20:28] permits application for the property

[1:20:29] located at 1311 Victoria Avenue. The

[1:20:32] requested variances are to facilitate a

[1:20:35] proposed accessory dwelling unit on the

[1:20:37] property. The following variances are

[1:20:39] being requested by the applicant. A

[1:20:41] reduction to the required exterior

[1:20:42] sidelot lane setback from 3.7 m to 1.53

[1:20:46] m. An increase to the maximum permitted

[1:20:49] building height from 4.4 m to 5.71 m. a

[1:20:54] difference of 1.31 meters. Uh I should

[1:20:57] note that the staff report noted a

[1:20:58] building height of 6.01 meters, but

[1:21:01] further plan checkers identified that

[1:21:03] this should be 5.71 m lowering the

[1:21:06] proposed building height. And thirdly,

[1:21:09] an increase to the maximum permitted

[1:21:11] roof height from 6 m to 7.23 m, a

[1:21:14] different a difference of 1.23 m. Mr.

[1:21:18] Green, can you just repeat those so we

[1:21:19] can jot them down? Yeah. A reduction to

[1:21:22] the required exterior sidelot line set

[1:21:24] back from 3.7 meters to 1.53 mters. An

[1:21:28] increase to the maximum permitted

[1:21:30] building height from 4.4 m to 5.71 m a

[1:21:35] difference of 1.31

[1:21:37] m and an increase to the maximum

[1:21:40] permitted roof height from 6 m to 7.23 m

[1:21:44] a difference of 1.23 m. I should note

[1:21:47] also that the front west elevation join

[1:21:50] that is included in council's agenda uh

[1:21:53] on attachment six uh in page 72 does

[1:21:57] show a peak roof of a peak of the roof

[1:22:00] beyond the 7.23 mters but the applicant

[1:22:03] has identified that this is an error and

[1:22:05] has resubmitted a revised building plan.

[1:22:08] Uh but I should note that this does not

[1:22:10] affect the variance that is being

[1:22:12] requested and which is correct in the

[1:22:14] staff report and the draft permit that

[1:22:16] is attached to the council

[1:22:18] report. Staff are recommending that the

[1:22:20] v requested variances be supported and

[1:22:22] development variance permit DVP

[1:22:24] 00174 for 1311 Victoria having be be

[1:22:27] approved. Uh several pieces of

[1:22:29] correspondence have been received

[1:22:31] following the district giving notice of

[1:22:32] the application and which is attached to

[1:22:34] the council agenda. uh both the

[1:22:36] applicant and the owner are both here to

[1:22:38] answer any questions that council may

[1:22:40] have and I'm also happy to answer any

[1:22:42] questions that council may have on the

[1:22:43] application.

[1:22:46] Thank you very much Mr. Green. I have

[1:22:48] councelor Short to begin.

[1:22:51] Thank you um through Mayor to Mr. Green.

[1:22:54] I was wondering if you could just remind

[1:22:56] us we had an infill um bylaw before us.

[1:22:59] I believe it was in February with

[1:23:01] regards to increasing the height of um

[1:23:04] ADUs and that went back for just one

[1:23:06] small request to look at permeable area

[1:23:09] percentages and it was going to come

[1:23:10] back to council in March. We haven't

[1:23:12] seen it yet. Um so I'm wondering if that

[1:23:15] bylaw had passed already um would this

[1:23:20] um particular project be within height

[1:23:23] compliance for for building height and

[1:23:24] roof height? Thank you.

[1:23:29] Mr. B or Mr. Green, my recollection is

[1:23:32] some of that is completed, has it not?

[1:23:33] But any I'll hand it over to you. Yeah,

[1:23:35] through your worship, uh, obviously,

[1:23:37] yeah, February the 10th, council

[1:23:38] received an update on the infill uh uh

[1:23:42] infill program and some refinements to

[1:23:44] the bylaws and there was uh two changes

[1:23:46] to accessory dwelling units in relation

[1:23:48] to both roof height and building height.

[1:23:51] Um, as I talk, I'm trying to remember

[1:23:53] exactly. I believe there was increasing

[1:23:56] the roof height from uh to 7.5

[1:24:02] m, but I can't remember what the

[1:24:04] building height change was.

[1:24:08] Thank you. That answers my question

[1:24:09] enough. Appreciate it.

[1:24:12] Okay. Thank you. Uh are there any Yeah,

[1:24:16] go ahead. Councelor Breathweight. Um

[1:24:17] thank you very much. I'm just wondering

[1:24:19] I mean looking at this um and we call

[1:24:20] this an ADU. Um, what's the difference

[1:24:23] between an ADU and a single family

[1:24:24] dwelling?

[1:24:28] Mr. Green, uh, through your worship, the

[1:24:31] definition of an accessory dwelling

[1:24:33] unit, it says that the accessory

[1:24:34] dwelling unit must be smaller than the

[1:24:36] principal building on the lot, which in

[1:24:39] this case when you take the gross floor

[1:24:41] area of the single family dwelling

[1:24:43] compared to the gross floor area of the

[1:24:45] ADU, the ADU is smaller than the

[1:24:47] principal building.

[1:24:50] Thank you. And can you just remind me

[1:24:51] what the floor square area of the advis

[1:24:55] of the ADU is?

[1:24:59] Mr. Green, do you have that information

[1:25:00] handy?

[1:25:03] I think I've got it in my Let me just

[1:25:06] through your worshippers, give me one

[1:25:07] minute to find that um calculation.

[1:25:09] Total floor

[1:25:11] area 137.05 square meters or

[1:25:15] 1475.2 ft.

[1:25:23] Any other questions? Councley. Thank

[1:25:25] you.

[1:25:27] Go ahead, Councelor Watson. Uh, thank

[1:25:30] you, Mayor

[1:25:31] Tharification. Could you just um please

[1:25:34] let me know again for um what the

[1:25:37] maximum lot coverage is for this

[1:25:39] property and what the maximum lot

[1:25:41] coverage is for the ADU on it by itself.

[1:25:53] might be best if I ask the applicant to

[1:25:55] answer that question if that's okay who

[1:25:57] is probably most familiar with the the

[1:26:00] drawings.

[1:26:02] Sure. I'm happy to welcome be Mr.

[1:26:04] Collins. We can be willing to come

[1:26:05] forward and answer that question.

[1:26:12] We have live landscaping coverage

[1:26:14] required 20

[1:26:17] percent that has it here is 50%

[1:26:21] but I can come back to that question if

[1:26:23] people want to look up the answers to it

[1:26:25] and because sometimes finding the exact

[1:26:27] number you're asking for the coverage

[1:26:30] coverage maximum

[1:26:34] we've made it more confusing with the

[1:26:36] live lot coverage and the paving

[1:26:38] percentages

[1:26:40] So,

[1:26:57] Mr. Green, welcome back.

[1:27:00] Yes. So, the proposed lot coverage is

[1:27:01] 37.7

[1:27:03] uh% and the requirement is 40%.

[1:27:08] Thank you. Anything else? Counc is there

[1:27:11] anything in is there anything about the

[1:27:13] lot coverage for an ADU or is it just

[1:27:15] all included as one total?

[1:27:18] Mr.

[1:27:21] Deip, it's a lot coverage of the site.

[1:27:23] However, there is that essentially when

[1:27:26] the infill bylaws were presented to

[1:27:28] council where council wanted to retain

[1:27:29] an existing single family dwelling.

[1:27:31] There is that ability to um increase the

[1:27:34] lot coverage by an additional 10% if the

[1:27:36] single existing single family home is

[1:27:38] being retained. But it does that doesn't

[1:27:40] mean to say that the ADU then has a lot

[1:27:42] coverage of 10%. It means that the

[1:27:43] overall site has a maximum of 10 of 40%.

[1:27:46] So this could go up to just to clarif

[1:27:48] for for this site this could be 50% and

[1:27:50] that would still be within the bylaw

[1:27:52] framework. Yes. 40 + 10. No, it's 40%.

[1:27:56] 30 plus 10%. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:28:00] Thank you for that clarifying questions.

[1:28:01] We're also getting used to the new

[1:28:02] rules. Uh go ahead, Council

[1:28:04] Braithweight. Oh, thank you. I did have

[1:28:05] one other question. Um I I noticed that

[1:28:08] this is this is set very far far back at

[1:28:11] the back of the lot. And I wonder um why

[1:28:14] it was not and it's it tends to be up on

[1:28:16] a little bit of a hill. Um, and I'm

[1:28:18] wondering why it was not moved a little

[1:28:20] bit closer to the um, main residence so

[1:28:23] that it wouldn't have as much of an

[1:28:24] impact on um, on 2144 Brighton.

[1:28:28] The why questions I have to give to the

[1:28:30] applicant. So, why don't you come

[1:28:31] forward

[1:28:34] for your worship? I think that question

[1:28:36] is best answered by Mr. Collins that to

[1:28:38] do so. Um, for the record, can you just

[1:28:41] state your name and municipality

[1:28:42] residence at the beginning of your Russ

[1:28:44] Collins from Zebra Design? Thank you.

[1:28:46] Thank you.

[1:28:48] Um, so sorry, the question was was why

[1:28:52] was it situated uh so far back on the

[1:28:54] lot um as opposed to because we want to

[1:28:56] save the trees that are on the property.

[1:28:58] As it is, we're affecting two trees

[1:29:00] where we put it and if we put it any

[1:29:02] closer closer to the other house, we're

[1:29:05] going to start losing some fairly

[1:29:06] substantial trees.

[1:29:11] Thank you. I'll let you stay there for a

[1:29:12] moment as we get see if there's any

[1:29:14] other questions. Uh any other questions

[1:29:16] directed to the applicant or to staff at

[1:29:18] this

[1:29:22] time? Can I just have one question which

[1:29:25] just relate regarding the glazing? Uh

[1:29:27] appreciate the efforts made here uh on

[1:29:29] reducing glazing facing onto the the two

[1:29:31] neighboring properties. Um can you share

[1:29:34] uh what um what overlook that is? Are

[1:29:37] those frequently used rooms or would

[1:29:39] they be relatively lightly used um rooms

[1:29:41] that are that would be doing the

[1:29:43] overlook?

[1:29:44] Oh, sorry. Uh, just curious about the um

[1:29:48] the nature of the I said I appreciate

[1:29:49] the the reduced glazing on looking onto

[1:29:51] neighboring properties, but I am just

[1:29:53] curious a little bit on the second

[1:29:54] story. What is the the nature of those

[1:29:56] those windows? Are they looking over

[1:29:58] like are they sort of uh high social

[1:30:01] area uh windows or are they um you know

[1:30:04] intended to be sort of like bedrooms and

[1:30:05] and bathroom windows? All of the main

[1:30:08] windows of of the proposed um ADU face

[1:30:11] either the street or internally to the

[1:30:14] other house. We only have um one window

[1:30:18] on the second floor which is at the end

[1:30:19] of a hallway as you turn to go down the

[1:30:21] stairs. So, it's something that you're

[1:30:22] going to be passing by. You're not going

[1:30:23] to be standing there staring at the

[1:30:25] neighbor. And then um I'm trying to

[1:30:28] remember what was on the other There's

[1:30:31] one top left glazing on the uh south

[1:30:34] elevation.

[1:30:40] Yeah, we have a sewing room that is

[1:30:42] facing the

[1:30:43] um north property and then there's a a

[1:30:47] dining room windows that are going to be

[1:30:48] facing the north property, but there's

[1:30:50] also going to be a fence like six foot

[1:30:52] high fence. So, that window in the

[1:30:54] dining room shouldn't be have any

[1:30:55] overlook to the neighbor to the north.

[1:30:57] Right. I was just thinking of second

[1:30:58] story windows at this case. So, okay. I

[1:31:00] appreciate the answers. Okay.

[1:31:03] Um, yeah, Council Watson, and then I'll

[1:31:05] go to I keep glancing down and seeing

[1:31:07] council, your your name tags are

[1:31:08] switched, so councelor Appleton's name

[1:31:09] is in front of you, so it keeps throwing

[1:31:11] me off when I look down. Go ahead,

[1:31:12] councelor Watson. As long as the votes

[1:31:15] are recorded properly. Um, uh, thank

[1:31:17] you. I have one further question for

[1:31:19] probably Oh, no, it'll be for the

[1:31:21] applicant actually. um uh in terms of

[1:31:25] the um effect of the requested increases

[1:31:30] in height on the neighbor uh immediately

[1:31:34] adjacent to the east. There's quite a

[1:31:37] lot of slope between those two lots and

[1:31:39] I just wonder um

[1:31:41] uh what will happen to their

[1:31:45] outlook on that in that last I guess um

[1:31:48] 1.3 meters that are that would be added

[1:31:51] above what you would be allowed as of

[1:31:52] right if you could give me a sense of

[1:31:54] that. they've got they've got they're

[1:31:56] facing looking west into the evening sun

[1:31:59] and and the you know I guess south kind

[1:32:01] of west southwest really they're

[1:32:03] capturing that and I just kind of want

[1:32:04] to know what the impact would be of that

[1:32:06] additional amount you're requesting. So,

[1:32:10] um, one of the things I guess I was I

[1:32:13] wasn't quite sure how it was answered

[1:32:14] earlier. The question about the, um, why

[1:32:18] did we pick these heights that we're

[1:32:19] proposing? It's, it is because it was

[1:32:21] the height that we thought was going to

[1:32:23] be in front of council and approved by

[1:32:24] now. We didn't actually expect that we'd

[1:32:26] be asking for variances on this at this

[1:32:28] point. It just turned out that that

[1:32:31] hasn't come to council yet for approval.

[1:32:33] So, that's what our variances were

[1:32:35] applied for.

[1:32:36] Um, we do have a hip roof which is

[1:32:39] sloping away from the neighbor. So, it's

[1:32:40] not like we don't have a gable facing

[1:32:42] them. We we're trying to keep the height

[1:32:44] as minimal as possible. We've also

[1:32:47] designed this ADU with only 8ft

[1:32:50] ceilings. So, there's no standard height

[1:32:52] nowadays in a regular house is 9 ft on

[1:32:55] the main floor, sometimes 10 and 9 ft

[1:32:57] upper floors. We're proposing 8T and 8T,

[1:33:00] which is basically minimum that you'd

[1:33:02] want to have for a a ceiling height.

[1:33:07] Thank you. Anything else? Councelor

[1:33:09] Wilson. Go to councelor Green.

[1:33:12] Thank you very much. Um first of all,

[1:33:14] just to councelor um Smart's earlier

[1:33:17] question about the the bylaw coming or

[1:33:20] yes, the bylaw coming back to us through

[1:33:22] you to Mr. Green. Um could you tell us

[1:33:26] when that bylaw might be coming back to

[1:33:27] us then on on height? Um thank you.

[1:33:36] Mr. Green. Yeah, we've just been uh

[1:33:38] working with our design on the uh

[1:33:40] addressing council um sent by those

[1:33:42] bylaws back for some refinement in

[1:33:44] relation to the impermanal servicing.

[1:33:46] So, we are hoping to bring those bylaws

[1:33:48] back for council's consideration of

[1:33:49] readings in sometime in June, the

[1:33:52] current timetable.

[1:33:55] Um, just further, I happen to know 2144

[1:33:59] on Brighton because uh, Fred and I tried

[1:34:01] to buy that little house when we first

[1:34:03] moved here. So, we've been through it a

[1:34:05] lot and we know it well. My concern

[1:34:08] follows on the questions from councelor

[1:34:09] Watson and that is light um and evening

[1:34:13] sun and shadowing and and that kind of

[1:34:16] thing because if we look at the house on

[1:34:18] granite across the street, they have

[1:34:20] lost all of their light to the west

[1:34:23] because of height. So, I'm just hoping

[1:34:26] that perhaps

[1:34:27] um you you could assure us that that

[1:34:30] isn't going to happen to 2144 Brighton

[1:34:33] because um Evening Sun I I think there's

[1:34:36] also quite an active garden on at 2144.

[1:34:39] I'm sure there are gardens on both

[1:34:40] properties, but I think that would be a

[1:34:43] concern, the overlook and the loss of

[1:34:45] light. Thank you.

[1:34:48] Go ahead,

[1:34:49] Mr. Push the button. Sorry about that.

[1:34:52] Um, we've also kept the the

[1:34:56] the full depth of the house quite narrow

[1:34:59] at that point when it comes closer to

[1:35:01] the lot so that the actual depth of the

[1:35:04] house is is um an additional looks like

[1:35:06] at least 10 ft further away from the

[1:35:08] property line as it comes towards

[1:35:10] Brighton. So, we tried to minimize the

[1:35:13] the depth of it. It's only 23 I believe

[1:35:15] 23 feet deep that portion of the house.

[1:35:18] It's very small. That's the depth of

[1:35:20] like a a double car garage

[1:35:24] basically. And also, if you look on the

[1:35:27] site plan that we're showing, it says

[1:35:29] where it says number 2144, you can see

[1:35:31] the the line that's drawn there. That's

[1:35:33] the edge of that existing house. And

[1:35:35] there's quite a distance between the two

[1:35:37] houses. It's actually very close, if not

[1:35:40] the same, as what you'd expect between

[1:35:42] houses anywhere in Oak Bay. Like a 5ft

[1:35:45] setback on one side and 10t close to 10

[1:35:47] ft on the other. So, it's very normal if

[1:35:49] if these were lots that all ran this

[1:35:51] way, that would be very normal to have

[1:35:54] the house placed that close to the other

[1:35:55] one. Thanks very much. I appreciate

[1:35:58] that.

[1:36:00] Thank you. I'm not seeing a lot other

[1:36:02] questions popping up here. So, perhaps

[1:36:04] the applicant can sit and we'll if

[1:36:06] there's any members of the public who

[1:36:07] wish to speak to council on this matter.

[1:36:09] All is subject to public input. So, I

[1:36:12] see a hand raised. Why don't you come

[1:36:13] forward?

[1:36:15] You can just state your name and

[1:36:16] municipality of residence and uh you

[1:36:19] have up to three minutes to talk to

[1:36:20] council.

[1:36:22] Uh that's good. We can hear you. Yep. My

[1:36:24] name is Mitchell Tempmpkin. I uh a

[1:36:27] resident of Oak Bay. I live at uh 1311

[1:36:29] Victoria Avenue. I am in the homeowner

[1:36:32] the homeowner of the house under

[1:36:33] question. And I just like to make a a

[1:36:36] few quick points.

[1:36:38] Um, one is I would just like to restate

[1:36:42] because this is very very important to

[1:36:44] us that the purpose of our building, the

[1:36:46] successory dwelling unit is to enable

[1:36:48] intergenerational living. Our daughter

[1:36:51] and her husband were raised in Oak Bay.

[1:36:54] He was born there. Ours wasn't. They

[1:36:56] have three small children. Uh, they

[1:36:58] currently live in the Nimo. They have an

[1:37:00] opportunity through his work to come

[1:37:02] back to Victoria. They would love to

[1:37:05] move back to Oak Bay where all their

[1:37:06] friends are, but like so many young

[1:37:08] people now, they can't afford to do it.

[1:37:11] Uh the fi the dynamics of this project

[1:37:14] will allow them to do it. I don't need

[1:37:16] to go into the details, but I'm happy to

[1:37:18] explain afterwards to anyone. So, this

[1:37:21] is uh very important for us for

[1:37:25] intergenerational living and for our

[1:37:27] support as we grow older. I also think

[1:37:29] it's really important for the community

[1:37:31] that there be intergenerational

[1:37:33] succession. If people who have grown up

[1:37:36] in Oak Bay, um ultimately when they go

[1:37:39] out into the work world can't afford to

[1:37:41] move back here or to live here at all,

[1:37:44] um the uh whole community I think will

[1:37:47] lose a lot of its vitality and could

[1:37:50] become sort of a monotone a monotone

[1:37:53] enclave for the wealthy, which I'm sure

[1:37:56] is, you know, we're halfway there

[1:37:57] already. it's not entirely desirable.

[1:38:00] So, that's is extremely important for us

[1:38:02] that our grandkids will be there. Uh,

[1:38:06] someone asked a question about why we

[1:38:08] didn't want to move the house, the new

[1:38:11] dwelling closer to the existing house.

[1:38:13] Uh Russ said, "Yes, there are three

[1:38:16] mature Gary Oaks in the way, but by

[1:38:19] positioning the houses as we have, um we

[1:38:21] have uh an interior safe play space in a

[1:38:26] yard for our grandchildren between the

[1:38:28] two houses where there is eyes on."

[1:38:31] Someone in a submission suggested that

[1:38:34] we, you know, move the house only, you

[1:38:36] know, 3.17 meters or whatever the code

[1:38:39] requirement is from the existing house.

[1:38:42] um really then the grandchildren don't

[1:38:44] have a safe play area anymore if we do

[1:38:47] that. So trees and grandchildren um

[1:38:50] along with puppies everybody loves them

[1:38:52] but th those are our our reasons. Um

[1:38:57] um uh when I read some of the comments

[1:39:01] uh that were submitted uh regarding our

[1:39:04] plan,

[1:39:06] um many people seem to think uh either

[1:39:09] by uh misapprehension or misinformation

[1:39:12] perhaps that we have actually requested

[1:39:15] a setback variance along the property

[1:39:18] line between our lot and 2144. But the

[1:39:23] the setback along that property line is

[1:39:26] as per code. And you know, when I walk

[1:39:30] around Oak Bay, I have my guess is that

[1:39:33] the majority of Oak Bay residents live

[1:39:35] in houses that are appro approximately

[1:39:38] 6, seven or 8 m from their neighbors

[1:39:41] next door. This is by design. This is

[1:39:45] often the case for twostory houses of,

[1:39:49] you know, different heights. um and uh

[1:39:52] it is actually completely normal and I

[1:39:56] don't see why there should be uh a

[1:39:58] special exception in this case. Um

[1:40:02] finally, the last

[1:40:04] uh question I'd like to address is the

[1:40:07] one of the mass of the houses because

[1:40:09] some people have remarked to me, well,

[1:40:12] it's just too big. It's just too big. Uh

[1:40:15] too big for what is the question. We're

[1:40:17] surrounded by very large houses. uh uh

[1:40:21] compared to which both 2144 and our

[1:40:23] proposed new house look dimminitive

[1:40:26] frankly. Um um and the fact is that you

[1:40:32] know thinking just about the visual mass

[1:40:34] of the house uh uh what we're proposing

[1:40:38] is very similar to the house at

[1:40:41] 2144. Two houses side by side per code

[1:40:45] uh of similar proportions. Uh the the

[1:40:50] footprint at 2144 is a little smaller,

[1:40:53] 650 ft. I believe we're 740 something

[1:40:58] something like that. But um the uh house

[1:41:02] at 2144 uh the footprint is L-shaped,

[1:41:05] meaning the exterior perimeter walls are

[1:41:08] longer. Um and they have a I believe a

[1:41:12] gable end on the to the roof on the side

[1:41:17] facing our lot. So you know the the

[1:41:20] visual perception of mass of that house

[1:41:22] is pretty much going to be identical uh

[1:41:25] to the visual perception of mass in our

[1:41:27] house. I think the point is actually

[1:41:29] moot. Um uh the the house at 2144 also

[1:41:34] sits very close almost upon the road and

[1:41:37] we're even with the variance that we

[1:41:39] have requested

[1:41:41] uh uh along Brighton Avenue. Um we still

[1:41:45] sit farther back than that house and

[1:41:47] there is uh you know going to be light

[1:41:51] uh entering there. Uh the question of

[1:41:53] light is is also interesting to me

[1:41:55] because right now we have a massive uh

[1:42:00] mature uh uh arbutus which we're going

[1:42:04] to lose if we build this house. I

[1:42:06] completely regret it. We had long

[1:42:08] conversations with the arborist about

[1:42:11] how it might be saved. Um and his advice

[1:42:15] was that uh it would be risky to try to

[1:42:19] do so. trying to save it would probably

[1:42:22] weaken it. And it's already lost two

[1:42:24] large limbs which have fallen on on our

[1:42:27] outuildings now. So, um it's going to go

[1:42:30] it blocks already an enormous amount of

[1:42:33] light in the afternoon from the west. Um

[1:42:37] when it goes, we can't grow anything

[1:42:40] under it. No vegetables, no grass,

[1:42:42] nothing. Um when it goes, Mr. Tin, I'm

[1:42:44] going to ask you just to kind of wrap it

[1:42:45] up. You know, come back to you for

[1:42:46] questions if there are any, but wrap it

[1:42:49] up. I think that yes there will be

[1:42:54] uh there there will be more light due to

[1:42:56] the loss of the arbutus. There will be

[1:42:58] less light due to the structure of the

[1:43:00] building. But with respect to the to

[1:43:02] shadows between buildings, they are

[1:43:04] reciprocal between buildings. We won't

[1:43:06] have morning light. They'll have less

[1:43:08] afternoon light. Um you know it's it's

[1:43:12] sort of equal. Thank you very much.

[1:43:15] Mr. Hamkin. Others wishing to speak

[1:43:18] either online or in person are welcome

[1:43:19] to come forward.

[1:43:25] I'm hearing mumbling but no hands.

[1:43:27] There's somebody coming forward. There

[1:43:29] we go.

[1:43:32] If you can come forward. Same process as

[1:43:34] before. Just the name and municipality

[1:43:36] of residents and uh just asking people

[1:43:38] to speak to the variances which is the

[1:43:40] the uh sideyard setback and

[1:43:43] heights. Welcome.

[1:43:46] Thank you. My name is Helen Richardson,

[1:43:49] although I'm commonly called Jake. So,

[1:43:51] you're all very welcome to call me that.

[1:43:53] Uh, my comments are extremely brief

[1:43:57] because you should have in front of you

[1:43:58] a full presentation of written letters,

[1:44:02] uh, some dimensional uh, notations and

[1:44:06] also some simulations of what the mass

[1:44:10] of this proposed building is going to

[1:44:13] look at.

[1:44:15] So, I've been a homeowner and a taxpayer

[1:44:17] obviously uh in Oak Bay since

[1:44:21] 1978. Uh Mitchell's right. There have

[1:44:25] been some uh some misinformation, some

[1:44:29] confusion,

[1:44:30] misconceptions, whatever. Uh in the

[1:44:34] immediate neighborhood regarding the

[1:44:35] application, but we have several people

[1:44:38] here tonight from the neighborhood and

[1:44:39] they can speak to you about that if they

[1:44:42] so wish.

[1:44:44] I need to say that I obviously would

[1:44:46] prefer not to have any trees lost and

[1:44:50] not to have any

[1:44:52] building because

[1:44:55] uh but there's nothing we can do about

[1:44:57] that. Mr. Eie tells us what to do on

[1:45:01] that. Okay. Now, Mitchell and I have

[1:45:05] been good neighbors for 20 years. We

[1:45:09] still have each other's house keys. and

[1:45:12] I thought the trust that that

[1:45:15] implies. Nonetheless, one day in April,

[1:45:18] Mitchell announced, "We are building and

[1:45:21] laid out drawings on my kitchen table."

[1:45:24] Seemingly a fate to

[1:45:26] complete. No notice. M. Richardson, I'm

[1:45:29] just going to ask in the interest of

[1:45:30] time if we can just speak to the varian.

[1:45:32] I am under three minutes. Oh, no. I just

[1:45:34] just for the interest of of just because

[1:45:35] we have a decision to make on the

[1:45:37] variances. The more you can speak to the

[1:45:38] variances themselves, the that more this

[1:45:39] helps us. Okay. Thank you. I'm sure

[1:45:41] you're familiar with the technicalities

[1:45:44] of this application which largely ignore

[1:45:46] the Oak Bay guidelines for infill

[1:45:49] housing. I have a big problem with that

[1:45:51] and certainly the spirit of it and uh to

[1:45:56] acknowledge uh Councelor Green, let us

[1:45:59] avoid any semblance of the sighting

[1:46:01] tragedy that was visited upon 2149

[1:46:05] Granite Street. Built as drawn, and this

[1:46:09] is a fact. Two, this twostory over

[1:46:13] height 1,800 square feet 1814 actually

[1:46:18] house will block significant light and

[1:46:20] air and completely obliterate the view

[1:46:24] from my living room windows. The view is

[1:46:27] of that abutist tree.

[1:46:31] It is sufficiently large that I don't

[1:46:34] even have any window coverings because I

[1:46:37] don't need it. I have the arbutus. Okay,

[1:46:40] you've seen the

[1:46:41] illustrations. I presume I can't imagine

[1:46:45] why my neighbors want to live that close

[1:46:46] to me.

[1:46:48] Besides, okay,

[1:46:52] now in closing, I guess my house is the

[1:46:57] ultimate downsize, and it's my

[1:46:59] affordable home. It costs me onethird of

[1:47:03] my income to maintain ownership of my

[1:47:07] 850 ft house on a 2400 square foot lot.

[1:47:13] Not sure that'll hold after this year's

[1:47:15] tax bill, but we'll see.

[1:47:18] This is very important. The streetscape

[1:47:20] of this portion of the Centennial Trail

[1:47:23] on the Brighton on the Brighton

[1:47:27] Greenway. This trail is enjoyed by

[1:47:29] walkers and runners including the school

[1:47:32] teams. Okay. Dogs, cyclists, garden

[1:47:36] gazers and liloos of all kinds and

[1:47:40] mobilities.

[1:47:42] Proincially, this does nothing to

[1:47:44] address density or

[1:47:46] affordability. It will simply devalue my

[1:47:49] house in dollar terms. And a good thing,

[1:47:52] it would give Oak Bay uh one unit for

[1:47:56] their density quotota. Okay. Please

[1:48:00] consider my request for improved

[1:48:02] sighting, which also precludes paving

[1:48:06] over Paradise for at least some of the

[1:48:08] parking.

[1:48:10] I bought this house 20 years ago,

[1:48:13] setting myself up to age in place. Now

[1:48:17] I'm over 80. I feel like I'm being

[1:48:20] evicted. All I want is to live out my

[1:48:23] days in peace in my small affordable

[1:48:27] home in this little slice of Oak

[1:48:30] Bay. Thank

[1:48:34] you very much, Miss Richardson. I think

[1:48:37] I saw a second hand popping up. Anybody

[1:48:39] else wish to come forward to speak?

[1:48:41] Please do.

[1:48:47] Welcome and municipality and then

[1:48:49] speaking to the variances. It's helpful

[1:48:51] sometimes if we have the upfront if you

[1:48:52] if you know if you're for or against the

[1:48:54] variances being requested. Okay. Uh my

[1:48:56] name is Steven. Uh I am a resident of

[1:48:59] Victoria uh on the Oak Bay board. Um uh

[1:49:04] I am currently against uh the

[1:49:07] application uh simply because of the

[1:49:10] size of the building and there was some

[1:49:14] question about whether this ADU is

[1:49:18] larger than the main house and I never

[1:49:20] did I didn't get a solid answer from

[1:49:22] that but according to the application

[1:49:24] the main house is 1400 something square

[1:49:27] feet and the ADU is

[1:49:30] 1,814 square ft which tells me it's

[1:49:33] larger than the main house.

[1:49:37] I might just turn that question to

[1:49:38] staff. Um or if you want to continue or

[1:49:40] finish your speaking, I can I can deal

[1:49:42] with No, that that's the main the main

[1:49:44] point uh I have. The the drawings do

[1:49:48] seem to indicate that the but I'm not

[1:49:49] sure if that's the way that the old

[1:49:51] house is measured uh that they include

[1:49:53] the the total size is including a

[1:49:54] basement or something. But Mr. green

[1:49:56] then the the supplied drawings do show

[1:49:59] and my apologies I read out the wrong

[1:50:00] number that the I I read the existing

[1:50:02] house not the new house exactly yeah Mr.

[1:50:06] Can you just confirm that? I mean, sure.

[1:50:08] Yeah. Through your worship. Yeah. We

[1:50:10] believe the the gross flow area for the

[1:50:12] existing single family dwelling is just

[1:50:14] over 272 m and the ADU is uh just over

[1:50:20] 168 square meters.

[1:50:23] So, but that's not what the application

[1:50:24] says. That's not what the actual drawing

[1:50:26] says. So, why don't you continue your

[1:50:28] comments and I may just turn to the to

[1:50:30] the applicant afterwards and and uh get

[1:50:32] that clarification for sure. Okay.

[1:50:35] Um so when I reviewed uh that

[1:50:39] application that's uh one of the issues

[1:50:42] I saw with the application. The second

[1:50:44] issue uh was the uh building height

[1:50:48] which I believe was corrected. Uh the

[1:50:52] uh building height was measured from the

[1:50:56] you can direct your question at me and I

[1:50:58] can the main floor uh elevation and not

[1:51:02] the uh um average grade

[1:51:05] elevation. So there was a discrepancy in

[1:51:08] in that

[1:51:09] measurement. Uh and the there was one

[1:51:13] comment made that the uh setbacks uh on

[1:51:17] the exterior lot line

[1:51:22] uh it's quite a quite a significant

[1:51:25] intrusion into the exterior lot line and

[1:51:29] the

[1:51:30] uh

[1:51:31] that uh intrusion into the exterior lot

[1:51:35] line causes a lot more light to be

[1:51:38] blocked from the neighboring house, the

[1:51:41] 2144. So, u the house itself looks

[1:51:44] fantastic. It looks like a really nice,

[1:51:47] attractive house. It does suit the

[1:51:49] neighborhood. Uh I think moving that

[1:51:52] house further away from uh

[1:51:55] 2144 will uh balance the streetscape out

[1:52:00] and but it would also uh provide uh or

[1:52:03] help keep some of the light and some of

[1:52:04] the view uh that 2144 has. And I'm not

[1:52:08] sure if you've got uh uh some of that

[1:52:10] imagery that was created uh to support

[1:52:13] that.

[1:52:15] Thank you. I think some may have had it

[1:52:17] circulated but not all. So we should

[1:52:18] include that in the in the package. We

[1:52:19] don't want people having mixed mixed

[1:52:21] information. But I will take your

[1:52:22] questions to staff this time. So if if

[1:52:25] the main house is the size that you say

[1:52:27] and it is larger then the calculation

[1:52:30] for uh the uh so I don't know the name

[1:52:35] of it but it's the 6 is the allowable

[1:52:38] percentage or the allowable point uh of

[1:52:41] the um lot coverage. So that means if

[1:52:45] the main house is larger then they've

[1:52:48] miscalculated how much ratio there

[1:52:51] actually is how much uh total ratio

[1:52:53] there actually. Okay. I'm happy to put

[1:52:55] that question to staff as you anybody

[1:52:57] else wishes to come forward. I'll I'll

[1:52:58] turn and turn that question over to to

[1:53:00] staff or the applicant. Um perhaps you

[1:53:03] can just we can just confirm the uh

[1:53:04] those ratios that the ADU is smaller and

[1:53:07] therefore those ratios apply. I just

[1:53:09] want to make sure we're we're not

[1:53:10] missing something. I think if we have to

[1:53:11] get that clarified before we deal with

[1:53:13] this, that's okay to do. Mr. Green.

[1:53:17] Well, in terms of gross floor area, in

[1:53:19] terms of square footage, then the single

[1:53:21] family dwelling is bigger than the

[1:53:24] ADU. If you take an F, but uh then the F

[1:53:29] of the ADU will be bigger than the

[1:53:31] single family dwelling, but that's

[1:53:33] because there is a significant exemption

[1:53:35] in relation to basement for an existing

[1:53:37] single family dwelling.

[1:53:39] So that's that's the answer is that the

[1:53:41] the square footage includes the basement

[1:53:44] um because it includes that as as part

[1:53:46] of its the comparison for size but not

[1:53:48] and the floor area ratio. Yeah. So from

[1:53:51] staff's perspective our interpretation

[1:53:52] of the definition of excessive dwelling

[1:53:54] unit when it says that the ADU must be

[1:53:56] smaller than the principal building

[1:53:58] we're applying that in terms of gross

[1:54:00] floor area the ADU must be smaller than

[1:54:03] the single family dwelling. We're not

[1:54:05] we're comparing apples with apples

[1:54:07] rather than apples with orange. we

[1:54:09] started to compare areas of a single

[1:54:12] family dwelling that are exempted from

[1:54:14] floor rate ratio i.e. basement or

[1:54:16] covered landings and things like that.

[1:54:18] Okay, thank you for that clarification.

[1:54:20] That's helpful. There was just also make

[1:54:23] sure I didn't miss anything else in

[1:54:24] terms of those

[1:54:25] questions. Uh I think the height yes

[1:54:29] height is measured from average grade

[1:54:31] rather than from the main floor

[1:54:33] elevation. So yes, today we did a uh we

[1:54:37] triple checked the plans. So which led

[1:54:39] to uh yeah some discussions with the

[1:54:41] applicants as well as internally and we

[1:54:44] confirmed that the as I mentioned at the

[1:54:46] start of my presentation that the actual

[1:54:47] building height has decreased. However,

[1:54:50] the roof height is remains the same.

[1:54:53] That's in the the staff report and the

[1:54:55] draft permit. Thank you for that

[1:54:56] clarification. Welcome

[1:55:00] John Armitage. Uh I live on Victoria

[1:55:02] Avenue. Um I know both of the

[1:55:06] u parties to this current debate quite

[1:55:10] well. Um I sent in a submission this

[1:55:13] afternoon, so I'm I was after the um the

[1:55:16] deadline, so begging your indulgence. I

[1:55:19] would like to take 20 seconds to read

[1:55:21] not all of my letter, but bits of it.

[1:55:26] Um 1311 Victoria Avenue is located on a

[1:55:29] charming portion of the

[1:55:32] pedestrianoriented Brighton Avenue

[1:55:34] streetscape and will be very close to

[1:55:36] the original carriage house next door.

[1:55:39] Maybe it's a gate house. Carriage

[1:55:41] house. This dwelling is as charming and

[1:55:44] non-conforming as anywhere in Oak Bay.

[1:55:47] It may not be as small as a certain

[1:55:49] house in Upland border, but it must be

[1:55:53] close.

[1:55:55] Um, so it makes a compelling case for a

[1:55:58] flexible appro approach to planning

[1:56:00] constraints. What that means is just use

[1:56:03] the

[1:56:04] bylaw as guides, not

[1:56:07] rigid because the beauty of Jake's house

[1:56:11] is how much it doesn't

[1:56:13] conform. However, the important

[1:56:16] relationship between the two has not

[1:56:17] been presented for

[1:56:19] evaluation and is likely to be awkward

[1:56:22] and overbearing.

[1:56:24] I might be proven wrong, but we we we

[1:56:26] can't tell from what's been

[1:56:29] submitted. The exterior sideyard setback

[1:56:31] variance is contextually appropriate.

[1:56:34] I.e.,

[1:56:36] uh it's not as bad as Jake's house.

[1:56:38] That's fine. In fact, any house there

[1:56:40] should build right up to the property

[1:56:41] line, not away from it. So, that's fine.

[1:56:45] It can be supported as is. It could even

[1:56:47] be alleviated by 230 mm by reducing the

[1:56:50] north side set back to 1.5. In other

[1:56:53] words, there's a little bit of space at

[1:56:55] the northeast corner of the subject

[1:56:56] property where if you really were

[1:56:59] worried about

[1:57:00] it. The two height variances, however,

[1:57:04] will likely create a problematic and

[1:57:05] unbalanced relationship to 2144 Brighton

[1:57:08] Avenue. The proposed design is very

[1:57:10] complex and is predicated on full height

[1:57:13] upper floor walls throughout.

[1:57:16] However, a Carl Lassenesque cottage

[1:57:20] design such as this, and man, am I glad

[1:57:24] to see a design this is just delightful.

[1:57:27] And if they follow through with a Carl

[1:57:28] Lassen color scheme,

[1:57:30] yay. Um, that can go in the record. Yay.

[1:57:35] um such as this is ideally suited to a

[1:57:38] more picturesque composition with

[1:57:40] variations in wall height that adjust to

[1:57:42] circumstances and reduce its height and

[1:57:44] massing adjacent to 2144 Brighton. In

[1:57:47] other words, it could be sculpted a bit

[1:57:50] more and simplified which I think would

[1:57:52] help it. Terms of design DNA a hip roof

[1:57:55] on a car len type cottage is

[1:57:58] wrong. Attached or I attached some

[1:58:01] sketches of what that might be. Uh I

[1:58:02] believe the proposed design is almost

[1:58:04] there but should be sent back for

[1:58:06] reconsideration of height and massing

[1:58:09] including a study of the relationship to

[1:58:11] the neighboring carriage

[1:58:13] house. And lastly, I bemoan the loss of

[1:58:16] the arbutus.

[1:58:18] The 30,000 square uh 30,000 foot view of

[1:58:21] this project is we're going to see

[1:58:23] dozens and dozens like this in the

[1:58:25] future where magnificent community

[1:58:28] assets are muscled out of the

[1:58:30] way. In this case, the applicant is

[1:58:34] limiting the damage as much as

[1:58:37] possible. Um too bad it's nabas because

[1:58:39] they they never get replaced. They're

[1:58:41] too hard to propagate.

[1:58:44] [Music]

[1:58:46] Um, and fortunat perhaps fortunately,

[1:58:50] the slope of the land might

[1:58:53] mitigate some of the effects of the

[1:58:56] proposed house towards Jake's house, but

[1:59:00] I don't know. We don't we don't see that

[1:59:03] study. That study would all it would

[1:59:05] need to be is a composite elevation of

[1:59:08] exist of the two existing houses with

[1:59:09] the new one in between with the slope of

[1:59:11] the land.

[1:59:13] Um and last thing um I'd like to say is

[1:59:19] the reference has been made to oh sorry

[1:59:23] such an elevation would reveal that

[1:59:25] regardless of floor areas the existing

[1:59:27] house would clearly be the main house

[1:59:31] because it's much longer. It would

[1:59:33] clearly look much larger than the other

[1:59:35] one. On the subject of its proximity to

[1:59:38] the property line and I am going to wrap

[1:59:39] up very very quickly. This is more like

[1:59:43] two sideyard

[1:59:46] setbacks. It's a bit of an anomaly that

[1:59:48] one of these setbacks is a rear yard

[1:59:51] setback and there are different

[1:59:54] requirements applied for ADUs than

[1:59:57] principal um principal dwellings. If it

[2:00:01] were a sideyard setback with a principal

[2:00:03] principal dwelling like we see

[2:00:04] everywhere, yes, there'd only be a five

[2:00:06] foot setback and then there'd be another

[2:00:08] five feet at the second story.

[2:00:11] And that massing provision that's been

[2:00:14] in our bylaws for a long time to survive

[2:00:16] many variations is intended to control

[2:00:19] the massing and protect adjacent

[2:00:21] properties uh view and outlooks. So um

[2:00:26] you can't strictly speaking apply that

[2:00:28] here but that's the principle that

[2:00:30] applies here. So we have a situation

[2:00:32] like that normally but this time we have

[2:00:36] this. Thank you.

[2:00:38] Happy to take any questions if I wasn't

[2:00:41] here.

[2:00:42] Thank you. Does anybody else wish to

[2:00:44] speak to us on this matter? Yeah, please

[2:00:47] come forward.

[2:00:55] Good evening. Uh my name is Doug Laura

[2:00:58] Spletch and I'm a resident of Oak Bay

[2:01:00] for 41 years. Welcome. And uh I'm here

[2:01:02] to support both parties because the

[2:01:06] reality is that with the way the um the

[2:01:09] law has changed this house can be built.

[2:01:13] The problem is for Jake and the size and

[2:01:16] I know Mitchell spoke about the massing

[2:01:19] but the there has to be a a sort of

[2:01:23] compromise here and I heard that word at

[2:01:24] the beginning from another individual

[2:01:26] and I think the compromise needs to be

[2:01:28] dealt with with the variances and I

[2:01:30] think there's some confusion on numbers

[2:01:32] both in the planning department and uh

[2:01:35] the architect etc and I think it needs

[2:01:37] to go back and be revisited

[2:01:41] uh but I believe a compromise guys can

[2:01:42] solve the situation and we can live

[2:01:45] happily ever after. Thank you.

[2:01:49] Thank

[2:01:51] you, Mr. B. Thank you, mayor. Um I'd

[2:01:55] like to close the loop on a question

[2:01:57] from the very start. Uh one of the

[2:01:59] councils asked about the proposed

[2:02:00] regulation in February. I just want to

[2:02:03] clarify that um under the existing um

[2:02:07] regulations for ADUs for accessory

[2:02:09] dwelling units, two stories is in bylaw.

[2:02:11] It's part of our program. Uh secondly,

[2:02:14] there were some changes in the works.

[2:02:15] There are changes in the works that

[2:02:16] haven't been implemented yet. And those

[2:02:18] height limits for the roof height and

[2:02:20] and the building height um would would

[2:02:24] exceed or would be about what is uh that

[2:02:27] is what what is proposed. So when the uh

[2:02:30] designer was commenting on they were

[2:02:32] anticipating these changes, uh I just

[2:02:34] wanted to clarify in response to the

[2:02:35] question that is indeed that those would

[2:02:37] be higher height limits. So um that's my

[2:02:40] response to that question. Thank you.

[2:02:42] Thank you Mr. B. That helps.

[2:02:44] Uh you can well let me just go for

[2:02:46] continue the the any other members of

[2:02:48] the public who wish to address

[2:02:51] council. Seeing people scrimming in our

[2:02:53] uncomfortable seats and no hands raised.

[2:02:54] I think I'm ready to bring it back to

[2:02:56] the table here. Nope. We have one person

[2:02:58] who wishes to come forward and address

[2:02:59] council. Please come

[2:03:02] forward. Speaking to the variances.

[2:03:06] I'm going to speak to the general idea

[2:03:07] of the variances and these laneway

[2:03:09] so-called houses. And I'm just learning

[2:03:13] a lot tonight. And I've been learning

[2:03:14] because I've been walking around and

[2:03:15] seeing some of these what were supposed

[2:03:17] to be laneweed cottages turning into

[2:03:19] these really giant houses in people's

[2:03:21] backyards. And I'm concerned that if you

[2:03:23] start approving all of these variances

[2:03:25] of height and setback that it's going to

[2:03:29] create a precedent and I think these

[2:03:32] requirement or this the ability to have

[2:03:35] these big backyard houses now is really

[2:03:38] concerning. But I think we need to do

[2:03:40] not create precedences that allow so

[2:03:43] many variances that things like light

[2:03:45] don't get into people's backyard and

[2:03:47] that we're ruining the people that are

[2:03:49] living around that. So if you can figure

[2:03:51] out a way to, you know, we have to do

[2:03:54] what we have to do, but at the same

[2:03:56] time, I'm getting increasingly concerned

[2:03:58] when I see some of these monster laneway

[2:04:00] cottages that we were kind of excited

[2:04:02] about um in people's backyards. So I I

[2:04:06] mean I don't know enough about I would I

[2:04:08] would say please don't accept do do what

[2:04:11] people are suggesting is to try to make

[2:04:13] it work but but not in a way that is so

[2:04:16] disruptive on the people and their light

[2:04:18] and their ability to live their life out

[2:04:21] comfortably in their house. Thank you.

[2:04:26] Anybody else wish to

[2:04:30] speak? Please come forward.

[2:04:38] Hello. My name

[2:04:40] is There you go. There we go. Hi.

[2:04:42] Welcome Webb. Uh, and I'm a homeowner in

[2:04:45] Oak Bay. I'm actually the neighbor um to

[2:04:49] the other side of both Jake and

[2:04:51] Mitchell. Um, and I oppose this variance

[2:04:55] on the basis of the that the mass of the

[2:04:57] ADU is too large. Um it seems a little

[2:05:00] unnecessary to have two stories for a

[2:05:03] secondary um unit that's going to and I

[2:05:07] support intergenerational

[2:05:09] um housing and having that option, but

[2:05:11] the secondary unit would be for my

[2:05:14] understanding would be for Mitchell and

[2:05:15] his wife and the primary unit would be

[2:05:17] for his children. Um, and it just seems

[2:05:20] excessive and uh too much change and too

[2:05:24] much impediment on Jake's view of her

[2:05:27] living room and her main living area, a

[2:05:29] loss of light and a loss of um air space

[2:05:32] that she enjoys. So, thank you for

[2:05:36] speaking, Miss

[2:05:37] Web. Uh, sorry, I don't want to give the

[2:05:40] impression that we don't want to hear

[2:05:41] from you. So, if there's anybody else

[2:05:42] who wishes to come forward, please do so

[2:05:43] at this

[2:05:45] time. I don't see anybody else. So, I'm

[2:05:47] going to bring us back to the council

[2:05:49] table. Uh, councelor Bracefit, you had a

[2:05:51] question. Um, yeah, just um through you

[2:05:53] to staff um in regards to accessory

[2:05:56] dwelling units being allowed to be two

[2:05:57] stories. Um, and a question I think from

[2:06:00] Mr. Armitage or a point from Mr.

[2:06:02] Armitage. Um, why is there we don't have

[2:06:05] any concession in there to have a five

[2:06:06] foot setback like we do on a on a single

[2:06:10] family dwelling? Is that correct? on the

[2:06:12] second

[2:06:13] story or it's 5 foot. Yeah, it's 5 foot.

[2:06:16] Um, sure to give it to Mr. Green, but at

[2:06:19] this point that isn't uh in place yet.

[2:06:21] And the rear yard. Yeah, through your

[2:06:22] worship. Yeah, there is no second

[2:06:24] service setback like there is with a

[2:06:26] principal building on a on a on a

[2:06:28] accessory dwelling unit. If that answers

[2:06:30] your question.

[2:06:33] Thank

[2:06:35] you. Any other questions? If not, oh,

[2:06:38] councelor Green Watson and then

[2:06:39] Appleton.

[2:06:41] Thank you. And through you to Mr. Green,

[2:06:44] just for the information of the public,

[2:06:46] can you um can you explain? Oh, you

[2:06:50] know, I just had it and then it it went

[2:06:52] um I'm sorry. I I I'll think about it

[2:06:54] and come back. Thank you. Here's Council

[2:06:56] Watson.

[2:06:58] Yes. Thank you. This may actually be a

[2:07:01] question for you, Mayor Murdoch. Um, as

[2:07:04] we all know, certainly the seven of us

[2:07:06] and maybe others in the in the in the

[2:07:09] chambers right now, we've been recently

[2:07:11] criticized quite openly by the housing

[2:07:13] advisor about how we consider

[2:07:15] applications like this. So, I just like

[2:07:17] you to clarify what it is we are allowed

[2:07:21] to focus our attention to when this

[2:07:23] comes before us. the public have been

[2:07:25] talking about things beyond the scope of

[2:07:27] the variances uh which are context to

[2:07:30] the whole situation and I'm struggling

[2:07:32] with how I separate the context from the

[2:07:35] very specific request. So I I'm really

[2:07:37] looking for some guidance since James

[2:07:39] Ridge has been quite harsh in his

[2:07:42] judgment of us as a decision-making

[2:07:44] body. Thank you.

[2:07:46] Sure. Thank you, Council Watson. I can

[2:07:48] only share my opinion. Um I did read his

[2:07:51] comments in that report. Uh I was

[2:07:53] actually queried about it when I was

[2:07:54] doing a media piece with on CFAX. Um

[2:07:58] I'll try and remember what exactly what

[2:07:59] I said there. I can't exactly but my my

[2:08:02] take of it is that I think we have and

[2:08:04] I've asked people to speak to the

[2:08:05] variance as much as possible. But my

[2:08:08] read of the legislation is that we are

[2:08:10] required to have public input on

[2:08:12] variances. Um, and obviously the context

[2:08:15] of the ask is important because we're

[2:08:17] often adjudicating the reasonleness of

[2:08:20] the of the ask for variance from the

[2:08:22] standard bylaws. So I think it's helpful

[2:08:24] for us to understand the why things were

[2:08:26] done and I think also the potential

[2:08:28] impact of the uh ask for variances on

[2:08:32] the community. Um I think we uh I think

[2:08:36] the the question about you know getting

[2:08:38] spinning into sort of broader policy

[2:08:40] questions is gets outside of that realm

[2:08:43] but I think uh I would also say that in

[2:08:46] my opinion um we are changing our zoning

[2:08:50] and bylaws. We've iterated them a couple

[2:08:52] of times. We're still in that process

[2:08:55] and I would generally feel like these uh

[2:08:58] these are informative as we have these

[2:09:00] applications coming forward under the

[2:09:01] new rules. I personally don't mind

[2:09:04] leaving a bit of latitude because I

[2:09:05] think we're we're also trying to

[2:09:07] understand what the impacts of the

[2:09:08] policies are, right? We we have guidance

[2:09:12] and input um in the principles and we

[2:09:14] look at some studies, but until you see

[2:09:16] some of these coming through, it's hard

[2:09:17] to know whether they're meeting the

[2:09:18] expectations of ourselves in the

[2:09:20] community. So, that's where I'll leave

[2:09:21] it. I I I think there's at the end of

[2:09:24] the day, we are we have to consider and

[2:09:26] speak to the variance, not to the

[2:09:28] broader social issues or other things.

[2:09:30] Uh so I think that's very important from

[2:09:31] our perspective but I tend to think that

[2:09:33] it's helpful for us to understand where

[2:09:35] people are how other people are viewing

[2:09:36] these things and and asking the the

[2:09:38] questions of why is not an unreasonable

[2:09:40] question. Does that help?

[2:09:44] Okay. I had councelor Green you remember

[2:09:47] what you were going to say? Okay.

[2:09:48] Welcome. Welcome. Thank you for Thank

[2:09:50] you for um coming back to me and through

[2:09:53] you to Mr. Green. Mr. green for the

[2:09:55] benefit of the general public in plain

[2:09:58] language. Could you explain what governs

[2:10:00] the size of an ADU on a lot? Um, I think

[2:10:05] that's I think that's information that

[2:10:07] people need to understand. What are the

[2:10:09] the the guidelines and what are the

[2:10:11] restrictions? Thank you, Mr. Green.

[2:10:17] Um well the definition of a accessory

[2:10:19] dwelling unit um basically says that um

[2:10:23] it must be located in a building smaller

[2:10:25] than a principal building located on the

[2:10:27] same lot. Obviously there are also other

[2:10:30] height regulations or setback

[2:10:32] regulations. Um there is also total lot

[2:10:35] coverage as well as flow area ratio

[2:10:37] regulations that apply to the placement

[2:10:39] of au on on a

[2:10:42] property. Does that answer your

[2:10:44] question?

[2:10:46] Yeah, I just I think I'm responding to

[2:10:48] the comments that it's too big and I

[2:10:50] just wanted to make sure the public

[2:10:51] understood how the how the size and

[2:10:53] massing are estimated or calculated.

[2:10:56] Thank you. Yes. So there's no maximum

[2:10:59] size

[2:11:01] um essential yeah an access to a

[2:11:03] dwelling unit under the definition u

[2:11:06] that in relation to when that new

[2:11:08] definition was uh placed in the bylaw by

[2:11:11] council last June then that is the

[2:11:13] definition that it must still must be

[2:11:15] small there is no maximum size of an ADU

[2:11:17] in relation to square footage uh or um

[2:11:21] yeah things like that it's just needs to

[2:11:23] be smaller than the principal building

[2:11:24] that is located on the same lot. Thank

[2:11:27] you.

[2:11:30] Thank you, worship. So, through you two

[2:11:32] staff, I'm going to be pedantic because

[2:11:33] Mr. Mr. Bull just said this, but for the

[2:11:35] purpose of of of uh for the public's

[2:11:38] edification, uh this uh these variances

[2:11:42] are based on essentially for once for

[2:11:44] all intents and purposes the first

[2:11:46] iteration of our small scale multi-unit

[2:11:48] infill housing that has recently been uh

[2:11:51] reviewed and amended by council. So just

[2:11:53] for the public's clarity, uh the

[2:11:56] variance that is specified here is

[2:11:58] because of the current standard of

[2:12:00] bylaw, but in the revised bylaw, this

[2:12:02] height would not constitute a variance.

[2:12:05] Is that correct,

[2:12:07] Mr. B?

[2:12:12] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, that's

[2:12:14] correct. In the proposed regulations.

[2:12:16] Thank you.

[2:12:18] Thank

[2:12:19] you.

[2:12:20] Um I'm just going to ask one I'm going

[2:12:23] to ask the applicant to come forward and

[2:12:25] I have one question and that's just a

[2:12:27] little bit about recognizing this. If I

[2:12:29] can get the applicant to come forward

[2:12:31] I'm I'm going to just I have one

[2:12:32] question and that's just the one

[2:12:34] remaining is that is the um um the shape

[2:12:38] of the building that we had questions

[2:12:40] about setbacks and heights and things.

[2:12:43] Um it's hard not to notice the lot is a

[2:12:45] bit of a uh it's a diminishing size

[2:12:47] towards the back and perhaps could you

[2:12:49] speak to um what drove sort of the shape

[2:12:53] of the house was is it is it the width

[2:12:55] is it these other aspects I'm just

[2:12:57] because there is that the house is you

[2:12:59] know it is it is a height that's being

[2:13:01] asked for and I think it might be

[2:13:02] helpful to understand the the the why

[2:13:04] it's the shape it is

[2:13:06] um in the context of that lot

[2:13:10] I I guess the shape it is is because um

[2:13:14] we want it to

[2:13:16] be parallel to the rear property line

[2:13:20] and I guess parallel to the because it's

[2:13:22] the north property line that has a

[2:13:24] slight angle to it and so we had we have

[2:13:26] a bit more space on on the north side

[2:13:28] with just a little bit is f as you go

[2:13:31] further left you can see that the

[2:13:33] setback gets a little bit greater so

[2:13:35] we're just keeping it parallel to the

[2:13:36] street and parallel to the rear property

[2:13:39] time.

[2:13:42] Thank you for that. Um, I don't see any

[2:13:45] other questions, so I'm going to turn to

[2:13:46] members of council. We can certainly get

[2:13:47] a motion to receive the report at this

[2:13:49] point to start with. Moved and seconded.

[2:13:50] There's a debate receipt. All those in

[2:13:52] favor? Any opposed? None opposed? Um,

[2:13:55] seeking a

[2:13:57] motion. Councelor Smart. I'll move the

[2:14:00] staff staff recommendation.

[2:14:02] Second it. Just for clarification, staff

[2:14:04] recommendation uh here is that the DVP

[2:14:08] uh be development variance permit,

[2:14:09] sorry, be approved so we're clear about

[2:14:11] what we're speaking to. Go ahead,

[2:14:13] councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. Um

[2:14:15] speaking just directly to the variances

[2:14:17] that are in front of us uh today um with

[2:14:19] regards to the height um I've already

[2:14:22] spoken in in favor of the current um um

[2:14:26] height um increases that we looked at

[2:14:28] around this um council table a few

[2:14:31] months ago. Um, so allowing accessory

[2:14:35] dwelling units to have modest heights

[2:14:37] such as this with I really appreciate

[2:14:39] the 8ft ceilings. Um, as well as an

[2:14:41] attention to detail with creating a a

[2:14:43] pleasant massing at the top of the roof

[2:14:45] form while keeping the height low. Um,

[2:14:48] and then with regards to the setbacks,

[2:14:50] they seem quite reasonable um to me

[2:14:52] because they demonstrate a typical

[2:14:53] sideyard setback situation while also

[2:14:56] prioritizing saving the trees. So just

[2:14:59] speaking directly to the two variances

[2:15:01] at the table, I do find the variances

[2:15:04] reasonable.

[2:15:06] You does anybody else wish to speak to

[2:15:08] the Go ahead, councelor Appleton. Thank

[2:15:11] you, worship. So yeah, speaking in favor

[2:15:13] of the the variances, uh most primarily

[2:15:16] because as I just confirmed with staff,

[2:15:19] the proposed revisions to small-cale

[2:15:22] multi-unit uh specifications that

[2:15:25] council has recently debated would

[2:15:28] accommodate this height. So I think that

[2:15:30] we've had a recent conversation where

[2:15:32] we've reviewed what we believe to be

[2:15:34] acceptable heights and have revised the

[2:15:37] current standard in order to accommodate

[2:15:39] that. And I think that how that

[2:15:41] manifests itself in this particular

[2:15:44] building is a is a two-story building

[2:15:46] that is uh I guess I would say complete

[2:15:49] in its floor plan. Uh you know a a home

[2:15:52] that really can be used uh again either

[2:15:56] for downsizing and a multigenerational

[2:15:59] use or for other uses as well. It's sort

[2:16:01] of a a complete structure with a couple

[2:16:03] of bedrooms and some additional space.

[2:16:06] So it it it appeals to a number of

[2:16:08] different occupants and has that has

[2:16:11] that additional space. So and it's

[2:16:14] extremely important to be looking at the

[2:16:17] variances uh in well I guess interior

[2:16:20] setback in order to protect the trees

[2:16:23] and and the loss of the arbutus is is

[2:16:25] very regrettable and I very much

[2:16:27] sympathize with that. Um doing what we

[2:16:29] can to conserve the remaining trees is

[2:16:32] also really really critical. So there's

[2:16:34] no doubt that small-cale multi-unit

[2:16:37] housing on the lots the in Oak Bay that

[2:16:39] that vary a lot in size and dimensions

[2:16:42] and just the nature of how they're laid

[2:16:44] out is always going to be challenging

[2:16:46] and this is uh there are some things

[2:16:49] which stand uh outside of the ideal

[2:16:52] here. I think on based on on all balance

[2:16:54] of factors and on merits I'm I'm

[2:16:56] interested in supporting. Thank you.

[2:16:59] Thank you councelor Appleton. Councelor

[2:17:01] Briew. Um, thanks very much, Mayor. Um,

[2:17:04] and thanks for the comments that we've

[2:17:05] heard so far around the table. Um, I'm

[2:17:08] really struggling with this one because

[2:17:09] I I I do realize that, um, when the

[2:17:12] revised bylaw comes back that the height

[2:17:15] will fit in with this. Um, I I I think

[2:17:18] the design of this house is beautiful. I

[2:17:20] think that, um, Mr. Collins, you've done

[2:17:22] a wonderful job of the design of this

[2:17:23] house. Um, I I think to to to my

[2:17:27] property and and my house is 820 ft. I'm

[2:17:30] in trouble when I want to make a when I

[2:17:32] want to build a secondary or an an ADU

[2:17:35] because I'm going to have to build it at

[2:17:36] like 800 square feet which is going to

[2:17:38] be really teeny. But anyhow, um I um so

[2:17:42] I think that the design of this house is

[2:17:43] beautiful. Um I understand that the

[2:17:45] height um would will in the future um be

[2:17:50] acceptable. What I struggle with is the

[2:17:52] positioning of of this h of this

[2:17:55] accessory dwelling unit so close to the

[2:17:57] house at 2144 Brighton. Um, and that's

[2:17:59] where I really struggle. I I I

[2:18:01] understand that this this house um will

[2:18:05] probably get built and it's great that

[2:18:06] we're going to have um a house that's

[2:18:08] there for intergenerational use,

[2:18:10] intergenerational living. Um, I wish

[2:18:12] that the house could move just a little

[2:18:15] bit closer to the to the main house. And

[2:18:17] I understand that that might that might

[2:18:20] take another tree out, but I think for

[2:18:22] the sake of of of the context of how

[2:18:26] this house is going to look on the

[2:18:27] street and how um how it affects the

[2:18:31] neighbor the surrounding neighbors, it

[2:18:33] would it would almost be worth moving

[2:18:36] it, you know, a 10 ft closer in so that

[2:18:40] that it gives a little bit more space

[2:18:42] between 2144 and this accessory

[2:18:45] dwelling.

[2:18:46] So, I I am really struggling with this,

[2:18:49] but I I my I'm leaning towards um voting

[2:18:51] against um this um this proposal because

[2:18:55] I I do think that it could come back in

[2:18:58] a in a better position on the lot, but I

[2:19:00] do love the look of the house. Thank

[2:19:02] you.

[2:19:05] Thank you, Councelor Braithweight.

[2:19:06] Council,

[2:19:08] thank you and thanks to everybody who

[2:19:10] spoke. Um there are two compelling

[2:19:13] stories here um from each of the the

[2:19:16] parties. Um one is about

[2:19:18] intergenerational living and the need

[2:19:20] for that and I'm very sensitive to that

[2:19:22] myself. The other is the concern about

[2:19:26] the interference with the existing home

[2:19:29] and the owner who has lived there for

[2:19:30] many many decades. Um this is a really

[2:19:33] difficult one but the reality is that in

[2:19:36] June if if all goes well this would not

[2:19:39] have come to council at all because

[2:19:41] there would not be any variances

[2:19:43] required. Um this would have no no sorry

[2:19:49] um but anyway what I'd like to say is

[2:19:52] that they are two compelling stories. I

[2:19:55] am also struggling with it. Um and I I

[2:19:58] would like to hear the rest of my

[2:19:59] colleagues before I make a final vote.

[2:20:01] Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Green,

[2:20:04] Councelor Watson, and then Patterson.

[2:20:08] Um, perhaps maybe what I'm going to say

[2:20:10] are really just more observations about

[2:20:12] the situation we are in at the moment.

[2:20:15] Um uh with respect to the variances

[2:20:18] themselves, I would say that um they

[2:20:21] aren't they aren't huge, but um I have

[2:20:25] argued previously with respect to a

[2:20:28] request that we're really just setting

[2:20:30] up our framework and trying to evaluate

[2:20:33] it as we go along. And what we're

[2:20:36] hearing is that some of the implications

[2:20:39] of those decisions we've made um what

[2:20:42] they're already having. I I would say

[2:20:44] it's probably not fair to refer to the

[2:20:47] bylaw we might adopt the one that we've

[2:20:50] sent away for review because that

[2:20:52] actually isn't the law right now in Oak

[2:20:54] Bay. And whether it will or not be the

[2:20:56] law, we'll only know when it comes back

[2:20:59] for discussion and decision. But what

[2:21:01] I've heard from um the public

[2:21:03] participating in this is that um well

[2:21:07] certainly from the architect is that

[2:21:10] some of what is actually contextual

[2:21:12] relates to the fact that this is a

[2:21:14] laneway and we've designed a bylaw that

[2:21:18] considers this sideline as something

[2:21:21] different than what it's perceived of in

[2:21:23] the street. And that's certainly an

[2:21:25] issue that we probably we may not have

[2:21:27] considered. I know I didn't think about

[2:21:29] that actively when we were discussing

[2:21:31] our framework before and I think that's

[2:21:33] an important consideration that may need

[2:21:36] a further looking at.

[2:21:38] Um and I and I also think that what is

[2:21:42] being asked for in the community is just

[2:21:46] um as somebody well put it really quite

[2:21:49] nicely is just sort of some kind of um

[2:21:52] collaborative approach or or um working

[2:21:55] together to achieve an outcome in the in

[2:21:58] the form of this building that wouldn't

[2:22:00] necess that wouldn't require these

[2:22:02] variances and white address some other

[2:22:04] concerns. So, I'm really struggling in

[2:22:07] permitting or and in voting to approve

[2:22:10] variances when I think there might still

[2:22:12] be a better outcome um if we say no to

[2:22:16] them and then the designer, the owner

[2:22:19] have to go away and think about how they

[2:22:21] would realize this this ADU on this

[2:22:23] particular piece of property. Um, and

[2:22:28] yeah, I think that's all I want to say

[2:22:29] at the moment. I'm not I'm not entirely

[2:22:31] sure how I'm going to vote at the

[2:22:32] moment, but I am really torn about the

[2:22:35] whole situation that we find ourselves

[2:22:37] in as we're in such early days about

[2:22:39] figuring out how we how we create and

[2:22:41] maintain beauty and um uh and a a some

[2:22:48] kind of coherence I think to our to our

[2:22:50] our streetscapes while

[2:22:53] permitting wonderful new homes. like I

[2:22:56] don't think this thing is too large

[2:22:58] necessarily. Um I think it makes a

[2:23:01] lovely uh additional living unit in our

[2:23:04] community, but there are there are

[2:23:06] issues at large that will never be

[2:23:08] addressed if we approve these variances

[2:23:10] tonight.

[2:23:12] Thank you, Councelor Watson. Councelor

[2:23:13] Patterson.

[2:23:15] Yes. Thank you, Mayor. And um I share

[2:23:18] some of Councelor Watson's concerns. I

[2:23:20] realize that

[2:23:22] uh when we when we look at at some of

[2:23:25] what we have uh decided um as a council

[2:23:29] we would um accept as changes to the

[2:23:32] bylaw um then and looking at this

[2:23:35] this kind of meets meets those those

[2:23:38] needs if it comes back and is approved.

[2:23:43] But um uh it it is it is very difficult

[2:23:47] as we're going through this process

[2:23:49] because

[2:23:51] um what we are looking at in in adopting

[2:23:54] some of these new standards is really

[2:23:57] based on kind of a cookie cutter

[2:23:58] approach and so many lots in Oak Bay

[2:24:02] just don't fit that they don't fit that

[2:24:05] model and certainly this case is um a

[2:24:09] clear example of where uh uh Yeah, a

[2:24:13] more collaborative approach um could

[2:24:16] perhaps work better for the community

[2:24:18] over over the long term. So I too

[2:24:21] struggle with approving what is before

[2:24:23] us tonight, which conceptually I think

[2:24:26] is good design. Um it provides good

[2:24:30] housing solutions uh to suit the purpose

[2:24:33] of why it is is being proposed and

[2:24:36] before us. I certainly um commend the

[2:24:39] fact that we've we've gone for eight

[2:24:41] foot ceilings, not not tried to push the

[2:24:44] ceiling height more and tried to uh

[2:24:47] maintain as many trees as possible on on

[2:24:50] the lot. But this is one of these

[2:24:53] situations where um what we what we as a

[2:24:57] council have decided we would adopt and

[2:24:59] move forward for housing in the

[2:25:01] community.

[2:25:03] um it it it it is not it's less than

[2:25:06] ideal for this

[2:25:08] situation. So I I'm I'm not totally

[2:25:12] confirmed that we should move forward

[2:25:15] with it um tonight and and instead refer

[2:25:19] back to uh to staff to continue working

[2:25:21] with the applicant and hopefully find a

[2:25:23] a better um collaborative approach to

[2:25:26] it. But I'm listening to all of the

[2:25:28] comments around the table.

[2:25:32] Uh thank you. I guess I'll speak my

[2:25:34] piece on this one and I I do want to um

[2:25:36] just really focus on the

[2:25:39] um on the variances and the impacts the

[2:25:42] rabbi. I think this is a like many of

[2:25:44] these that we have coming forward as a

[2:25:45] good learning experience. I don't think

[2:25:46] when we were contemplating our our

[2:25:48] bylaws and looking at rear yard setbacks

[2:25:51] that we were contemplating that would be

[2:25:52] a sideyard setback in some situations

[2:25:54] like this. So um but we're not looking

[2:25:57] for variances uh at that point on that.

[2:26:00] We're looking at them on the sideyard,

[2:26:02] but I think I could have no argument

[2:26:05] with the sideyard setbacks. I think the

[2:26:07] um the context of the neighboring

[2:26:09] buildings, this is actually set back

[2:26:10] from those um the articulated front face

[2:26:13] of the building. I really don't have any

[2:26:15] issue with those variances uh with that

[2:26:17] variance. And I certainly Yeah, I think

[2:26:19] that's uh it's pretty hard to argue that

[2:26:21] that isn't a positive uh benefit. Um so

[2:26:25] the really then boils down to the uh

[2:26:27] concern of the impact of uh allowing the

[2:26:30] variances of the extra 1.3 meters or so

[2:26:33] uh in the height building and roof

[2:26:34] height um uh to 2144 Brighton and that's

[2:26:38] a hard one because um as noted we are

[2:26:40] contemplating that as a piece um uh and

[2:26:43] probably good reminder that the context

[2:26:45] of that the rationale for it is uh we do

[2:26:48] allow two stories um the the argument

[2:26:51] for the change of allowing for a higher

[2:26:53] above ground height uh really rotated

[2:26:56] around the fact that we were trying to

[2:26:57] minimize blasting uh for these kinds of

[2:27:00] accessory dwelling units, trying to make

[2:27:01] sure there is adequate space above

[2:27:04] ground without having them required to

[2:27:05] go down into the ground. Um and there is

[2:27:08] benefit to that to the community as

[2:27:10] well.

[2:27:11] Um I, you know, if I'm looking at this

[2:27:14] and assessing it, I have to kind of use

[2:27:16] my my best effort guesses. I'm familiar

[2:27:19] with the house at 2144

[2:27:21] um Brighton as well. Um, and I certainly

[2:27:24] wouldn't want to cause any, um, lack of

[2:27:26] light going into that house. It's a

[2:27:28] beautiful house on a very small lot. Um,

[2:27:31] uh, that being said, so I'm really then

[2:27:32] down to is the is the variance ask on

[2:27:36] the height um, reasonable? And I tend to

[2:27:39] follow on the side that it is. Um, I do

[2:27:42] appreciate that, you know, if if not

[2:27:44] seeking significant blasting to ask

[2:27:46] people to go down and we really can't

[2:27:49] have less than 8ft heights into the

[2:27:51] ceiling heights, then this is kind of

[2:27:53] where we ended up, why we ended up at

[2:27:55] the heights that we're at in our ADU uh

[2:27:57] discussion. Um, I don't think we did

[2:28:00] contemplate it. But I I will say the

[2:28:02] plus side of this as well is because of

[2:28:03] the the close the farther setback um the

[2:28:07] building is set farther north than the

[2:28:09] adjacent house. So it does allow more

[2:28:10] light to that house. Uh it also um uh uh

[2:28:16] it is not I say directly south of the

[2:28:18] house that would block the light

[2:28:19] meaningfully. It would it will block

[2:28:21] let's be realistic uh a significant

[2:28:23] portion of the evening light coming in.

[2:28:25] Um so on the balance of those aspects I

[2:28:28] do believe that the variances being

[2:28:30] asked for are reasonable. Um, I'm not

[2:28:33] trying to downplay the the impact on the

[2:28:35] neighbors, but I do think that there is

[2:28:36] a rationale for the ask here that is at

[2:28:40] least compelling enough to consider. So,

[2:28:42] I do appreciate the thoughts that other

[2:28:44] members of council have shared here and

[2:28:45] how they're weighing their their

[2:28:47] thoughts. Uh, any other discussion

[2:28:49] before I call the question on the main

[2:28:51] motion? Yes, go ahead, Council Green.

[2:28:54] Before I vote, I do hope there is a

[2:28:56] compromise. I hope the neighbors can

[2:28:57] come together and work something out.

[2:28:59] there is time to do that and they have

[2:29:02] good professionals working with them

[2:29:04] including our staff. So I would be

[2:29:06] encouraging those two neighbors to sit

[2:29:07] down. Thank you.

[2:29:10] Thank you councelor Green Council

[2:29:12] Watson. And finally, because I I I I

[2:29:15] just am mused about my own thoughts, but

[2:29:16] I just think that um whatever happens

[2:29:18] here, one of the things that is really

[2:29:20] lovely is that we have an owner who is

[2:29:22] going to retain an existing home that is

[2:29:24] really a gem um and uh and is looking

[2:29:28] for a plan that will make that happen.

[2:29:30] So, that's definitely one of our values

[2:29:32] and things we want to do. It's a very

[2:29:34] complicated situation with many things,

[2:29:36] many many issues to balance in terms of

[2:29:39] making a decision. So, I just wanted to

[2:29:41] say that

[2:29:43] Thank you. All right, I'm going to call

[2:29:46] the question on this. So, the motion on

[2:29:47] the floor, just we're all clear, is a

[2:29:49] varote to vote in favor is a vote to

[2:29:52] approve the variance. That's where we're

[2:29:53] at at this point. Uh, so I'm going to

[2:29:55] call the question. All those in

[2:29:56] favor and those opposed. None opposed.

[2:30:00] That Oh, sorry. Councelor Braith, my

[2:30:02] apologies. I didn't My peripheral vision

[2:30:04] apparently weak on the side.

[2:30:08] U looking for you over in Spain, but you

[2:30:10] weren't there. Um uh so that carries. So

[2:30:14] the variances are approved. Uh building

[2:30:16] will go ahead. I certainly uh share the

[2:30:18] the things I um if there are things you

[2:30:21] can do to mitigate the impacts on the

[2:30:22] neighbors, please do um and look forward

[2:30:25] to how that works out. Uh that took a

[2:30:28] little longer than I was anticipating.

[2:30:29] There's a number of people here who came

[2:30:30] for this application. So I will give a

[2:30:33] moment for people to leave before we

[2:30:35] move on to the next item.

[2:30:39] As people take one minute to move

[2:30:40] around, if anybody wishes to stand up,

[2:30:42] stretch in place, we're not going to

[2:30:43] leave. We're just going to come back

[2:30:44] here in less than a minute.

[2:30:50] God, I can I

[2:31:04] can come to recess at

[2:31:31] Okay, now that the

[2:31:34] uh we we're doing a switch over into the

[2:31:36] next stage of the uh of the agenda

[2:31:38] package. Uh we have uh section nine

[2:31:42] which is reports and memorandums. Um

[2:31:44] they are still subject to public input.

[2:31:46] So if anybody from the public wishes to

[2:31:47] address council, you're more than

[2:31:49] welcome to do so. Um we're going to take

[2:31:51] a brief int introduction by Mr. Sukovich

[2:31:55] who's a manager of engineering capital

[2:31:56] projects. Welcome. Uh and then we'll get

[2:31:59] to questions from council

[2:32:01] uh questions from our comments from the

[2:32:02] public and then back to this table for

[2:32:04] consideration. Welcome Mr. Sukovich.

[2:32:08] Thank you, mayor. Uh, good evening.

[2:32:11] Um, yeah. Is this the first time you

[2:32:13] you've been in this chamber? No, it's

[2:32:14] the second. No, it's the second time. I

[2:32:16] thought so. I thought just I saw you

[2:32:18] looking for the button. I wasn't sure if

[2:32:19] we had the first time. I'm asking for

[2:32:20] money. No,

[2:32:22] fair enough. There you go. Yeah. Thank

[2:32:25] you for your time today.

[2:32:28] No, no, no. That's right. Hopefully, do

[2:32:31] this. Okay. All right. Yeah. Thank you

[2:32:33] for uh the time uh this evening to um

[2:32:36] request uh approval for an increase uh

[2:32:39] for the authorized expenditure amount

[2:32:41] for the Estavan project. Um they're uh

[2:32:45] this is one of our major capital

[2:32:47] projects uh happening right now in the

[2:32:49] district of Oak Bay. And um this project

[2:32:52] was expanded during uh the detail design

[2:32:55] stage to include um in addition to the

[2:32:58] uh storm outfalls uh an additional

[2:33:00] catchment to the storm outfalls, a water

[2:33:03] main uh service and some additional

[2:33:05] sanitary lines as well. Uh with that

[2:33:08] addition uh the consulting engineers um

[2:33:12] requested additional funds and uh as

[2:33:15] well planned for the uh engineer record

[2:33:18] uh services during construction. Uh the

[2:33:20] reason this wasn't provided uh earlier

[2:33:22] in January uh when we first kind of got

[2:33:25] notice of it is that um we didn't have

[2:33:28] the level of detail uh supporting that

[2:33:31] scope of work and we wanted to ensure

[2:33:33] that um there was adequate uh input from

[2:33:36] the subconultants um reporting to the

[2:33:38] prime consultant including archaeology

[2:33:40] and um foreshore engineering and

[2:33:43] environmental uh support as those are

[2:33:45] major risk um aspects of these

[2:33:47] delivering these projects. So, I guess

[2:33:51] um it would have been ideal to have had

[2:33:53] this ready at the time that we approved

[2:33:55] the construction budget to have it

[2:33:56] together with the consulting fees, but

[2:33:58] we didn't have that organized. So, I'm

[2:34:01] here tonight to uh request that uh the

[2:34:03] budget be expanded to for the project to

[2:34:05] include the additional

[2:34:09] $585,470 for the prime consultant

[2:34:11] through the completion of the

[2:34:13] construction. Thank you for that

[2:34:14] overview. Um turn to members of council

[2:34:17] if there's any questions. Councelor

[2:34:18] Braithweight. Uh, thanks very much and

[2:34:20] through you mayor to staff. Can you tell

[2:34:22] me where in the budget this money comes

[2:34:24] from? Mr. Simukovich.

[2:34:28] Thank you. And through the mayor. Um,

[2:34:30] this would come from the setup uh

[2:34:34] project uh amount. Um, and it would

[2:34:37] actually be funded through additional um

[2:34:40] storm and water um capital funds. Uh,

[2:34:44] but we would have to add it to the

[2:34:46] project uh amount.

[2:34:48] Mr. Renick. Yes. Uh just to clarify in

[2:34:50] response to that question, no additional

[2:34:52] transfers from reserve would be required

[2:34:54] to authorize this. This would be

[2:34:56] approved funding in the 2025 capital

[2:34:58] plan. Thank you,

[2:35:02] Dr. Watson.

[2:35:03] Thank you, Mayor. Just a question to

[2:35:05] staff, either one of the gentlemen in

[2:35:08] attendance. Um um as I understand it and

[2:35:11] you can correct me if I'm wrong, the

[2:35:13] project was um the pro this project was

[2:35:16] bundled as a design and construction

[2:35:19] project. Is that typical practice? And

[2:35:22] in what cases would design occur first

[2:35:24] and then construction be tendered

[2:35:26] separately?

[2:35:28] Okay, thank you. Uh so it would it was

[2:35:30] design uh and construction services by

[2:35:32] the design engineer, not a design and

[2:35:35] construction by with the contractor. So,

[2:35:38] thank you. I misunderstood that and

[2:35:40] that's helpful. Thank you. I don't see

[2:35:43] other questions from members of council.

[2:35:45] So, I'm going to go to members of the

[2:35:47] public. Is anybody here in the public

[2:35:49] wish to speak to council about item 9.1,

[2:35:52] the Estabban storm sewers and outfall

[2:35:54] replacement, budget change

[2:35:57] request. Don't see a lot of hands

[2:35:59] popping up. So, I'm going to come Not

[2:36:01] seeing any online. I'm going to come

[2:36:02] back to this table. Moved and seconded

[2:36:05] for receipt. All those in favor? Any

[2:36:07] opposed? None opposed. I'll move the

[2:36:09] staff recommendation.

[2:36:10] Moved and second. This is to approve the

[2:36:12] contract amount of

[2:36:15] $585,470. Any further

[2:36:19] discussion? All those in favor? Any

[2:36:22] opposed? None

[2:36:23] opposed. Good luck with the

[2:36:26] project. Thank

[2:36:28] you. Uh we move now to section 10 for

[2:36:31] committee of the whole recommendations

[2:36:32] from the meeting held May 20th. Um these

[2:36:34] are two items for optimized development

[2:36:36] processes and grant and aid applications

[2:36:38] that had public input at the committee

[2:36:40] of the whole. Uh committee of the whole

[2:36:42] doesn't make decisions. So those

[2:36:43] recommendations come from committee to

[2:36:45] this table. Uh I'm just going to see if

[2:36:47] is there anybody members of the public

[2:36:48] who wish to address either of these two

[2:36:51] uh that perhaps didn't make it to the

[2:36:53] committee of the whole or wish to add

[2:36:54] something to the public input. We'll

[2:36:56] take them on either item at this time.

[2:36:58] Otherwise, we'll typically just go to

[2:36:59] council, that's the worst, and have a

[2:37:01] procedural receipt uh of the of the

[2:37:06] recommendations. No, seeing no hands

[2:37:08] from the public. I'm going to come back

[2:37:08] to this table. So, 10.1 uh the

[2:37:10] recommendation from the committee of the

[2:37:12] whole is here for signing off on part

[2:37:13] two of the project. So, we just move the

[2:37:15] recommendation that came from committee

[2:37:16] of the whole. Uh any further discussion?

[2:37:19] All those in favor? Any opposed? None

[2:37:22] opposed. And 10.2, the grant aid

[2:37:24] application, basically approving the

[2:37:25] process in place. Moved and seconded.

[2:37:28] Any further discussion? All those in

[2:37:30] favor? Any opposed? None opposed. That

[2:37:33] carries. Uh that concludes section 10.

[2:37:35] We now move to section 11. Uh which is

[2:37:38] reports and memorandums. Uh we have the

[2:37:40] Henderson and Halting estimate

[2:37:41] neighborhood bikeways. Uh and this

[2:37:43] includes the estimated cost breakdown.

[2:37:45] Uh Mr. Renick, third times a charm. You

[2:37:49] provide a brief overview of the report.

[2:37:52] Uh yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

[2:37:54] In response to the motion that was

[2:37:56] passed by council on May 12th, uh staff

[2:37:59] has prepared a bit more of a breakdown

[2:38:01] of the class B estimate that associated

[2:38:05] uh that was associated with the 90%

[2:38:07] design submission. And uh I'm happy to

[2:38:09] take any questions that council has to

[2:38:11] facilitate their deliberation.

[2:38:15] Much Mr. Renick. Um we're sort of back

[2:38:18] here again sort of considering the whole

[2:38:20] of the uh of the ask. Um I'm certainly

[2:38:22] taking any questions related to the

[2:38:25] report uh from staff on the costs uh or

[2:38:29] any other aspect at this point. Are

[2:38:31] there any questions of staff on the

[2:38:36] report? I'm not seeing any. So um uh

[2:38:41] we've had this matter before us a couple

[2:38:42] of times and tried a couple of different

[2:38:44] ways of of advancing it. Um I've uh I

[2:38:47] circulated ahead of this meeting just

[2:38:49] some suggestions. Everybody, if you

[2:38:51] check your emails, if you haven't seen

[2:38:52] it, some suggested approach to motions

[2:38:55] um that might allow us to clarify what

[2:38:58] council wishes to see in the design

[2:39:00] aspects of this and um and a possible

[2:39:04] approach. Councelor Green, you mentioned

[2:39:05] to me that you may want to have a a

[2:39:07] motion before that. Um so, I'm happy to

[2:39:10] go to you if there's something you wish

[2:39:11] to to raise. I really I really

[2:39:12] appreciate that. But I do have a motion

[2:39:14] that I would like to make um before we

[2:39:17] get into the minutia of the of the

[2:39:20] issue. Um and it concerns um the Carrick

[2:39:24] Trail. So I wondered if I could make

[2:39:26] that motion and with your permission and

[2:39:29] see if if there's any support at the

[2:39:31] table. Uh sure. Is it my my suggestion

[2:39:35] might be that we consider that uh it

[2:39:37] changes to the design within the motions

[2:39:39] of amendment. But if you wish to make it

[2:39:40] at the beginning, I'm I'll take that. We

[2:39:43] don't really have a a motion on the

[2:39:44] floor right now to a amend right

[2:39:47] procedurally. So it's a bit hard to take

[2:39:49] a motion to on the carrot trail at this

[2:39:51] point because we don't actually have a a

[2:39:54] proposed path forward. So I might

[2:39:56] suggest because the path I I put here

[2:39:58] was the um that we put essentially a

[2:40:01] direction to to amend the original

[2:40:04] design as as desired by council. And so

[2:40:06] that if your motion is to amend the

[2:40:08] design then that or to remove something

[2:40:10] from the design that would be the

[2:40:11] appropriate place I would think. So not

[2:40:14] now then no if that's the motion to

[2:40:16] remove like an aspect of the design I

[2:40:18] think it would be better done in the

[2:40:19] context of a motion to uh to advance

[2:40:23] subject to the following changes and

[2:40:24] then we could take a motion to from that

[2:40:27] design.

[2:40:29] Okay. So back to this table. Councelor

[2:40:31] Smart.

[2:40:33] Uh thank you. Um, I'd like to make a

[2:40:35] general motion then to start us off that

[2:40:37] the detailed designs for the Henderson

[2:40:39] Hallane Estan neighborhood bikeways be

[2:40:41] endorsed as presented with the following

[2:40:43] amendments.

[2:40:45] Okay.

[2:40:47] Would you like me add a couple of

[2:40:49] amendments to start and then or do you

[2:40:51] want do you want um a seconder on just

[2:40:53] the uh initial?

[2:40:56] It's a good question. procedurally here.

[2:40:58] I think um I think what I need to do um

[2:41:02] what I'll do is I think put a motion on

[2:41:05] the floor to to to approve the design.

[2:41:09] Um if that's moved and seconded, then we

[2:41:10] take a motion to that the following um

[2:41:14] uh amendments to to change it would be

[2:41:16] the appropriate process. So um I think

[2:41:18] the process would be to approve as

[2:41:21] designed kind of like we tried last

[2:41:22] time, but I think we have a few

[2:41:23] suggestions of maybe advancing this. So

[2:41:26] motion to approve as designed. Moved and

[2:41:29] seconded. Oh no question question for

[2:41:30] clarity your worship. The original staff

[2:41:33] reporting materials was to approve the

[2:41:35] 90% design. So that is my still my

[2:41:38] understanding that we're still using the

[2:41:40] original staff recommendation to approve

[2:41:43] the 90% design and amending from there.

[2:41:46] Uh correct. I think the only design we

[2:41:47] have in front of us right now is that

[2:41:48] 90% design. Seconded your worship. And

[2:41:51] then you wanted to make a motion that

[2:41:53] the um I think we just take amendment

[2:41:55] motions to that. And in my suggestions,

[2:41:58] I suggested that we take iterative

[2:42:00] approaches to that uh to that amendment

[2:42:02] process. Uh I did actually offer to

[2:42:04] councelor Green that uh that an a motion

[2:42:06] to amend would be appropriate at this

[2:42:08] point. So I think I'll go back to her

[2:42:09] for that. Um so the motion would be then

[2:42:11] to uh amend um uh that the basically uh

[2:42:17] basically the following be referred back

[2:42:19] to staff to incorporate um a an aspect.

[2:42:22] So that's that's okay. I have I have

[2:42:24] wording, but um so my motion is to amend

[2:42:28] and it would be that and refer back to

[2:42:30] staff um that the Henderson Road Trail

[2:42:33] referred to as the Carrick Trail by

[2:42:34] local residents be removed from the

[2:42:37] Henderson and Holene Estan neighborhood

[2:42:39] bikeway plan and then I can speak to

[2:42:42] that if you'd like. Okay. Uh there is a

[2:42:45] seconder. So you can speak to your

[2:42:46] motion. Thank you.

[2:42:48] When this active transportation plan was

[2:42:50] conceived and adopted 11 years ago now,

[2:42:54] the natural riding environment did not

[2:42:57] include ebikes. That that um that

[2:43:01] predominance now of ebikes has changed

[2:43:03] the riding landscape

[2:43:05] significantly. Um we've all seen the

[2:43:08] Carrick Trail. We've I believe we

[2:43:09] visited the area. It is a natural

[2:43:12] environment, significant green space in

[2:43:14] a highly densified neighborhood. It is

[2:43:18] primarily a pedestrian pathway, a play

[2:43:20] area for children, and a location that

[2:43:22] attracts multi-use, including excursions

[2:43:25] from daycare and school children. No

[2:43:28] ebikes. As I said, when this ATP was

[2:43:31] active transportation plan was adopted

[2:43:33] 11 years ago. Ebikes have completely

[2:43:35] changed the cycling landscape because of

[2:43:37] travel, speed, motorcycle parallels

[2:43:41] without the safety of clothing,

[2:43:43] training, and licensing. And I was a

[2:43:44] motorcycle rider for nearly 20 years. I

[2:43:47] know that these ebikes are traveling at

[2:43:49] at least 30 kilometers in most instances

[2:43:53] without the benefit of safety clothing,

[2:43:55] proper helmets, training and licensing.

[2:43:58] So there is a hazardous mix that we are

[2:44:01] asking to put on this very small

[2:44:03] trail. The removal of chicane gates also

[2:44:06] creates a shoot through. That's a term

[2:44:08] that was defined by the um Victoria Bike

[2:44:12] Network, a shoot through which in in my

[2:44:15] parliament means a really fast little

[2:44:18] route to um another corridor. So that

[2:44:21] would encourage high speed and increased

[2:44:23] safety hazards.

[2:44:25] Again, there are reasonable and nearby

[2:44:27] alternate routes halting East Newton to

[2:44:31] Estavan for cyclists traveling through

[2:44:33] this area and the neighborhood has been

[2:44:36] very vocal about their concern of the

[2:44:39] loss of um the Carrick Trail. So, I

[2:44:43] would ask for support for this motion. I

[2:44:46] think this would certainly help to lower

[2:44:47] the temperature on the anxiety in this

[2:44:49] neighborhood about the plan going

[2:44:52] forward and um that is my motion. Thank

[2:44:55] you.

[2:44:58] Thank you, Councelor Green. We have a

[2:44:59] motion on the floor to remove it from

[2:45:01] the bikeway. Um other discussion on

[2:45:03] that, I'm just going to ask us to keep

[2:45:04] the debate as as pointed as possible

[2:45:06] because we have a number of things to

[2:45:07] get through. Uh councelor Smart, anybody

[2:45:09] else wish to speak? Watson.

[2:45:12] No, thank you.

[2:45:13] Um uh I won't be supporting uh the

[2:45:16] motion on the table. I do fully agree

[2:45:18] that the Carrot Greenway is an extremely

[2:45:20] special place. Um uh I do think it needs

[2:45:24] to have a safe pedestrian pathway and I

[2:45:26] do think it needs to remain a place for

[2:45:28] children to play, but I am confident

[2:45:30] that there can be a sensitive and

[2:45:32] innovative light touch design that still

[2:45:35] allows for it to be part of our our

[2:45:38] network.

[2:45:39] Um I yeah I I'd like to see a um

[2:45:43] revitalized um light touch design um

[2:45:46] come back um to council to look at and

[2:45:49] review, but I'm not in favor of taking

[2:45:50] it out of the route. Thank you.

[2:45:53] You have councelor Watson and Appleton.

[2:45:56] Thank you, Mayor. Um and um I I will not

[2:45:59] be supporting the motion either. there

[2:46:01] isn't possibly another u proposed one we

[2:46:04] could get to next which talks about

[2:46:06] doing a doing a redesign to address

[2:46:09] concerns that have been raised about

[2:46:11] this this special part of the route but

[2:46:14] I am not supportive of anything that

[2:46:16] will change the route per se the routes

[2:46:19] east west and north south have been

[2:46:21] consulted on quite extensively now and

[2:46:24] at at this kind of point in the process

[2:46:28] starting discussions about what would

[2:46:29] replace this log logical corridor going

[2:46:32] north south I think it would be really

[2:46:34] detrimental to the whole process of

[2:46:35] trying to move forward our active

[2:46:37] transportation strategy

[2:46:40] thank you Watson council sir Appleton

[2:46:42] thank you worship yeah not in support of

[2:46:44] the amendment as it stands I think we've

[2:46:46] heard loud and clear from folks that

[2:46:48] they want to see an alternative design

[2:46:50] from what was presented in the 90%

[2:46:52] design for the Carrot Greenway and that

[2:46:54] was also presented in his amendment last

[2:46:56] time this was debated by council so I

[2:46:58] think there's absolutely a need for a

[2:47:00] revised design that's sensitive to that

[2:47:03] specific area. Uh community has been

[2:47:05] very very clear about that. I think that

[2:47:07] there's a way to do that and accomplish

[2:47:10] that goal and uh accomplish a a safe and

[2:47:14] uh low impact environment for everybody

[2:47:16] and keep the connectivity of the

[2:47:18] proposed bikeway uh as it was originally

[2:47:21] proposed. So I think there's a way

[2:47:23] forward there. um not favor in favor of

[2:47:25] the detour, but rather a redesign of uh

[2:47:28] what's currently proposed to address the

[2:47:30] community's concerns. Thank you, your

[2:47:32] worship.

[2:47:33] Thank you, Councelor Appleton. I have

[2:47:34] councelor Patterson next. Yes. Thank

[2:47:36] you, mayor. Um, and I will support the

[2:47:39] motion because I I too agree that um it

[2:47:43] will um it will help lower the

[2:47:46] temperature of some of the discussions

[2:47:48] and will still allow for a cycling um

[2:47:52] pathway. But for me it comes down to um

[2:47:56] is is this a cycling pathway or is it in

[2:47:59] fact a shared use pathway? um because I

[2:48:02] have h had a distinct feeling um from

[2:48:06] some of the discussion that has been

[2:48:07] going on that really there there's a

[2:48:09] strong desire to um push the cycling

[2:48:12] aspect of it uh rather than the active

[2:48:15] transportation and the shared juice

[2:48:17] facility and I think that there there

[2:48:20] there are places where um the shared

[2:48:24] juice model does is not conducive in the

[2:48:28] best interests of the community and I

[2:48:30] think this is one of those places. I

[2:48:32] think allowing the community to uh

[2:48:34] embrace it and move forward with it as

[2:48:37] uh as part of the the cool kit program

[2:48:40] and keep enhancing enhancing it as such.

[2:48:44] Uh provides u a very safe pedestrian

[2:48:49] place for the uh for the neighborhood

[2:48:53] residents um and those visiting the area

[2:48:56] to use it.

[2:48:57] um independent of a shared use cycling

[2:49:02] path. So I will support the motion.

[2:49:05] Thank you. Any other discussion on the

[2:49:07] motion on the floor?

[2:49:10] I'll uh speak to it briefly because I

[2:49:11] always I I and I appreciate the the

[2:49:13] spirit in which it's brought and I it

[2:49:15] may reduce temperature, but I can't

[2:49:16] support the motion as it is just to

[2:49:18] remove it. Um, I think that u there's a

[2:49:22] I would certainly like to give the

[2:49:23] opportunity to give some direction back

[2:49:25] to staff to consider a redesign that

[2:49:27] would allow for uh the safe joint use of

[2:49:30] bikes and pedestrians. I think there's

[2:49:32] ways of of prioritizing pedestrians on

[2:49:35] that. Um I'm fine I'd rather have that

[2:49:38] opportunity and to look at it before

[2:49:40] making a decision not to include it at

[2:49:41] all. So that was my my piece. So I'm not

[2:49:45] going to support the motion as it is.

[2:49:46] I'm very supportive of a motion that

[2:49:48] would

[2:49:49] uh um yeah that would think so I'm not

[2:49:53] going to support the motion on the

[2:49:54] floor. Any other discussion on the

[2:49:58] motion? Um thank you. I'm just

[2:50:00] circulating anything. I circulated by

[2:50:01] email just to make sure everybody's got

[2:50:02] a hard copy of it in case they need it.

[2:50:04] Um not seeing any other discussion. I'm

[2:50:06] going to call the question on the

[2:50:07] motion. The motion right now is to amend

[2:50:09] the design to remove the Carrick

[2:50:11] Henderson trail from that design. Uh I'm

[2:50:14] going to call the question. All those in

[2:50:16] favor and those opposed. I have Watson,

[2:50:19] Appleton, Smart, and myself opposed.

[2:50:21] That motion fails. Um, moving on to go

[2:50:25] councelor Appleton. Your worship, just

[2:50:27] based on uh your comments and and based

[2:50:31] on the uh the the discussion around that

[2:50:33] previous item, I'd like to uh propose an

[2:50:35] alternative uh amendment with respect to

[2:50:38] the Carrot Greenway uh in line with what

[2:50:40] you have presented, which I think has

[2:50:42] merit. So, I would like to move an

[2:50:44] amendment to the motion on the floor to

[2:50:46] revise the design for the Henderson

[2:50:48] Trail, also known as the Carrick Trail,

[2:50:50] between Hala and Newton, to minimize

[2:50:52] elevation changes or widening of the

[2:50:54] trail, to provide a design and signage

[2:50:56] that keeps bicycle speed compatible with

[2:50:58] pedestrian enjoyment of the trail, and

[2:51:00] to protect and enhance the green space

[2:51:02] of the corridor.

[2:51:05] Seconded.

[2:51:07] Um, so this is a mo motion to amend the

[2:51:09] design to include uh for those changes

[2:51:13] to come back with the revised

[2:51:15] design. So speaking to the she just

[2:51:18] briefly your worship. So again just to

[2:51:20] my earlier point I think we've heard

[2:51:21] loud and clear that there is an interest

[2:51:23] in creating a sensitive design for the

[2:51:26] Carrick Trail. Um and so I think sending

[2:51:29] this to staff for a design revision that

[2:51:32] responds to some of the concerns that

[2:51:34] were raised and addressing bicycle speed

[2:51:37] and shared use of the corridor I think

[2:51:39] is eminently reasonable. So I think that

[2:51:41] this is a a good amendment that keeps

[2:51:44] the alignment as was directed by council

[2:51:47] when the original uh concept was

[2:51:49] approved and allows us to respond to

[2:51:52] what the community is telling us. Thank

[2:51:54] you. Thank you. I have councelor Green

[2:51:56] and then smart and then Breathway.

[2:52:00] Um I will not support this motion and um

[2:52:04] I will remind councelor Appleton that

[2:52:06] when we approved this plan we did not

[2:52:08] have the information we have today. We

[2:52:10] did not have the input and data from the

[2:52:12] neighborhood. We did not have um

[2:52:14] sufficient consultation and so I I am

[2:52:19] quite comfortable in changing my mind

[2:52:21] given that I have been informed um in in

[2:52:24] in a much different way since that time.

[2:52:27] I will also add that what whatever you

[2:52:30] do a light touch means what exactly and

[2:52:32] I think these term terms are very

[2:52:35] confusing for the public. light touch uh

[2:52:38] redesign. I think no one knows what that

[2:52:40] means. And if if we're going to do that,

[2:52:42] then I would encourage us to collaborate

[2:52:45] with with the neighborhood that will be

[2:52:46] mostly most impacted by by any changes

[2:52:50] that are made, but I will not support

[2:52:52] the motion as it is. Thank you.

[2:52:55] Thank you, Councelor Green. Uh councelor

[2:52:57] Braithweight, I think you had next or

[2:52:59] smart, sorry, then Brie.

[2:53:02] Yeah, thank you. Um just speaking to um

[2:53:05] supporting the motion and just wanted to

[2:53:06] add to what has already been said just

[2:53:08] the ability to keep some of the

[2:53:10] beautiful bedrock outcroppings um that

[2:53:13] really provide a sense of character in

[2:53:15] the space as well as reducing the the

[2:53:17] paving and really looking at innovative

[2:53:19] um approaches of of paving less and even

[2:53:22] where some of the trees are potentially

[2:53:24] you know having smaller paths one

[2:53:27] directional paths. There's so many

[2:53:28] different opportunities to be a little

[2:53:29] bit more innovative um uh a little bit

[2:53:32] more minimal um while still um basically

[2:53:37] um addressing the fact that this already

[2:53:38] is a path that bicycles can go on. So

[2:53:41] let's actually deal with making it

[2:53:43] making it better for everybody.

[2:53:46] So brief. Uh thanks very much. I I would

[2:53:49] agree with Councelor Green's comments.

[2:53:50] Um, and and when I look at some of the

[2:53:54] wording here, like minimize elevation

[2:53:56] changes or widening of the trail,

[2:53:57] provide a design and signage that keeps

[2:53:59] bicycle speed compatible with pedestrian

[2:54:01] enjoyment. Um, and protect and enhance

[2:54:04] the green space of the corridor. Well,

[2:54:05] what better way to protect the and

[2:54:07] enhance the green space of the corridor

[2:54:09] by not doing um by not removing any of

[2:54:12] the of the um green space by by not

[2:54:15] blasting out any of the rock. I mean,

[2:54:17] for me, I like the way it looks right

[2:54:19] now. I think that it's used as a bike

[2:54:21] way right now. Um, and it's used

[2:54:24] successfully as a bike way right now.

[2:54:26] There doesn't seem to me to be any

[2:54:28] change. We can keep it in the plan, but

[2:54:30] we don't need to make any changes to it

[2:54:32] whatsoever in my humble opinion. And I

[2:54:34] think having the gates there really

[2:54:36] helps um to not have it as a speed

[2:54:38] through or shoot through or whatever the

[2:54:39] terminology is. So, um even though I

[2:54:43] appreciate that this is trying to um

[2:54:46] move us forward to inclusive and keep

[2:54:50] the keep this um design as a a a full

[2:54:54] design of of this space. I I actually

[2:54:57] personally don't think we need to make

[2:54:58] any changes to it. Um and so it scares

[2:55:01] me when I I see the minimize elevation

[2:55:03] changes or widening of the trail because

[2:55:05] I don't want to see any of that. So, I

[2:55:07] will be voting against the motion.

[2:55:11] Mr. Patterson.

[2:55:12] Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I will also speak

[2:55:14] against the motion. I I do um I do

[2:55:18] appreciate that um that uh council

[2:55:21] members have been listening to members

[2:55:23] of the public that have have um spoken

[2:55:26] extensively about this and the need to

[2:55:28] protect it. I'm less confident that um

[2:55:32] that uh just minimizing elevations

[2:55:34] changes or widening the trail and

[2:55:36] particularly providing design and

[2:55:38] signage that keeps bicycle speed

[2:55:40] compatible with pedestrian enjoyment. I

[2:55:42] think it's it's you know it's wishful

[2:55:45] thinking to think that signage will um

[2:55:48] in fact uh achieve reduction of of speed

[2:55:51] to u maintain not just pedestrian

[2:55:54] enjoyment. It's not just pedestrian

[2:55:56] enjoyment. it's pedestrian safety on the

[2:55:58] trail. Um, and I don't see that uh

[2:56:02] expressed as a concern in here. So, I

[2:56:05] think that that the the trail in its

[2:56:08] present form has existed for decades

[2:56:10] now. Um it is it is used by extensively

[2:56:15] by pedestrians, predominantly by

[2:56:17] pedestrians and uh by some some cyclists

[2:56:22] who who are not riding perhaps ebikes

[2:56:25] but they are they are riding um standard

[2:56:28] bicycles at at a moderate pace um

[2:56:32] respecting the chicane gates that are

[2:56:34] are there that uh provide safety for

[2:56:36] pedestrians. So, um, what I see before

[2:56:39] me, while it it's it's a step towards

[2:56:43] recognizing that pedestrians also have a

[2:56:45] right on the path, it still is

[2:56:47] predominantly, uh, promoting this as a

[2:56:50] cycling path rather than a pedestrian

[2:56:52] path.

[2:56:54] Thank you, Councelor Patterson. Council

[2:56:55] Watson, did you wish to speak? And then

[2:56:56] I'll go to second time speakers. Just

[2:56:59] very briefly, I will be supporting the

[2:57:00] motion. I think it's very clearly

[2:57:02] worded. there are really clear

[2:57:03] objectives about in uh doing things to

[2:57:07] enhance a treasured space that will make

[2:57:10] it better for both sets of users. And as

[2:57:14] I've argued here before, there are

[2:57:16] certainly aspects of the existing

[2:57:17] arrangement which are not conducive to

[2:57:19] pedestrian activity through the area

[2:57:21] particularly for anybody that has any

[2:57:23] kind of physical mobility problem or

[2:57:25] impairment. So I think to get a just as

[2:57:28] we are designing this this whole network

[2:57:31] to allow bicycles and cars to share the

[2:57:34] road uh giving um you know support to

[2:57:38] cyclists here we I the outcome if these

[2:57:42] objectives are met will be to create a

[2:57:45] way to share this special space uh where

[2:57:49] pedestrians um are are protected um and

[2:57:53] I think that's possible. So, um it's an

[2:57:55] important part of the trail and I think

[2:57:57] we could achieve um a really special

[2:58:00] outcome if we do a little bit of work on

[2:58:02] the space. Thank you.

[2:58:04] Thank you, Council Wson. Before I go to

[2:58:06] second time speakers, I'll just want to

[2:58:08] speak to the motion. Um so, I uh I am

[2:58:12] supportive of this approach. I just I

[2:58:14] guess my hope here is um uh we look at

[2:58:18] this as a whole and and look at every

[2:58:21] opportunity as does the motion improve

[2:58:24] it and if I think we had a chance to

[2:58:26] have a discussion around removal of this

[2:58:28] from the bikeways and that didn't pass.

[2:58:30] Um, so now I guess my my thought on this

[2:58:32] is if not removing it then we still have

[2:58:35] this pathway that's going to right now

[2:58:38] has substantive changes to it with

[2:58:40] significant widening, removal of green

[2:58:42] space, blasting, reorienting. Um, my

[2:58:45] appro my opinion is is shared by I think

[2:58:47] what I heard from the people who are

[2:58:49] currently indicating non-sup support. I

[2:58:51] think that the trail as it is meets most

[2:58:54] of the needs of the community. Um that

[2:58:57] being said, I think that allowing this

[2:58:59] to go back with these guidelines

[2:59:01] attached to it um you know without

[2:59:05] prescribing exactly what that is will

[2:59:07] allow it to come back to this table if

[2:59:08] the whole goes forward. I think it will.

[2:59:11] So I guess I might ask here is that if

[2:59:13] you if you support changes to that then

[2:59:16] I would suggest you support the motion

[2:59:18] at the end of the time. um if you don't

[2:59:21] support the overall changes that are put

[2:59:22] in there, then we can't support the

[2:59:24] overall motion and that's that's the way

[2:59:25] this goes. Um but I do think that our

[2:59:28] job at every iterative approach is does

[2:59:30] the motion on the floor improve the

[2:59:32] design so that if it does go forward, it

[2:59:35] would be a better design at the end of

[2:59:36] it. And that's how I'm looking at this.

[2:59:38] I'm looking at this. Are these

[2:59:39] recommendations back to staff to say

[2:59:42] improve the pedestrian

[2:59:43] safety, you know, minimize if if not

[2:59:46] eliminate any removal of rock, uh

[2:59:48] maintain green space, focus the design

[2:59:50] to make sure that the design and the

[2:59:52] signage, but I think primarily design uh

[2:59:54] helps with pedestrian safety and

[2:59:56] enjoyment. Um that's my that's just so

[2:59:58] people understand my philosophy on this

[3:00:00] one. It's not is it going to I I don't

[3:00:03] not trying to presuppose it. I'm trying

[3:00:04] to uh give back to staff guidelines that

[3:00:07] will help them come back with options

[3:00:09] that that address the concerns that have

[3:00:10] been raised here. So, um that's kind of

[3:00:13] the spirit I think that if we're going

[3:00:14] to go through this process that we kind

[3:00:15] of look at it. So, sorry, Council Green,

[3:00:17] over to you for a second time.

[3:00:19] I guess my point is that why are we

[3:00:22] touching this lane at all? It works for

[3:00:24] bicycles now. It has for decades. Um

[3:00:28] what concerns me about this new approach

[3:00:30] is that it's through the lens only of

[3:00:32] cycling. is a cycling centric approach

[3:00:35] and I'm really concerned about that. Why

[3:00:37] would we alter something that already

[3:00:40] works for everybody? And and we've been

[3:00:42] told that over and over again. It is

[3:00:44] used by cyclists now safely. It's used

[3:00:47] by pedestrians now safely as it is. And

[3:00:51] they've even now incorporated it into

[3:00:54] the cool kit program. They're rewing uh

[3:00:57] the native plants. They're they're doing

[3:00:59] all kinds of things to make in a very

[3:01:02] high dense area to make a green space

[3:01:04] that's very special and serves the needs

[3:01:06] of the neighborhood as it is. Why do we

[3:01:09] want to alter it? I just I guess I I I

[3:01:12] don't understand that. Which is why I

[3:01:14] thought it made sense to pull it out of

[3:01:16] the plan because it's still there. It

[3:01:20] still takes bicycles. But if it's if

[3:01:23] you're wanting to improve it to make a

[3:01:26] commuting trail, then I'm very concerned

[3:01:28] because that's what will happen. Any

[3:01:30] improvements you make, you will up the

[3:01:32] speed of those ebikes particularly. Um

[3:01:35] it will no longer be a

[3:01:38] quiet contemplative place to be. It will

[3:01:41] be a shoot through and I think that is

[3:01:44] going to spoil the whole thing. But

[3:01:46] anyway, those are my comments. I I I

[3:01:49] really wish people would reconsider, but

[3:01:51] that's the way it is. Counc Patterson.

[3:01:55] Uh, thanks very much and and I I do

[3:01:56] appreciate the the um this coming back,

[3:02:00] this this um this motion in its in its

[3:02:03] wording, etc. Um and and you know, but

[3:02:06] does it improve the design? And and I

[3:02:08] don't think it does. And when it comes

[3:02:10] back, because it looks to me like this

[3:02:12] is going to move forward. Um but when it

[3:02:15] comes back, then we have the opportunity

[3:02:16] to to approve it. it when we see what

[3:02:19] staff staff brings back. So, I think

[3:02:20] that voting against it now doesn't mean

[3:02:22] that that we're not going to when when

[3:02:24] it comes back to us, we might look at

[3:02:26] that design and say, "Yeah, that's

[3:02:28] really great. We we want to approve

[3:02:30] that." Um, and I just want to clarify

[3:02:32] something that Councelor Watson said in

[3:02:33] regards to um the um mobility vehicles

[3:02:37] and how they they how they can get or

[3:02:40] that they can't get through that space

[3:02:42] right now. And I I don't think that's

[3:02:43] correct, Councelor Watson. I believe,

[3:02:45] and I'm not sure if staff has has the um

[3:02:47] information on this, but I believe that

[3:02:49] those gates are actually wide enough for

[3:02:52] um wheelchairs, etc. to pass through

[3:02:54] them. Um they I I believe they are 48 in

[3:02:57] wide, and I believe a wheelchair is

[3:02:59] something like 33.5 in wide. So, I think

[3:03:02] as as those gates stand right now, they

[3:03:04] are they are passable with mobility

[3:03:06] vehicles.

[3:03:09] I'm just going to ask everybody to just

[3:03:11] not speak directly to anybody else just

[3:03:13] through to me. Uh just to make this

[3:03:15] because I think this is a bit of a

[3:03:16] contentious topic at times and just that

[3:03:18] wasn't anything rude, but I just want to

[3:03:19] make sure that we just keep that the

[3:03:20] quorum.

[3:03:22] Um is the uh councelor Patterson next?

[3:03:26] Yes. Thank you, mayor. I I do appreciate

[3:03:28] that this is is attempting to move this

[3:03:31] forward and I I I suppose I have an

[3:03:33] additional ask then if um if this goes

[3:03:36] through um and uh and that would be that

[3:03:41] um we actually use the tool that we we

[3:03:44] have now available and um we also u

[3:03:49] engage the uh accessibility advisory

[3:03:53] committee to review this

[3:03:58] Thank you, councelor Patterson. I might

[3:04:00] suggest uh the motion right now is for

[3:04:02] directing, you know, whether this goes

[3:04:03] back to staff for some amendments um and

[3:04:05] a redesign to come back. Um I think at

[3:04:07] the end of that, if this does get

[3:04:09] referred back to staff, I think an

[3:04:10] appropriate motion arising would be to

[3:04:12] also if that's will of council to to to

[3:04:14] include that as part of the the feedback

[3:04:16] loop. Um I don't see any other hands on

[3:04:20] this particular question. So right now

[3:04:22] the motion to amend is as read out to

[3:04:24] direct staff to revise the design of the

[3:04:26] Henderson Trail or Carrick Trail um in

[3:04:29] with those parameters. So if this passes

[3:04:31] the design will be sent back to to staff

[3:04:33] and they will come back with a revised

[3:04:35] design. If it fails then this the design

[3:04:37] remains as is um for them have other

[3:04:40] motions to to amend. I'm going to call

[3:04:43] the question. All those in favor and

[3:04:45] those opposed councelor Patterson

[3:04:47] Braithweight and Green opposed. So, that

[3:04:50] amendment carries.

[3:04:53] Um, go ahead, council briefly. Um, I'd

[3:04:56] like to make a motion that the district

[3:04:58] work with SD61 to address compatibility

[3:05:01] of the Goldsmith parking lot changes to

[3:05:02] align with the planned track entrance

[3:05:04] design and explore future options to

[3:05:07] continue biking path south onto SD61

[3:05:09] property to the crossing at Epworth and

[3:05:11] Cadbury Bay.

[3:05:14] Second, do you wish to speak to it?

[3:05:17] I just think that it's really important

[3:05:19] with the changes to the um track that

[3:05:22] are coming up um that um the district

[3:05:24] does have that conversation with them to

[3:05:26] see what um design plans they have for

[3:05:30] the front of the track in particular um

[3:05:32] as that might um cause some issue with

[3:05:35] um where the biking path is proposed to

[3:05:38] be.

[3:05:40] Thank you. And just for clarification,

[3:05:42] the second part of that is not part of

[3:05:43] this design. That's a future options

[3:05:45] piece. Okay. Thank you. Um, any other

[3:05:48] discussion on

[3:05:50] that? So, I moved and seconded. Right.

[3:05:53] I'll call the question. All those in

[3:05:54] favor? Any opposed? None oppose. That

[3:05:57] carries. Were they all that easy?

[3:06:01] I I'd also I'd also like to make a

[3:06:03] motion that we remove the speed humps

[3:06:05] from the design except we're used to

[3:06:07] reduce cut through traffic.

[3:06:10] Move and seconded. To speak to that? Um,

[3:06:13] yeah. I think that when I look at the

[3:06:15] design with all of these speed humps um

[3:06:18] that are proposed um a lot of them don't

[3:06:21] make a lot of sense to me. Um and I

[3:06:23] think that they um they they would be

[3:06:26] very good on certain roads and I think

[3:06:28] probably Florence and Epworth would be

[3:06:30] places where they they might be good. Um

[3:06:33] and I think in the other um areas like

[3:06:36] on Estavan it doesn't make any sense to

[3:06:38] me at all to have those speed humps

[3:06:40] there. I think that they would actually

[3:06:42] detract from um from the the bikeway

[3:06:45] itself.

[3:06:48] Thank you. Uh councelor Smart then

[3:06:51] Appleton. Yeah. Um uh speaking uh

[3:06:54] against the motion um I'm I'm riding an

[3:06:59] electric bike myself at times. I'm very

[3:07:01] aware of the importance of speed humps

[3:07:03] to slow um bicycles down as as well as

[3:07:06] traffic. I do not want to play traffic

[3:07:08] engineer at this table and Um, I see the

[3:07:12] speed humps as a critical part of this

[3:07:13] design to slow down um, traffic speeds

[3:07:15] of both bicycles and cars. Um, so I'm

[3:07:18] not comfortable um, with this motion.

[3:07:22] Thank you, Dr. Appleton. Well, thank you

[3:07:25] your worship. Speaking against the the

[3:07:27] motion on the floor, um, similarly,

[3:07:30] speed humps um, very important for

[3:07:32] neighborhood bikeway traffic calming. Um

[3:07:36] and I've heard very very clearly you

[3:07:38] know through both through this process

[3:07:40] and in the initial discussions around

[3:07:41] some of the other bike lanes folks have

[3:07:43] raised on numerous different occasions

[3:07:45] you know their cons their concerns and

[3:07:47] their interest about how do we achieve

[3:07:49] all ages and abilities uh standards

[3:07:53] without significant level street

[3:07:54] interventions and what I've been what

[3:07:57] the design guidelines and and how we

[3:07:59] achieve that in in a large scale is

[3:08:02] reducing car volumes and reducing our

[3:08:05] speeds. So, speed humps are actually a

[3:08:08] really effective way to lower vehicle

[3:08:11] speeds and get us closer to an all ages

[3:08:14] and abilities cycling network without

[3:08:17] having to do largecale street

[3:08:19] interventions that folks have raised

[3:08:21] concerns about. So, it's really

[3:08:22] important to me that we address try to

[3:08:26] get ourselves as close to that AAA

[3:08:28] standard that council has endorsed as

[3:08:30] possible and we do that by lowering

[3:08:32] vehicle speeds has all kinds of

[3:08:34] ancillary benefits to vehicular traffic

[3:08:36] as well. So, I think that there's a

[3:08:39] great number of benefits in that regard

[3:08:41] and uh I think that the streets that are

[3:08:43] involved in this particular design uh

[3:08:46] can do with that traffic calming. I

[3:08:48] think we've heard repeatedly from the

[3:08:50] public about people about people cutting

[3:08:52] through and people traveling too that

[3:08:54] fast through that corridor. Heard it

[3:08:56] loud and clear. Speed humps are a

[3:08:58] critical element in achieving that

[3:09:00] additional safety and that's for

[3:09:02] everybody that's in and around the road

[3:09:03] space, not just cyclists. So, thank you

[3:09:06] worship.

[3:09:07] Councelor

[3:09:08] Appleton, other speakers? Chanc Watson.

[3:09:12] Thank you. Just to add, I will not be

[3:09:13] supporting the motion either. I think

[3:09:15] that the plan that includes the speed

[3:09:17] bumps humps is an integrated plan and so

[3:09:20] those speed humps play a role in the

[3:09:22] section of the road where they've been

[3:09:24] designed and uh and included. So um I

[3:09:27] think it's uh we we can't be um we can't

[3:09:30] be um designing this ourselves because

[3:09:33] we don't have the experience to do that

[3:09:35] and know how the pieces fit together and

[3:09:37] and actually modify behavior. So I don't

[3:09:40] want to start um redesigning this oursel

[3:09:44] by taking something out that clearly the

[3:09:47] design engineers feel are necessary to

[3:09:49] create the effects we're looking for

[3:09:51] which is commerce streets.

[3:09:54] Thank you councelor Green. And then I'm

[3:09:55] going to get a motion to extend.

[3:09:58] I I I will support the motion. I think

[3:10:00] that speed humps are good and bad. Um

[3:10:03] they I' I've watched in Sanage and I've

[3:10:05] driven through Sanage a lot. people

[3:10:07] speed between the bumps and bounce over

[3:10:09] the top. So, I think really um where we

[3:10:12] can minimize speed humps and encourage

[3:10:15] lower speed limits and and and better uh

[3:10:18] safety that that would be preferable.

[3:10:20] Thank you. So, I will support the

[3:10:21] motion.

[3:10:23] Thank you, Council Patterson.

[3:10:26] Yeah, I will I will support the motion.

[3:10:28] I and I'm not I agree with Councelor

[3:10:31] Watson. We're not um transportation

[3:10:33] engineers. uh and the goal is to to

[3:10:37] reduce um speed. However, I don't I

[3:10:41] don't know that the the speed humps do

[3:10:43] it because as councelor Green has said,

[3:10:46] what happens is uh the cars do speed up

[3:10:49] as soon as they're over them. But more

[3:10:51] importantly, they quickly also learn

[3:10:55] what streets they're on and what streets

[3:10:56] they're not on. And so the um the in in

[3:11:01] fact can just divert the problem to to a

[3:11:04] neighboring street. And so um I'll

[3:11:07] support the motion as presented um and

[3:11:10] see what comes back in the

[3:11:12] design. Uh thank you. Uh can I get a

[3:11:15] motion to extend the meeting? We're

[3:11:16] going to probably need to at least 10

[3:11:18] say 10:45 is probably a reasonable

[3:11:20] expectation. Moved and seconded. All

[3:11:23] those in favor?

[3:11:26] Any opposed?

[3:11:29] All right, we'll keep it to 10:45 at all

[3:11:30] costs. How's that? Um, all right. I'll

[3:11:33] speak briefly to the motion that's on

[3:11:35] the floor then. Um, and um, so I'm I'm

[3:11:38] in I'm supportive of this. I think, you

[3:11:41] know, I think the wording here where

[3:11:42] it's carefully it's not banning them,

[3:11:44] but just using them really carefully

[3:11:46] where to use them to to uh to reduce cut

[3:11:49] through traffic. That's where they're

[3:11:50] most effective. Um they're also the

[3:11:52] easiest to my mind to add in if we're

[3:11:54] seeing that other traffic calming issues

[3:11:56] aren't in place. And for those who've

[3:11:58] gone through the report in detail, they

[3:12:01] um they're substantially used on the

[3:12:02] Henderson uh part north of of Newton um

[3:12:06] where there is a uh there's already

[3:12:08] there one of the other additions is in

[3:12:09] there is a multiple new uh stop signs

[3:12:12] that prevents through. So there's

[3:12:14] there's multiple stops on that route

[3:12:16] down that I think should meet it. And as

[3:12:18] someone who doesn't ride an ebike, uh,

[3:12:20] but rides up hills, I even with a a

[3:12:23] carving in the middle, those things are

[3:12:24] are not necessarily um attractive for

[3:12:27] cyclists or for some of the newer things

[3:12:29] with the fatter wheeled bicycles or the

[3:12:31] or the hoverboards and other things or

[3:12:33] scooters. So I think this just at this

[3:12:35] point that's seems the easiest one that

[3:12:36] we can try and if we're seeing that it's

[3:12:38] not achieving the goals, then we can

[3:12:40] easily add them in again. Um, so I'm

[3:12:42] supportive of that approach. Um, but I

[3:12:44] don't want to ban them from the design.

[3:12:45] I just think that we should minimize

[3:12:47] them where possible. I want to tell one

[3:12:48] quick anecdote on that as well and that

[3:12:50] is we actually historically I think

[3:12:52] about 25 years ago or so they put speed

[3:12:55] bumps on Estan as a test to try and slow

[3:12:58] people down and they found that it

[3:13:00] attracted motorcycle clubs coming down

[3:13:01] and trying to get as much air as they

[3:13:03] could off of them which wasn't

[3:13:04] necessarily the intended outcome of the

[3:13:06] of the design. Not that that would

[3:13:08] necessarily happen again but uh they're

[3:13:09] not always affect they don't always have

[3:13:11] the intended outcome. Uh, sorry,

[3:13:12] council. I'm going to second time

[3:13:14] speakers here. Councelor Smart, I'd just

[3:13:16] like to make an amendment to the

[3:13:17] amendment. Sure. Um, uh, and where, um,

[3:13:22] speed humps are removed and traffic

[3:13:25] speeds are anticipated to be greater

[3:13:27] than 30 km an hour, alternate traffic

[3:13:30] calming measures are proposed.

[3:13:33] Can you say that

[3:13:35] again? where speed humps are removed

[3:13:37] from the design and where traffic speeds

[3:13:40] are expected to exceed 30 kilometers an

[3:13:43] hour that alternate trafficcoming

[3:13:45] measures are provided.

[3:13:48] Movement seconded. Go ahead. Um I just I

[3:13:52] would not be able to sleep at night um

[3:13:55] if we are providing and encouraging

[3:13:57] people to cycle on a bikeway route and

[3:13:59] have not provided adequate traffic

[3:14:01] calming. When we use a shar approach, we

[3:14:03] must make sure that the traffic speeds

[3:14:05] and the traffic counts are meeting um

[3:14:09] safe requirements. Otherwise, it's

[3:14:11] unethical for us to be designing a

[3:14:12] bikeway and putting people in harm's

[3:14:15] way. Thank you.

[3:14:19] Other speakers. Go ahead, Watson. And

[3:14:20] then Appleton. I I think Mr. Appleton

[3:14:23] was ahead of me. Way. Go ahead,

[3:14:25] Councelor Appleton. Thank you, your

[3:14:27] worship. Yeah. So, in speaking in favor

[3:14:29] of the amendment, because I really think

[3:14:30] we need to if if the speed hump approach

[3:14:32] is not the favored one, then I really

[3:14:34] think we need to do we do need to look

[3:14:36] at other types of interventions to

[3:14:38] achieve that that safety outcome that

[3:14:40] everybody wants to see happen. And this

[3:14:42] is again not just for cyclists who will

[3:14:44] be using the neighborhood bikeway, which

[3:14:46] is what we're designing here. Um, but

[3:14:49] also for all road users, like I would

[3:14:52] really like to see road speeds on these

[3:14:55] neighborhood roads come down. we have

[3:14:57] the ability through the implementation

[3:14:58] of this bike way to create

[3:15:00] infrastructure that can lower vehicle

[3:15:02] speeds and that's just a benefit for

[3:15:05] everybody that lives in that

[3:15:06] neighborhood. So, however we do it, if

[3:15:09] speed humps are not the preferred

[3:15:10] option, um then I would really like to

[3:15:12] see us use a different tool so that we

[3:15:14] can achieve that achieve that safe

[3:15:16] outcome that everybody wants. And that's

[3:15:17] what really everybody's talking about.

[3:15:19] So many of the neighbors that that spoke

[3:15:21] to me talked about the speed of traffic

[3:15:22] and talked about how unpredictable the

[3:15:25] traffic was. Uh, and I would just really

[3:15:27] like to see us address this through

[3:15:29] this. So, this is not exclusively

[3:15:32] uh a bikeway or a bike improvement

[3:15:34] project, but I I see it as a

[3:15:36] neighborhood safety project and

[3:15:38] responding to what the community is

[3:15:39] telling us. So, if we don't use speed

[3:15:41] homes, I'd like to see us use something

[3:15:42] else. Thank you, Worship.

[3:15:45] Watson. Thank you. I won't be supporting

[3:15:48] the motion or the motion as amended. Um

[3:15:50] I think that um what we've heard and

[3:15:53] people comment about it all the time is

[3:15:55] that um some cars speed and if you have

[3:15:58] a speed hump their their motion through

[3:16:01] the area because of the physical

[3:16:03] limitations the constraints of the

[3:16:05] roadway must change their behavior.

[3:16:07] Dropping speed limits by putting up 30

[3:16:10] km an hour signs alone do not have that

[3:16:13] effect. And I think it is um too late in

[3:16:16] the day to us to be thinking about

[3:16:19] basically significant redesigns to to

[3:16:22] portions of this route uh if we if we um

[3:16:25] remove speed humps. So while I

[3:16:27] understand the intent of the the

[3:16:29] amendment, I I I just don't think that's

[3:16:31] the way to go right now. We're trying to

[3:16:32] move forward an active transportation

[3:16:35] neighborhood bikeway where speed humps

[3:16:38] will provide the calming that we're

[3:16:41] looking for to create this as a shared

[3:16:43] roadway. So I am not in favor of the

[3:16:46] motion or the amendment. Thank you

[3:16:48] councelor Watson. Anybody else wish to

[3:16:50] speak on the amendment?

[3:16:53] I'll just I'll speak briefly and then

[3:16:54] I'll go to second time speaker. Just I'm

[3:16:56] I I really appreciate the intent of this

[3:16:59] um motion. I think it's asking for a

[3:17:01] significant relook at at multiple other

[3:17:03] pieces. I think a motion I would be

[3:17:05] supportive of is to uh to track the

[3:17:08] speed of these areas and to consider

[3:17:10] again I I don't have a I don't

[3:17:13] personally like speed humps that much,

[3:17:14] but if they're the if they're the best

[3:17:15] approach, I don't want to take it off

[3:17:16] the table, but I would much rather us

[3:17:18] try the implementation as is. If we're

[3:17:20] seeing that the speeding is occurring,

[3:17:22] then add those in. Uh I think asking

[3:17:25] essentially for well let's do something

[3:17:26] else before we've had a chance to see if

[3:17:28] they're the best option possible isn't

[3:17:30] isn't my preferred approach. So I have a

[3:17:31] hard time supporting a motion as it's

[3:17:32] made. Go ahead councelor Smart. Oh thank

[3:17:35] you three. Is it possible just to ask a

[3:17:37] question of staff as to whether the um

[3:17:39] current speeds and traffic counts were

[3:17:41] taken into consideration with the design

[3:17:42] of the speed humps? Yeah, you can always

[3:17:45] ask that question. Uh Mr. Renick. Uh

[3:17:48] thank you very much through the chair.

[3:17:49] Yes, vehicle speed and volume counts

[3:17:51] were conducted to support uh this design

[3:17:55] and uh speed humps are one of the

[3:17:57] recommended tools in the active

[3:17:59] transportation design guide, but they

[3:18:00] are not the only tool.

[3:18:05] Thank you. Um yes, so I just wanted to

[3:18:06] expand upon um my amendment. Um, I like

[3:18:10] while it potentially could include

[3:18:12] signage to low to lower speeds, I was

[3:18:14] thinking of it more strategically

[3:18:16] around. There's other ways of traffic

[3:18:18] calming in certain situations. Um,

[3:18:20] sometimes they involve like little

[3:18:21] concrete islands with signs in order to

[3:18:23] um narrow the feeling of the road.

[3:18:25] There's other approaches um uh as we've

[3:18:28] just heard from engineering um that the

[3:18:31] best practices often include speed

[3:18:33] humps, but there are other strategies

[3:18:35] out there. I want to make sure that we

[3:18:37] leave the consultant with the option to

[3:18:39] come back to us and flag the fact that

[3:18:42] may you know maybe it isn't a good idea

[3:18:44] to remove these speed humps. I don't

[3:18:46] feel like the motion as it stands

[3:18:49] unmended really allows for the

[3:18:51] consultant to to object to what I see as

[3:18:54] an operational um uh and traffic

[3:18:58] engineering um design motion from

[3:19:00] council which makes me extremely

[3:19:01] uncomfortable.

[3:19:03] Thank you, councelor Smart. Councelor

[3:19:06] Patterson. Yes. Uh quite interesting

[3:19:09] conversation about traffic calming and

[3:19:12] uh but I I will speak just from my

[3:19:14] experience as a pedestrian

[3:19:17] um extensively throughout the district

[3:19:19] where there are speed humps and where

[3:19:21] they're used too widely. Uh my

[3:19:23] experience has been that it that

[3:19:25] actually um encourages the cyclists to

[3:19:29] use the sidewalks instead of the roads.

[3:19:32] So, um uh it

[3:19:35] it's they don't necessarily work to

[3:19:38] reduce the um the vehicle traffic on the

[3:19:42] streets as effectively as we would want.

[3:19:45] I would rather see different um uh

[3:19:48] methodologies used to uh to have traffic

[3:19:51] calming, but

[3:19:53] um it it certainly has been my

[3:19:55] experience that cyclists don't like the

[3:19:58] speed humps either. And so, uh, yes, I

[3:20:01] know that you can create narrow channels

[3:20:03] and they can go through them, but, um,

[3:20:05] many of the particularly young cyclists

[3:20:08] or those now on ebikes just, um, go up

[3:20:12] onto the sidewalk and travel the

[3:20:13] sidewalks instead.

[3:20:15] Okay, we have the motion, the amendment

[3:20:17] motion right now, which is to if, uh,

[3:20:20] and to look at other uh, calming

[3:20:22] measures. So, this is a this is a call

[3:20:25] on the amendment. All those in favor of

[3:20:27] the

[3:20:27] amendment and those opposed. I have

[3:20:30] Green, Watson, myself, Braithweight, and

[3:20:34] Patterson. I see your hand up. Opposed.

[3:20:36] Okay, that the amendment motion fails,

[3:20:38] but we're back to the main motion.

[3:20:40] Um, I might again uh I'll leave that

[3:20:44] there for now. So, back to the main me

[3:20:47] that one amendment motion, which is uh

[3:20:51] at least consider most speed humps, but

[3:20:53] not all to be removed. So that's a

[3:20:55] motion on the floor. All those in favor

[3:20:58] and those opposed. I have councelor

[3:21:00] Smart, Watson, and Appleton opposed.

[3:21:03] That does carry. Um any other motions

[3:21:07] here that people wish to see move

[3:21:09] forward? Council Green.

[3:21:12] One of the motions that I I've been

[3:21:13] contemplating um is as we send all of

[3:21:17] this back to staff to look at and and

[3:21:20] potentially revise

[3:21:22] um neighbors have talked a lot about

[3:21:25] collaboration with neighborhood w with

[3:21:27] the neighborhood most impacted and I'm

[3:21:29] wondering if if that requires a motion

[3:21:32] to encourage collaboration wherever

[3:21:35] possible on these projects uh while

[3:21:38] they're under revision. I think that

[3:21:39] would be a really important step

[3:21:40] forward. It would also be consistent

[3:21:42] with what we learned in a a community

[3:21:44] engagement workshop a few weeks ago. I'm

[3:21:47] going to suggest procedurally that'd be

[3:21:48] best done again as a motion arising at

[3:21:50] the end of the meeting. Okay. I'll do it

[3:21:52] I'll do it as a motion arising. Thank

[3:21:54] you. Thank you.

[3:21:56] Right. Councelor Patterson. Yes. I would

[3:21:58] like to move uh number one on here.

[3:22:01] Review the intersection design at the

[3:22:02] corner of Cadboro Bay and Estavan to

[3:22:04] ensure the needs of commercial and

[3:22:06] pedestrian traffic are met.

[3:22:10] The motion thing is off. Motion moves

[3:22:12] and seconded. Um do you wish first of

[3:22:15] all see if anybody wishes to debate

[3:22:17] that. If not I won't ask you to

[3:22:18] motivate.

[3:22:21] Yeah. So go ahead councelor Patterson

[3:22:23] and then go to councelor Smart. Yes.

[3:22:26] Thank you mayor. And um I the the plans

[3:22:29] that were presented do of course um show

[3:22:32] the the cycling crossing at that corner.

[3:22:35] they are uh they do not have any

[3:22:38] clarifications on the the loading areas

[3:22:42] in in uh that are located there now. And

[3:22:46] I think that it is it's important as we

[3:22:50] look at this that we also consider the

[3:22:52] needs of the commercial areas that are

[3:22:54] also vital to the um to the community.

[3:22:58] And uh that we we don't just push them

[3:23:01] aside or ignore them in any way, but we

[3:23:04] actually um engage and actively state

[3:23:08] what the intent is, how it will be meet

[3:23:11] the needs of the commercial district and

[3:23:14] um offer the the commercial tenants in

[3:23:17] the area um something that they can

[3:23:20] actually speak to and um uh share their

[3:23:25] comments with us because right now there

[3:23:27] is nothing on the design work for them

[3:23:29] to look at.

[3:23:32] Thank you, Councelor Smart.

[3:23:35] Um, thank you. Um, I I will vote in

[3:23:38] favor of the um motion. I just um

[3:23:41] appreciate having a little bit more

[3:23:42] explanation there because it is sort of

[3:23:44] such a light touch at that corner. I

[3:23:45] didn't see um the concerns, but I I

[3:23:48] appreciate what has been said and I'm um

[3:23:51] supportive of the communication piece

[3:23:53] there.

[3:23:56] Well, thank you, worship, uh through

[3:23:58] your question for staff. Uh I just

[3:24:01] looking for confirmation that there is

[3:24:03] an established loading zone there, the

[3:24:05] council itself itself established uh

[3:24:07] there next to the old farm market. And

[3:24:09] so was the existence of the loading zone

[3:24:13] factored into the design?

[3:24:16] Mr. Renick, uh through the mayor, no

[3:24:19] changes are proposed to that loading

[3:24:21] zone uh as a result of this design.

[3:24:26] Thank

[3:24:27] you. Anything else? Any other

[3:24:31] comments? I'll just speak briefly. I

[3:24:33] this may be one of those ones that

[3:24:35] doesn't result in any changes at all,

[3:24:36] but I think it's just important to make

[3:24:38] sure that there's any anything there

[3:24:39] that has been missed or looked at then

[3:24:41] we we should consider it. So certainly a

[3:24:43] critical part for that that commercial

[3:24:45] area. Um seeing no other hands, I'll

[3:24:47] call the question. All those in

[3:24:49] favor? Any opposed? Opposed?

[3:24:53] Go ahead, Councman. Uh, thanks. I'd like

[3:24:55] to um move that uh we revise the design

[3:24:59] of Eastbound Road, the Easttown Halane

[3:25:01] intersection, and Florence Epworth and

[3:25:03] Hala streets to reduce cut through

[3:25:05] traffic onto Hala, enhance pedestrian

[3:25:08] crossing safety, reduce conflict between

[3:25:11] southbound, east on eastbound vehicle

[3:25:13] traffic and eastbound bicycle on a

[3:25:16] haltane at the intersection, and reduce

[3:25:18] parking losses.

[3:25:20] second move and seconded. Uh you can

[3:25:24] speak to it if you wish. Uh sure. I

[3:25:26] think that this is really important. I

[3:25:28] mean this is obviously um where we've

[3:25:30] heard so much from our residents. Um we

[3:25:34] heard loud and clear from our residents

[3:25:35] what what um their their feelings were

[3:25:38] around this particular area. And I think

[3:25:40] that um they did come up with some some

[3:25:43] good um information for us to take into

[3:25:45] consideration. I also think that uh uh

[3:25:48] we we perhaps didn't take into account

[3:25:51] the um amount of construction that will

[3:25:54] be going on around there and the

[3:25:55] increase in densification and how that

[3:25:57] might affect this design. So I would

[3:25:59] really like to see us um look at and

[3:26:02] look at this and perhaps revise that

[3:26:04] design to encompass those things. Thank

[3:26:07] you,

[3:26:09] Councelor Smart. Then go ahead,

[3:26:12] councelor Smart. Uh thank you. Um I'm in

[3:26:15] in favor of almost all of this motion.

[3:26:17] So I would like to um propose an

[3:26:19] amendment to the amendment. Um and that

[3:26:21] would be um for the last point reduce

[3:26:24] parking losses to read reduce parking

[3:26:26] losses if safe conditions for

[3:26:28] pedestrians and cyclists can be

[3:26:30] maintained.

[3:26:34] Moved and seconded. Sure. Go ahead.

[3:26:37] Thank you. I just want to um make sure

[3:26:39] that we're again not playing traffic

[3:26:41] engineer and um potentially um

[3:26:44] encouraging parking spots to be removed

[3:26:47] and therefore um creating situations

[3:26:49] where there are not sight lines between

[3:26:52] motorists and cyclists and pedestrians.

[3:26:57] Thank you. Go ahead, councelor Appleton

[3:26:59] and then I'm going to ask a quick

[3:27:00] question of staff before I go to the

[3:27:01] next speaker. Go ahead. Thank you,

[3:27:02] worship. Yeah, and we heard really and

[3:27:04] so definitely in favor of this amendment

[3:27:06] to then the bulk of this proposed

[3:27:09] amendment to the design I think is

[3:27:11] great. I do appreciate this additional

[3:27:13] amendment to speak to the parking thing

[3:27:15] specifically because it's really

[3:27:17] important to note that the parking uh

[3:27:20] the parking some of the parking removal

[3:27:23] will need to the most critical places

[3:27:25] where it's removed is in and around

[3:27:27] intersections where we know is you know

[3:27:29] a safe is a problematic area for safety

[3:27:31] both for pedestrians and for cyclists.

[3:27:35] So being able to create those curb

[3:27:37] extensions, being able to create that

[3:27:39] that safer uh pedestrian uh crossing

[3:27:42] environment and also uh the cycling

[3:27:45] infrastructure is is really really key.

[3:27:47] The sight lines around infrastru we've

[3:27:48] heard it a couple of times tonight.

[3:27:50] Intersections are the place where the

[3:27:52] most conflict occurs both for

[3:27:53] pedestrians and for cyclists. So, I

[3:27:56] think we should look at the parking

[3:27:57] topic, but there are some very key areas

[3:28:01] that parking may need to be removed in

[3:28:03] order to achieve a much safer situation.

[3:28:06] So, I think that there's probably some

[3:28:08] stuff on mid block that could go either

[3:28:11] way, but especially around the

[3:28:12] intersections piece, I think we need to

[3:28:14] really cast our minds to the safety

[3:28:15] element of it because everybody wants to

[3:28:17] see that both for pedestrians and

[3:28:19] walkers and better visibility for cars

[3:28:21] as they approach the intersection as

[3:28:23] well. So, I'm I'm definitely in in uh in

[3:28:26] support of this because it considers how

[3:28:29] significant the removal of some limited

[3:28:32] amount of parking, especially in

[3:28:34] intersections, creates a much safer

[3:28:36] consideration, much safer condition.

[3:28:37] Thank you, Sure. Thank you. I'm just

[3:28:41] going to just just in interest of just

[3:28:42] clarifying the wording here. Uh I just

[3:28:45] that wording if safe conditions can be

[3:28:47] maintained. I'm just want to make sure

[3:28:49] that's what that means. So I might just

[3:28:52] go to the mover and then I might have to

[3:28:54] go ahead counc. Um thank you. Um if the

[3:28:59] safe conditions proposed by the 90%

[3:29:01] design can be maintained would that

[3:29:04] clarify the question? Um

[3:29:10] guess maybe just it helps me just with

[3:29:11] the intent. So the intention is that no

[3:29:13] change that the changes here would have

[3:29:14] no negative impact on the safety at all.

[3:29:17] Is that the

[3:29:18] intent? Okay. Getting a nod. Uh, okay.

[3:29:21] Thank you. Go ahead, councelor Green.

[3:29:23] Thank you. This is a really good example

[3:29:25] of where neighborhood collaboration

[3:29:26] would be perfect. Um, because there is

[3:29:29] new density proposed for Easttown. Um, I

[3:29:32] believe and we don't know what the

[3:29:35] impacts of that will be and parking as I

[3:29:37] learned when I attended the briefly the

[3:29:39] neighborhood meeting on April 29th,

[3:29:41] parking is a huge challenge in that

[3:29:43] area. So before we remove parking, we

[3:29:46] also have to make sure that residents

[3:29:48] who live there have access to their

[3:29:51] homes and those who are disabled have

[3:29:53] access to their homes. And so whatever

[3:29:56] we do, I think I think that the um that

[3:29:59] this would be a great topic also to be

[3:30:01] referred to the accessibility committee

[3:30:03] for their review before we start

[3:30:05] removing parking spaces. I don't

[3:30:06] disagree with the intersection issue. I

[3:30:08] I understand it completely, but I think

[3:30:11] we have to be really careful how we

[3:30:12] approach this and talking to the people

[3:30:14] who actually live and park there would

[3:30:16] be a good approach, I think. Thank you.

[3:30:19] Thank you. Uh, any other discussion on

[3:30:22] the motion? Go ahead, Councelor Watson.

[3:30:25] Yes. Thank you, mayor. I'm I'm really

[3:30:27] hesitant about amending it to try and

[3:30:30] make it more palatable. I just think

[3:30:32] that reduced parking losses losses

[3:30:34] should come out of this entirely. And I

[3:30:36] think that equivalent to a motion we now

[3:30:39] have approved to remove speed humps,

[3:30:41] we're doing this in the absence of

[3:30:43] really understanding how the whole thing

[3:30:45] works as a whole. So we're getting into

[3:30:47] the weeds now at least twice in this

[3:30:50] overall design. Um

[3:30:53] and

[3:30:55] safety is becomes very subjective when

[3:30:58] you discuss it in a community context

[3:31:01] and how will we know or measure whether

[3:31:05] we have we have maintained the same

[3:31:07] safety level because we right now we

[3:31:10] don't have safety. So I I

[3:31:13] I would just would prefer that we don't

[3:31:17] have reduced parking loss as an issue at

[3:31:19] all. the road. This is a public right of

[3:31:22] way in a neighborhood bike way that is

[3:31:26] supposed to be providing safe access for

[3:31:29] bikes in a space that is not shared at

[3:31:31] the moment. Our focus in my view should

[3:31:34] not be concerned about parking at all.

[3:31:36] It should be concerned about how do we

[3:31:38] share this roadway with cyclists while

[3:31:41] as a as a consequence also it will be

[3:31:44] made more safe for pedestrians. So I am

[3:31:46] so against the idea of having parking as

[3:31:49] an issue that's being discussed in this

[3:31:52] recommendation at all. Appreciate the

[3:31:54] passion. Councelor was uh councelor

[3:31:57] Patterson.

[3:31:59] Yes. Thank you mayor. And

[3:32:02] um you know it yes safety is very

[3:32:05] important. So is parking though. And you

[3:32:08] know the the the

[3:32:09] the dilemma here is we are just now

[3:32:13] engaging in undertaking a revised

[3:32:17] OCP for and some of these bike pathways

[3:32:21] in fact uh that we're they were trying

[3:32:24] to um accommodate in the community now

[3:32:27] were the same ones that were proposed

[3:32:30] back when the first OCP was done and the

[3:32:32] first report on this was done. And in

[3:32:34] fact, um, even what we're discussing

[3:32:37] here tonight, um, once

[3:32:39] we complete our our public engagement on

[3:32:43] the OCP and start the revision of the

[3:32:46] OCP could change all of this again

[3:32:48] dramatically. And I don't think we're we

[3:32:51] I don't even think that we can really

[3:32:52] discuss with any um credibility and

[3:32:55] intelligence what exactly will be

[3:32:58] required by way of transportation in

[3:33:00] that area and certainly how we will

[3:33:02] accommodate uh people living, people uh

[3:33:06] walking, people cycling and people

[3:33:08] parking in the area until we review the

[3:33:11] OCP process also. So um uh you know

[3:33:16] we're we're trying to to push this

[3:33:18] through rapidly I think to to um

[3:33:21] accommodate uh some of what we have been

[3:33:24] asked to do but we are doing it with

[3:33:26] very limited inter uh information until

[3:33:30] we in fact um engage with the community

[3:33:32] on the OCP.

[3:33:36] Thank you. Um I'll just speak briefly to

[3:33:39] this. I I'm not crazy about the

[3:33:41] amendment. I think that is sort of

[3:33:42] implied, but I um I'm accepting of that

[3:33:45] wording. Um I do I do think that

[3:33:48] reducing parsing losses is a laudable

[3:33:50] goal. There is um you know there is a

[3:33:53] serious parking crunch in that in that

[3:33:55] neighborhood and I don't think that we

[3:33:57] should ignore that. So I think including

[3:33:59] that as one of the design guidelines to

[3:34:01] go back is a good one. Um uh so I'll

[3:34:05] I'll support the amendment. I don't

[3:34:06] think it it it's harmful. It is a gray

[3:34:10] area. I'm going to say safety is always

[3:34:12] uh you know is if it's if it's 1% safer

[3:34:15] but it loses 50 parking spots I'm not

[3:34:17] going to support that. If it's you know

[3:34:19] 90% safer and you lose one parking spot

[3:34:21] I of course support that. So I don't

[3:34:22] think this is as clearcut but I think

[3:34:24] the intention of the of the motion here

[3:34:26] is is is understood that we don't want

[3:34:28] to be making that poor tradeoff where

[3:34:30] possible. And so I think I'm supportive

[3:34:33] of the of the languages for the

[3:34:34] amendment for that reason. Uh any other

[3:34:38] discussion on the amendment?

[3:34:40] This is to add the words if safe

[3:34:42] conditions can be maintained. All those

[3:34:44] in favor and those

[3:34:48] opposed council Watson opposed. So back

[3:34:50] to the main motion which uh suggesting

[3:34:53] the revision of the of those changes

[3:34:54] with the to reduce cut through traffic,

[3:34:56] enhance pedestrian crossing safety,

[3:34:58] reduce conflict between the the east

[3:35:00] down and halt traffic and reduce parking

[3:35:03] losses. Any other discussion on

[3:35:06] that? All right. Uh all those in

[3:35:09] favor and

[3:35:11] opposed none opposed. Um there is one

[3:35:15] more on here if anybody wishes to move

[3:35:17] discuss it. I'll move that we refer

[3:35:19] intersection changes on Estavan between

[3:35:20] Musgrave and Beach to the village area

[3:35:22] planning process scheduled to begin in

[3:35:24] 2026 but advance the push button

[3:35:27] crossing for bikes and pedestrians at

[3:35:28] Beach Drive as part of this design.

[3:35:31] Second. Move and seconded. You can speak

[3:35:34] to it if you wish. Yeah, I I I I will

[3:35:36] very briefly. Um, I think it's really

[3:35:37] important that we advance the push

[3:35:39] button crossing for the bikes. Um,

[3:35:40] especially on Beach Drive. It's a very

[3:35:42] busy I live right there. It's a very

[3:35:44] busy um, bikeway. Um, but I do think

[3:35:47] that there's merit in um, referring

[3:35:50] these intersection changes to the

[3:35:52] village area planning process. That's

[3:35:53] something that is coming up and it's

[3:35:55] something that would um be able to speak

[3:35:57] to um and help with um with making any

[3:36:02] suggestions on on what uh changes they

[3:36:05] might like to see at that intersection

[3:36:06] between Estavan and Musgrave. Thank you.

[3:36:11] Any other discussion on this? Councelor

[3:36:13] Smart. Well, thank you. I won't be

[3:36:16] supporting this motion. I really like

[3:36:18] these intersection improvements. This is

[3:36:21] such a dangerous intersection. And I've

[3:36:22] seen so many close calls um at this

[3:36:26] intersection and this is one of my

[3:36:28] favorite pedestrian improvements of the

[3:36:30] whole project. Uh I don't see a reason

[3:36:33] um to wait uh to do something that looks

[3:36:38] um like such a great um improvement. So

[3:36:40] I won't be voting in favor of this.

[3:36:44] Per counc.

[3:36:46] Yeah. Thank you worship. Similarly, you

[3:36:48] can't support this amendment just

[3:36:49] because I I can't I I I'm just not uh so

[3:36:54] interested in the pedestrian

[3:36:55] improvements around that that Estavon

[3:36:57] intersection. I mean, long before we

[3:36:59] were talking about this particular

[3:37:01] bikeway, uh folks were raising the issue

[3:37:04] of that intersection. That intersection

[3:37:05] is legendary all over the all over the

[3:37:07] community. So, and there have been some

[3:37:09] interventions that we've done recently

[3:37:11] to improve things and as going through

[3:37:13] on my bike on a pretty regular basis,

[3:37:15] it's definitely better, but uh from a

[3:37:17] pedestrian standpoint, that's still a

[3:37:19] confusing intersection and could still

[3:37:20] deal with a really large upgrade. So, in

[3:37:23] terms of that particular intersection, I

[3:37:25] would hate to for us to lose those

[3:37:27] safety improvements, especially in the

[3:37:28] pedestrian realm, and and just improve

[3:37:30] the the flow of folks and uh and and

[3:37:33] manage the flow of traffic around that

[3:37:35] intersection. So, I' I'd hate for that

[3:37:36] to get lost. So not can't support this

[3:37:38] amendment your worship.

[3:37:40] Yeah. Thank you councelor Appleton. I

[3:37:42] think it's good to have this debate

[3:37:44] here. Councelor Watson.

[3:37:46] Um I think in the case of this

[3:37:48] particular intersection and the overall

[3:37:50] street layout um there needs to be a

[3:37:53] solution to the fact that we have five

[3:37:54] roads approaching somewhere and um I

[3:37:57] think that the design is presented is

[3:37:58] really effective in doing that. um we're

[3:38:02] um the village area planning process I

[3:38:04] cannot anticipate that it would be

[3:38:06] looking at wholesale removing roads or

[3:38:09] changing that underlying grid. So while

[3:38:12] I think that there's um maybe parts of

[3:38:15] the village area planning process that

[3:38:17] would affect what's going on on Estavan

[3:38:20] as traffic as any kind of traffic moves

[3:38:23] through the road itself. the

[3:38:25] intersection I think uh stands alone um

[3:38:29] uh and creates a really safe

[3:38:31] configuration where we haven't had one

[3:38:34] um um before. So uh I do not support

[3:38:37] this motion as it's presented.

[3:38:41] Thank you. Uh any other

[3:38:44] discussion? Councelor Smart, I think I

[3:38:46] had Go ahead. Yeah, I I just wanted to

[3:38:49] add um you know, being that this is part

[3:38:51] of the whole comprehensive design, I'm

[3:38:54] really hesitant to pull this out because

[3:38:57] like again, I just I don't understand

[3:38:59] the implications of how that's going to

[3:39:02] impact the whole bikeway design at that

[3:39:05] particular intersection. So, if we if

[3:39:08] we're, you know, we encouraging more and

[3:39:11] more cyclists to go through an area

[3:39:13] that's a a known dangerous intersection,

[3:39:17] um, yeah, I just uncomfortable with it.

[3:39:21] Thank you. Um, I'll speak to it briefly.

[3:39:24] So, I I I uh was supportive of this when

[3:39:27] in in the when we this discussion

[3:39:29] happened before. This is less about the

[3:39:32] uh the design. I think the design I'm

[3:39:34] supportive of. Um but there's a couple

[3:39:36] of key aspects of this particular area

[3:39:39] that I think are really critically

[3:39:41] important. One is um the village area

[3:39:44] plan for Estavan in particular um really

[3:39:47] is going to have to look at how it's

[3:39:49] connecting to its uh to significant

[3:39:51] potential um uh uh potential clients for

[3:39:55] the commercial area down at the beach

[3:39:57] and how do we connect that to the beach

[3:39:59] in a way that is really meaningful and I

[3:40:00] think that takes a bit more of a

[3:40:02] holistic look. for example, the design

[3:40:04] doesn't consider a a pedestrian crossing

[3:40:06] on the north side of Estavan when it

[3:40:08] hits Beach Drive. Um the other aspect of

[3:40:11] this is that um Estavan as a whole

[3:40:14] struggles to have the ambiance and

[3:40:16] attraction of Oak Bay Village. And so

[3:40:20] while I I actually really like the

[3:40:21] design that's being put forward here, um

[3:40:24] to my mind, this is a permanent design

[3:40:26] approach. This is putting in concrete

[3:40:28] and using that space and perhaps even

[3:40:30] expanding it. So there's more aspect

[3:40:32] space for public gathering space for

[3:40:34] pieces. Um this painting lines in the

[3:40:36] ground, putting in multiple ballards. Uh

[3:40:38] it's going to create a a very cluttered

[3:40:41] and very temporary looking space there.

[3:40:43] And I just think that this is worth

[3:40:45] taking that little bit of extra time

[3:40:47] agreeing on it and then building

[3:40:49] something that's actually really

[3:40:50] substantial and and beneficial. I think

[3:40:53] my my fear here is that advancing this

[3:40:55] portion in this section um will will

[3:40:59] spend money in ways that will won't

[3:41:00] necessarily last very long and may

[3:41:02] actually materially damage the

[3:41:05] effectiveness of the businesses. So

[3:41:06] that's my primary concern. I I agree

[3:41:08] with the other comments made here. I

[3:41:10] think that the changes are are

[3:41:11] worthwhile. I just doing them with paint

[3:41:13] and and multiple ballards and things is

[3:41:15] not to my mind the right approach when

[3:41:17] we have the opportunity and just

[3:41:19] deferring the spending of that money um

[3:41:20] and perhaps spending that uh more

[3:41:22] capital on the on the concrete in a

[3:41:24] short order is is where I'm coming from

[3:41:26] on this one. So I am supportive of the

[3:41:28] motion but I do appreciate the comments

[3:41:29] that have been made by by my peers. Um I

[3:41:33] just want to go to any other first time

[3:41:34] or second time

[3:41:37] speakers and I see your hand. Thank you.

[3:41:39] I'm just hoping that um either the mover

[3:41:42] of the the motion or one of the

[3:41:43] supporters could walk us through the

[3:41:45] drawings. I just want to know how many

[3:41:47] intersections and whether this also

[3:41:49] includes is it including new crosswalks,

[3:41:51] bumpouts, is it including speed humps?

[3:41:53] Could I I need some more clarity around

[3:41:56] um exactly how much is being taken out

[3:41:59] of the project with this motion? Like

[3:42:00] could we could you reference the

[3:42:02] different um pages in the drawing

[3:42:04] package that this refers to?

[3:42:07] do my best to help you with that just so

[3:42:08] it's it's it's clear. So the drawings uh

[3:42:11] run from drawing 16

[3:42:14] cover

[3:42:16] 17 and

[3:42:19] 18. The speed humps are already removed

[3:42:22] as part of that direct further direction

[3:42:24] if this moves

[3:42:26] forward. Um the um so really just the

[3:42:30] ballards and and and bumpouts in Estan

[3:42:34] Village. Um there's a crosswalk already

[3:42:36] there. So this is just the ballards and

[3:42:38] those pieces and we're then and really

[3:42:41] nothing else on Estavan until it gets to

[3:42:43] Beach Drive and then really just

[3:42:45] advancing all of the pedestrian and

[3:42:48] bicycle um push button crossings for

[3:42:51] that intersection, but it would not

[3:42:53] include the additional concrete work of

[3:42:55] the bumpouts, the greenery, those pieces

[3:42:58] at this

[3:43:01] time. That's on page 18.

[3:43:04] Does that help, Councelor Smart?

[3:43:07] Um, that helps a little bit. So, now

[3:43:09] this is bringing up a question for me of

[3:43:11] what the definition of um um cut through

[3:43:14] is because you're saying like you would

[3:43:17] assume that these speed bumps would be

[3:43:19] removed from the motion you made

[3:43:21] previously. I guess I find that

[3:43:22] definition a bit confusing too. Um so

[3:43:25] there wouldn't be any traffic calming on

[3:43:27] this stretch. So, um, the traffic speeds

[3:43:30] wouldn't, um, I wonder maybe we could

[3:43:33] ask a question to staff of what the

[3:43:35] current, um, traffic speeds and counts

[3:43:36] are here. 30 30 km. No, no, the actual

[3:43:40] like the measured, not I'm sure the

[3:43:42] speed limit says that, but Mr. Reic, do

[3:43:45] you have at hand the 85th percentile for

[3:43:47] Estavan between uh, Dun Levy and Beach

[3:43:49] Drive? Uh, thank you for the question,

[3:43:52] Mr. Mayor. Uh, that's not information

[3:43:54] that I'm able to pull up at my

[3:43:55] fingertips at this time. All right.

[3:43:59] Anything else? Councelor Smart?

[3:44:04] Um, no. I obviously I don't I don't

[3:44:06] support this be because um like we're

[3:44:09] taking traffic come coming out. We're

[3:44:11] getting rid of Yeah. No, I just I don't

[3:44:13] support this at all.

[3:44:16] Okay. Thank

[3:44:18] you. Other discussion? I don't see any

[3:44:20] other hands. The motion's on the floor

[3:44:21] at the moment. Oh, Councelor Patterson,

[3:44:22] my apologies.

[3:44:25] Yes, I I will support this because I

[3:44:28] think that um

[3:44:30] it it could be adapted with the village

[3:44:33] area planning which hopefully will also

[3:44:34] include pedestrian sidewalks through the

[3:44:37] village which are not um incorporated

[3:44:39] into any of this. We all of the all of

[3:44:43] the monies are being allocated for

[3:44:44] really the cycling path and and those

[3:44:47] pedestrian crossings there. We we're not

[3:44:49] addressing the sidewalks yet. So I would

[3:44:52] like to see a more um cohesive uh plan

[3:44:54] that binds it all together when the

[3:44:56] Estaban Village plan comes together. And

[3:44:58] that is not uh very far off. It's uh

[3:45:02] beginning in

[3:45:04] 2026. And um I I uh can't help but

[3:45:08] notice that right now in that area on

[3:45:11] Estavan, there are a lot of pipes going

[3:45:13] in and streets being dug up right now.

[3:45:16] So I I think delaying this as part of

[3:45:19] the built village plan makes sense to

[3:45:20] me.

[3:45:22] Okay. Other discussion, councelor Smart,

[3:45:25] I just want to know if this also

[3:45:26] includes getting rid of the elephant um

[3:45:29] feet at the intersection. Um I believe

[3:45:31] by it sounds like if we didn't specify

[3:45:33] otherwise that it it would um it's

[3:45:36] unclear to me. And and does it include

[3:45:38] the sheros? Are we doing sheros here?

[3:45:41] Sure. Thank you. My my understanding is

[3:45:43] that those would continue on. This is

[3:45:45] just the intersection the hard pieces

[3:45:47] but perhaps just for clip I'm going to

[3:45:49] go around the table there just to make

[3:45:50] sure we're very clear the all the

[3:45:51] crosswalks at elephant's feet would

[3:45:54] still be desired to still continue in

[3:45:55] those okay seeing nods around the table

[3:45:58] so thanks for that clarification

[3:45:59] councelor

[3:46:01] Smart please continue

[3:46:04] um thank you I'd like to propose an

[3:46:05] amendment to the amendment then because

[3:46:06] all it says is advancing the push button

[3:46:08] crossing for bikes and pedestrians as

[3:46:10] beach park as part of this design so I

[3:46:11] would um prefer to amend this uh to

[3:46:15] include um sherrows and elephant feet um

[3:46:19] and any I think just street markings

[3:46:21] street markings is probably the better

[3:46:22] way of putting it

[3:46:25] just to make sure that we're not with

[3:46:27] those to include street markings

[3:46:32] okay the motion is to add the words and

[3:46:35] uh advance this and street markings so

[3:46:38] that's clear and seconded any discussion

[3:46:40] on that

[3:46:41] change seeing any all those in favor Any

[3:46:44] opposed? None opposed. Thank you for

[3:46:45] that, Cash Councelor Smart.

[3:46:49] I'm just going to try to look around

[3:46:50] here for any other discussion on the

[3:46:52] motion as it stands as

[3:46:54] amended. All right. All those in favor

[3:46:57] and opposed. Councelor Watson, Appleton,

[3:47:01] and Smart opposed. Any other amendments

[3:47:04] that people wish to see at this point?

[3:47:05] Councelor, uh, sorry, Councelor

[3:47:08] Patterson, past my bedtime. Hopefully my

[3:47:10] name is correct in front of me. Um, yes,

[3:47:13] Mayor. Thank you. Uh, I would also like

[3:47:16] to make a motion to implement traffic

[3:47:19] speed reduction to 10 kilometers per

[3:47:21] hour through the Goldsmith Street

[3:47:23] parking lot. That's shown on drawing

[3:47:25] four.

[3:47:28] Second.

[3:47:34] So, just read that again.

[3:47:36] Yes. uh to implement traffic speed

[3:47:39] reduction to 10 kilometers per hour

[3:47:41] through the Gold Smith Street parking

[3:47:43] lot uh which is shown on uh drawing

[3:47:46] four. Uh thank you for that

[3:47:49] clarification. Is there a seconder? Did

[3:47:51] I hear a second? Seconded. Thank you. Um

[3:47:55] you can speak to it, but it might be

[3:47:56] worthwhile just to my my knowledge of

[3:47:59] speed appropriate speed limits in

[3:48:01] parking lots is very minimal. So, I

[3:48:03] might appreciate if you could just also

[3:48:05] just direct your question to staff about

[3:48:06] what what that might be. But go ahead,

[3:48:08] Councelor Patterson. Yes. and and you

[3:48:10] know it it's a matter of signage I guess

[3:48:13] uh through the area but that parking lot

[3:48:15] particularly as it as it's proposed now

[3:48:17] for the bike lanes there will be quite a

[3:48:20] um a considerable amount of of a variety

[3:48:23] of activities because it's it's uh

[3:48:27] certainly used by um by the some of the

[3:48:32] uh users of the the recreation center

[3:48:36] off of B Street as as overflow parking

[3:48:38] It's also used quite extensively right

[3:48:40] now um as overflow parking to the public

[3:48:43] works. There is a a gate installed in

[3:48:46] the public works yard with a push button

[3:48:48] code so that the staff can leave the

[3:48:51] public works yard, go into the um the

[3:48:53] Goldsmith parking lot and so you have

[3:48:56] heavy vehicles moving through there. Um

[3:48:58] you also have a couple of handicapped

[3:49:01] accessible spots in there. We have a lot

[3:49:04] of pedestrian traffic from the seniors.

[3:49:07] um uh facilities that are adjacent to

[3:49:10] that and apartment buildings that are

[3:49:12] adjacent. Many of them go and use the

[3:49:14] track. So, you've got pedestrian

[3:49:16] traffic. You'll we're introducing new um

[3:49:19] bicycle pathways and we have vehicle

[3:49:23] traffic all converging on that area. And

[3:49:27] um there's not very well delineated

[3:49:29] paths for travel. So, it it's very

[3:49:32] random crossing right now. um some of

[3:49:35] the uh the bicycles going through,

[3:49:38] especially ebikes are traveling very

[3:49:40] quickly. We do also have uh vehicles

[3:49:43] that um pull in and out very rapidly.

[3:49:46] So, by implementing new signage in the

[3:49:49] area, hopefully it will help uh remind

[3:49:52] people to slow down that it is in fact a

[3:49:55] parking lot um with uh multi-use um

[3:49:59] access. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just

[3:50:03] going to ask my question of staff

[3:50:05] because I just uh Mr. Renick um the

[3:50:08] motion here is very specific to a 10

[3:50:09] kmter an hour and I just I've never seen

[3:50:12] I'm not I'm just not familiar with

[3:50:13] parking speeds in parking lots. Um can

[3:50:16] you just make give us some indication of

[3:50:18] is that an appropriate ask at this

[3:50:20] point. Uh is is is 2018

[3:50:22] 10 hand over to you.

[3:50:25] Uh thank you very much Mr. Mayor.

[3:50:27] Typically speed limits in parking lots,

[3:50:30] as parking lots are generally private

[3:50:32] property, are essentially established by

[3:50:34] the property owner for whatever it is

[3:50:36] that they like to see. As to whether 10

[3:50:38] km is appropriate. Just for uh

[3:50:42] comparison sake, this parking lot is 15

[3:50:44] km/h. This parking lot's a little bit of

[3:50:46] a different story because it is used as

[3:50:48] a cut through. Um but I would not say

[3:50:50] that 10 km per hour is an inappropriate

[3:50:53] speed for a parking lot. Um perhaps

[3:50:56] maybe if the motion did not have a

[3:50:57] specific speed limit in it that would

[3:50:59] give a little bit more flexibility, but

[3:51:01] I'm I'm okay with 10.

[3:51:04] So the motion on the floor right now is

[3:51:05] to basically direct changes that would

[3:51:07] have the traffic speed reduction in

[3:51:09] Goldmith to 10 km an hour. Leave that to

[3:51:11] signs or design or what have you, but at

[3:51:12] this point just to incorporate that

[3:51:15] intention. Thank you. Is there any other

[3:51:17] discussion on

[3:51:18] that? Fine with that as well. All those

[3:51:21] in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. We

[3:51:24] now have motion as amended. Is there any

[3:51:25] other amendment motions? Councelor

[3:51:27] Green, a motion rising. I haven't called

[3:51:30] the motion the the question on the main

[3:51:32] motion at this point. Yeah. Councelor

[3:51:35] Smart.

[3:51:36] Yeah. I'd like to make an amendment that

[3:51:38] the consultant provide a summary

[3:51:39] highlighting any safety concerns that

[3:51:41] have arisen due to the proposed changes

[3:51:43] in the design.

[3:51:51] Seconded. Go ahead. Can you just read it

[3:51:53] again just so we have Y that the

[3:51:55] consultant provide a summary

[3:51:56] highlighting any safety concerns that

[3:51:57] have arisen due to the proposed changes

[3:51:59] in design.

[3:52:06] Okay. Go ahead.

[3:52:08] Sorry. Thanks. I I just want the um

[3:52:11] there to be a very um brief summary um

[3:52:14] and an opportunity for the consult

[3:52:15] consultant to use their expertise to

[3:52:18] come back to council and say we heard

[3:52:20] all of these things just so you know

[3:52:21] like this one particular thing we're

[3:52:23] really concerned about from a safety

[3:52:24] point of view um um or because we've

[3:52:28] done this and that because we've changed

[3:52:29] so many things I think it's really

[3:52:30] important that we get like at least a

[3:52:31] paragraph back from the consultant that

[3:52:33] highlights um any concerns they have

[3:52:36] about how these changes are impacting

[3:52:37] the overall design. So I just want to

[3:52:40] make sure that we don't um go ahead and

[3:52:42] in a sense become responsible for these

[3:52:45] traffic engineering design changes. Um

[3:52:47] we really need the expert to tell us in

[3:52:49] the end is it going to work. Thank you.

[3:52:52] Might I suggest that we rather than a

[3:52:54] summary of safety concerns which might

[3:52:55] be a little bit of a a report that um

[3:52:59] that maybe just that we give direction

[3:53:01] that that safety concerns that arise can

[3:53:04] be incorporated uh through design

[3:53:06] changes in the in the piece. I don't

[3:53:07] know that we want them to flag it. I'm

[3:53:09] just trying to make should see if that's

[3:53:10] a um I hear what you're saying. I don't

[3:53:12] think providing a summary would take

[3:53:14] that much work. And I think the thing is

[3:53:16] we have actually um directed if should

[3:53:19] these amendments pass um things that are

[3:53:22] going a specific direction. So if they

[3:53:24] don't actually have the ability to go

[3:53:27] against this direction and say no, we

[3:53:30] actually really think that this isn't a

[3:53:32] cut through, but we really need that

[3:53:33] speed bump there and this is why. So, if

[3:53:35] we can't give them a mechanism to

[3:53:37] actually disagree with some of our

[3:53:39] direction at the table, we need to at

[3:53:40] least have a summary um of concerns that

[3:53:43] they might have with the direction we've

[3:53:45] given in the design.

[3:53:47] Sure. Uh go to speakers. I'm going to go

[3:53:49] to council. Did I see your hand council?

[3:53:52] Oh, you just seconded it, but do you

[3:53:53] wish to speak? Yes. I actually like like

[3:53:56] to um though I supported the motion, but

[3:53:59] I'd like to amend it because the wording

[3:54:01] right now says proposed changes, but

[3:54:03] they're actually directed changes

[3:54:05] because we've voted on them. So I if if

[3:54:07] the mover of the motion would agree to

[3:54:09] the amendment to change the wording of

[3:54:11] the main motion and I would that's

[3:54:13] that's my only comment. I find that

[3:54:16] acceptable.

[3:54:20] Would you like me to read out the motion

[3:54:21] as amended?

[3:54:25] Uh yeah to produce a summary of direct

[3:54:28] the consultants to produce a summary of

[3:54:29] safety concerns resulting from directed

[3:54:31] changes.

[3:54:33] Is that is that what you have? Okay. Go

[3:54:36] ahead councelor Green and then councelor

[3:54:38] brief. I find this really interesting

[3:54:40] because the last time we discussed this

[3:54:42] we talked about

[3:54:43] pre-implementation analysis and

[3:54:46] postimplementation and now we want a

[3:54:47] pre-implementation which is what I put

[3:54:50] forward last time and it was turned

[3:54:51] down. So, if if it's a pre

[3:54:54] pre-implementation summary, that's fine.

[3:54:57] That's that's what I was hoping for in

[3:54:59] the first place um last time. So, I will

[3:55:02] support this motion as long as it

[3:55:05] doesn't cause um additional too much

[3:55:08] additional work for staff and that there

[3:55:11] isn't a huge cost associated.

[3:55:15] Counc Patterson. Uh thanks very much. I

[3:55:17] I would assume as a consultant if they

[3:55:20] felt that there was something wrong with

[3:55:24] what we were asking for that they would

[3:55:27] actually come and tell us. If they're

[3:55:28] any any sort of a consultant, they're

[3:55:31] going to come back and tell us. So, I'm

[3:55:32] not sure if this is actually needed

[3:55:34] because my assumption would be that this

[3:55:37] consultant, if they're worth their

[3:55:39] weight um and the money that we're

[3:55:42] paying them, will actually come back and

[3:55:43] say to us, "No, you're making a mistake.

[3:55:45] This is a safety issue and you need to

[3:55:47] keep this in. So I I have trouble with

[3:55:50] this motion.

[3:55:52] Councelor Patterson.

[3:55:53] Yes, Mayor. Um, thank you. Uh, yes, I I

[3:55:57] agree with Councelor Braithwood. I don't

[3:55:59] want a summary of what's wrong with it

[3:56:01] from the consultant after they have

[3:56:03] already designed it. If there are

[3:56:05] problems with what we're proposing, then

[3:56:08] I would um anticipate getting that

[3:56:13] invance of them completing the design. I

[3:56:16] don't think it is uh they they're

[3:56:18] they're going to just design something

[3:56:20] because they've been told to do it

[3:56:22] without um giving us guidance um on that

[3:56:27] and I so I I would expect they would be

[3:56:29] back to staff very promptly on that.

[3:56:30] officer Hilton.

[3:56:33] Thank you, worship. And one of the

[3:56:34] things that I've really heard really

[3:56:36] clearly through this whole thing is what

[3:56:37] I've been uh hoping to explain to folks

[3:56:40] who have been concerned about the how

[3:56:41] the design has been proceeding is is

[3:56:43] that what is the main motion on the

[3:56:45] table is to approve a 90% design and the

[3:56:48] 90% design is exactly that the type of

[3:56:51] design that still allows for some type

[3:56:53] of uh you know some type of critical

[3:56:56] revision before implementation. So, I

[3:56:58] find the motion on the floor reasonable

[3:57:01] because I would like that that when that

[3:57:03] 90% design is reviewed for the final

[3:57:07] time and is moved forward for

[3:57:08] implementation, then any safety concerns

[3:57:10] or anything that we haven't thought of

[3:57:12] would be brought forward. And I hear the

[3:57:14] comments about whether or not that

[3:57:15] should be just done automatically. Maybe

[3:57:17] it should, you know, maybe that's maybe

[3:57:19] that's reasonable. I think it's still

[3:57:21] worthwhile providing direction from

[3:57:22] council to evaluate that component in

[3:57:25] specific because safety is the primary

[3:57:27] issue here and have that be incorporated

[3:57:30] before the design is finalized. So the

[3:57:32] 90% design allows us to do that and

[3:57:35] allows us the flexibility to be able to

[3:57:36] respond. So I think it's reasonable at

[3:57:38] this stage.

[3:57:40] Thank you. Um I am going to need a

[3:57:42] motion to extend.

[3:57:44] Um God. Okay. We're almost there. So,

[3:57:47] I'm know I appreciate trusting

[3:57:48] everybody's willingness to do this, but

[3:57:49] we're we're at 90% 11 p.m. Moved and

[3:57:54] seconded. Call the question. All those

[3:57:56] in favor, please. Any opposed? None

[3:57:59] opposed. Speaking very briefly to this,

[3:58:01] um I appreciate the spirit by which this

[3:58:03] motion is made. Uh I will say that the

[3:58:06] wording of all of the motions has been

[3:58:09] to direct revisions to staff to come

[3:58:12] back with aspects of this. Um I the

[3:58:16] wording there is to that have been

[3:58:17] directed changes. I that that's piece of

[3:58:20] it. The only piece of this I think that

[3:58:21] really touches on that is the is the

[3:58:23] consideration of removal of speed humps.

[3:58:25] I would prefer that that be dealt with

[3:58:27] as we talked about which is the motion

[3:58:29] arising doing some follow on just review

[3:58:31] to make sure that we could add those if

[3:58:33] they're seeing that the the effects are

[3:58:35] not meeting our expectations in terms of

[3:58:37] slowing traffic and so forth. Everything

[3:58:39] else is already going back to the staff

[3:58:40] and consultants to ask them with very

[3:58:43] high level guidance to make some changes

[3:58:45] if they as they see necessary within

[3:58:46] those and giving them guidelines. And I

[3:58:48] I think you know we talked about that

[3:58:50] the the problem with getting into

[3:58:52] specificity. I think this is asking

[3:58:54] asking for a report of safety concerns

[3:58:55] is a is a strange one and because we've

[3:58:57] asked them to design it with taking that

[3:59:00] design and revising it with addressing

[3:59:02] the concerns that have been raised at

[3:59:03] this table uh and ideas raised at this

[3:59:05] table and that design will come back. So

[3:59:08] um they would essentially you're

[3:59:09] essentially asking a consultant to come

[3:59:10] back with a design that's flawed that

[3:59:13] they're going to have to make a report

[3:59:14] to report back on it. So you know my I

[3:59:17] take the point that I think the the

[3:59:18] primary concern here is does that uh

[3:59:20] sign approve of some of the speed humps

[3:59:22] impacted. I think that's a better as as

[3:59:24] a post analysis than a pre-analysis. So

[3:59:26] I can't support the motion as it is

[3:59:27] here. I again I support I understand the

[3:59:29] the rationale for it. I just think it's

[3:59:31] it's it's backwards if we've done our

[3:59:33] job here of directing staff uh which is

[3:59:35] I think what we tried to do. Yeah, go

[3:59:37] ahead. Councelor Swarm. I have question

[3:59:39] through you mayor to to staff. Will the

[3:59:41] consultant be present um so that we can

[3:59:44] ask these types of questions when the

[3:59:47] new design is presented?

[3:59:50] Renick,

[3:59:52] uh through the mayor. That has not

[3:59:54] typically been our approach on these

[3:59:56] projects. However, if that's something

[3:59:58] that council would like us to do, we

[3:59:59] could certainly arrange that with the

[4:00:01] consultant.

[4:00:04] I think having them available online if

[4:00:06] possible would be helpful to just uh

[4:00:08] answer

[4:00:09] questions. That's the general will of

[4:00:11] the council. I don't

[4:00:13] don't council smart.

[4:00:16] Yeah. I I I just I

[4:00:18] I just need to be able to have either a

[4:00:22] report or at least a conversation when

[4:00:24] this design comes back so that I feel

[4:00:26] comfortable that I understand any

[4:00:28] unintended consequences of of all the

[4:00:31] different things that we've put on the

[4:00:33] table here. I need to be able to have

[4:00:35] that conversation. So, I was trying to

[4:00:37] make it um

[4:00:39] um I thought the least amount of work by

[4:00:41] just having them provide a summary, but

[4:00:43] um it would be even better if the

[4:00:45] consultant was present and we could just

[4:00:46] have that conversation. Either way, I

[4:00:48] just need the information um so that I

[4:00:50] can sleep at night.

[4:00:53] Appreciate that. Motion on the floor

[4:00:55] right now is asking for the

[4:00:57] report. Don't see any other hand. I'm

[4:00:59] going to call the question to on the

[4:01:00] motion is to basically provide a summary

[4:01:01] of safety concerns resulting from the

[4:01:03] directed changes. It's the late

[4:01:05] language. Uh all those in favor

[4:01:09] uh and opposed councelor Patterson Raith

[4:01:13] and myself opposed that carries. So that

[4:01:15] report will come back with the with the

[4:01:18] piece. Any other motions

[4:01:20] arising? Councelor Patterson. Yes. Um I

[4:01:24] propose to that we undertake

[4:01:26] transportation network development

[4:01:28] public engagement uh process and

[4:01:30] accessibility advisory committee review

[4:01:33] of the proposed uh design. And when it

[4:01:36] comes back, I'm going to take it as a

[4:01:38] motion arising after the piece. So, I'm

[4:01:40] going to right now we have a motion as

[4:01:42] amended. If passed, it will go back to

[4:01:44] staff with design changes and come back

[4:01:46] to this table for

[4:01:48] consideration. So, we have a 90% design.

[4:01:51] We've made motions here to make

[4:01:53] amendments to it to address concerns

[4:01:55] heard and raise at the table uh and

[4:01:57] ideas and it's now in it's where it is.

[4:02:00] So at this point, this is sort of the

[4:02:02] does the council have the interest in in

[4:02:04] sending this forward at this point uh to

[4:02:06] receive the uh the design back again. So

[4:02:08] I'm going to call the question on the

[4:02:09] main motion as amended. All those in

[4:02:12] favor? Any opposed? None opposed? That

[4:02:15] carries. Crazy.

[4:02:18] Um so now we had a couple motions

[4:02:20] arising. I want to get to them quickly.

[4:02:22] Councelor uh Patterson. Yes, mayor.

[4:02:25] Thank you. Um I would propo I would make

[4:02:27] a motion that we undertake

[4:02:29] transportation network development

[4:02:31] public engagement process and

[4:02:33] accessibility advisory committee review

[4:02:36] of the uh revised plan.

[4:02:40] Can you say that in plain language

[4:02:41] because we understand what you're asking

[4:02:42] for? Uh yes, basically this this is the

[4:02:46] this is would mirror what we um as a

[4:02:50] council have decided we would undertake

[4:02:51] for all of the other cycling routes when

[4:02:53] they come forward. We have already had a

[4:02:56] lot of public input on this. So, it it

[4:02:58] would be just um uh not soliciting uh an

[4:03:03] extensive public engagement. Again,

[4:03:05] we've already got that, but uh more of a

[4:03:08] check-in with them so that the the

[4:03:10] public that that will be impacted by

[4:03:12] this are actually um engaged uh actively

[4:03:16] in the process and that the it also be

[4:03:19] referred to the accessibility advisory

[4:03:21] committee because right now it is still

[4:03:24] presented as a um a cycling rather than

[4:03:27] a shared pathway. But um Okay. Thank

[4:03:30] you. I'm just going to cut you. There's

[4:03:31] a there's a motion. I'm going to ask

[4:03:32] that we sever those two motions though.

[4:03:34] So I'm going to take the first one to

[4:03:36] take your motion as that the revised

[4:03:39] design be shared with the accessibility

[4:03:41] advisory committee. Is there a second

[4:03:43] for that? Any discussion on that?

[4:03:46] Councelor Smart. Um

[4:03:49] apolog we're going to send the current

[4:03:52] design as it is now or the revised

[4:03:54] design once we receive it. You're saying

[4:03:57] it's the revised design. The

[4:03:59] revised smart. Okay. Thanks. I I don't

[4:04:02] think I will be supporting the motion

[4:04:04] because I actually think we need to

[4:04:05] engage them now. Um um and get that

[4:04:09] input as early as possible to actually

[4:04:11] take any comments to put forward into

[4:04:13] this design revision. Um Josh Pson.

[4:04:18] Yeah. No, I I appreciate that comment.

[4:04:21] The only thing is if we send it to them

[4:04:23] now and we get their input, they they

[4:04:25] will actually be giving input on

[4:04:26] something that's going to change. So uh

[4:04:29] that is difficult and and unfortunately

[4:04:32] this is the way this process has had

[4:04:34] rolled out. If we in in fact had

[4:04:37] undertaken the the advisory the the

[4:04:40] accessibility advisory committee review

[4:04:43] earlier on it would have certainly

[4:04:45] benefited this uh uh but we haven't. And

[4:04:49] so to have them

[4:04:52] uh you know and and perhaps this is a

[4:04:55] matter that staff could comment on but

[4:04:57] to have them uh gather as a group and

[4:05:00] comment on what is before them when it's

[4:05:02] going to change uh unless we can provide

[4:05:05] some guidance for them on how that is

[4:05:07] going to change. I think it will be um

[4:05:09] more difficult to get input from them

[4:05:12] particularly on things like that uh the

[4:05:14] caric trail portion of it. I don't know

[4:05:16] how they they will comment on what is on

[4:05:19] the drawings now if it's going to change

[4:05:21] and but I still think that their input

[4:05:23] is important.

[4:05:26] Thank you councelor Patterson and

[4:05:27] councelor Smart. So the motion on the

[4:05:28] floor right now is to refer it the

[4:05:30] revised design to the accessibility

[4:05:32] committee. Councelor Smart. Yeah thank

[4:05:34] you. I will support the motion, but I

[4:05:36] would have had a preference for having

[4:05:38] the conversation now because I think

[4:05:40] that they there's a likelihood that they

[4:05:43] could provide some, you know, general um

[4:05:45] input and advice that could impact the

[4:05:47] current design.

[4:05:50] Okay. The motion right now is to refer

[4:05:52] the revised design. So, just looking

[4:05:54] around the table. I don't see other

[4:05:55] hands popping up. Councelor Patterson.

[4:05:58] Yes, Mayor. I did also add in that

[4:06:00] comment that perhaps we could um you

[4:06:02] know ask staff if they're um if they

[4:06:05] have any advice for how they could go

[4:06:07] forward in presenting this to the

[4:06:10] accessibility committee in a way that

[4:06:12] would actually get meaningful input from

[4:06:15] them without having before them what is

[4:06:18] planned.

[4:06:20] Sure. I might turn to staff and ask that

[4:06:22] question. Mr. Renick. Yes. Thank you

[4:06:24] very much um Mr. Mayor for the question.

[4:06:29] This is a very large piece of work to

[4:06:31] refer to the accessibility advisory

[4:06:34] committee and I think that it would

[4:06:37] be I wouldn't want to presuppose how

[4:06:40] best to present it to them and I would

[4:06:42] be concerned that that might be

[4:06:44] something that would require consultant

[4:06:46] facilitation to ensure that that group

[4:06:48] is able to engage um in the most

[4:06:51] effective manner.

[4:06:55] Council Patterson. No. Okay. Um motion

[4:06:58] is on the floor right now. Um with that

[4:07:01] wave of a of a flag that it might it

[4:07:03] might create some some chaos. Um go

[4:07:06] ahead council Watson. If I could just

[4:07:08] speak to that as the council leazison to

[4:07:10] that group. Um I think that Mr. Renick's

[4:07:13] assessment is a fair one. um that in

[4:07:16] developing for example the first piece

[4:07:17] of work they've had to do they were

[4:07:19] guided through that whole process um

[4:07:22] really um uh considerately by a seasoned

[4:07:25] group of consultants over a much

[4:07:27] narrower range of things. This is a

[4:07:29] highly technical topic um and uh to

[4:07:33] actually get that feedback in a in a a

[4:07:36] constructive way I think would take a

[4:07:38] fair bit of resources. So we we should

[4:07:40] think about that.

[4:07:42] I might make a suggestion, council

[4:07:44] Patterson, that maybe the the motion be

[4:07:45] revised just to to ask uh staff to come

[4:07:48] back with with options for engaging them

[4:07:51] because I think at this point what we're

[4:07:53] hearing is that there might be some

[4:07:54] complex more complexity to this

[4:07:55] originally thought. Yes, thank you,

[4:07:57] mayor. And I realize that this is um

[4:07:59] this is a large package and I don't

[4:08:01] expect that they would engage on in all

[4:08:03] components of it, but certainly things

[4:08:05] like pedestrian crosswalks and whatnot

[4:08:08] could be in involved. So yes, I if if

[4:08:10] staff could come back with a

[4:08:12] recommendation on how best to engage

[4:08:14] them um that that would uh satisfy my

[4:08:18] intent.

[4:08:20] Second or amendable to that? I think

[4:08:22] that was uh

[4:08:24] councly revised motion on the table. Now

[4:08:27] go ahead council. Thank you worship and

[4:08:29] and supportive of the intent here. The

[4:08:31] typical, as I would understand it, the

[4:08:33] typical mechanism that we would go

[4:08:35] through with staff in this type of

[4:08:36] situation where there's a resource

[4:08:38] implication would be a project

[4:08:39] backgrounder. So I would uh be more in

[4:08:42] support of this if the direction to

[4:08:44] staff was to prepare a project

[4:08:46] backgrounder, which of course includes

[4:08:47] an options analysis for how we might do

[4:08:50] this work. And I'm I'm interested in how

[4:08:52] the work might be done, but I do see a

[4:08:54] resource implication. So our typical

[4:08:56] process is the project backgrounder. So

[4:08:58] I might suggest to the mover that the

[4:09:00] project backgrounder might be the way

[4:09:01] forward.

[4:09:03] Sure. I'm I'm the way I took this was an

[4:09:05] ask of this and that the implications of

[4:09:07] different approaches would include staff

[4:09:09] implications, but um I'll turn to to uh

[4:09:12] our CEO and director of engineering. Is

[4:09:13] there a is there a preferred language

[4:09:16] that you would like on this one? I think

[4:09:18] I think trying to keep this as vague as

[4:09:20] possible at this point. We kind of come

[4:09:21] back with with your with some options is

[4:09:23] best. But go ahead, Mr. Renick. Uh thank

[4:09:25] you very much, Mr. Mayor. I actually I

[4:09:27] had another suggestion um which is that

[4:09:30] I think the intent that council is

[4:09:32] looking for is to understand the

[4:09:33] accessibility features that are being

[4:09:36] included in the design and given that we

[4:09:39] are requesting commentary from the

[4:09:41] consultant perhaps it would be amendable

[4:09:43] to council to have a specific commentary

[4:09:45] from the design consultant on what

[4:09:48] accessibility features have been

[4:09:50] incorporated into the design.

[4:09:56] I'll move wishes a change. I'll take

[4:09:58] that. Go ahead, counselor Green. Thank

[4:10:01] you for that through you to Mr. Renick.

[4:10:03] I'm I'm just wondering though where

[4:10:06] where it would be specifically important

[4:10:08] is on on parking reduction. So if if

[4:10:12] because that would be a disability issue

[4:10:14] potentially potentially. So hopefully

[4:10:16] that could be included. Thank you.

[4:10:21] At this point, we just have our the

[4:10:23] motion is to ask staff for options for

[4:10:25] engagement with the accessibility

[4:10:27] committee. So, that's where we're

[4:10:29] sitting. So, take the comment as is. Um,

[4:10:32] it is moved and seconded. Any other

[4:10:34] discussion on the

[4:10:35] motion? I'm just going to say my two

[4:10:38] cents here. I'm supportive of the

[4:10:39] motion, but I do think I'm hoping it's

[4:10:42] just it's kind of to councelor Pat

[4:10:43] Appleton's point, a very short report

[4:10:45] saying here's a couple of ways we could

[4:10:47] engage them with, you know, but here's

[4:10:49] the staff impact and and and and some

[4:10:51] other potential approaches. Um, and

[4:10:54] maybe that might be that they the

[4:10:56] consultant lays out the accessibility

[4:10:58] features and maybe that list is shared

[4:11:00] with accessibility for as an example.

[4:11:02] But I think what I'm hearing right now

[4:11:04] is like let's get something back short

[4:11:05] that gives us some idea of the impact

[4:11:07] and then we can make some decisions

[4:11:08] about how we want to engage at that

[4:11:09] point. I'm seeing nods around the table.

[4:11:11] So I think if that's if that's the

[4:11:13] intention here then I'm supportive of

[4:11:14] it. Okay. Any other discussion on the

[4:11:17] motion? All those in favor? Any opposed?

[4:11:19] None opposed? You had a second one which

[4:11:21] was just as little I know I'm going to

[4:11:23] try and get this done very quickly.

[4:11:24] Yeah. and and that was also to um uh get

[4:11:28] a recommendation from staff on how we

[4:11:31] can undertake um the uh some public

[4:11:34] engagement on the revised drawing

[4:11:36] package when it comes back.

[4:11:41] Okay. So, just to ask staff if there's

[4:11:44] in alignment with the other approach.

[4:11:47] Okay. Um can you maybe just read aloud

[4:11:50] your motion again because I just want to

[4:11:51] make sure I'm clear.

[4:11:53] Yeah. To um

[4:11:56] request staff come back with a

[4:11:58] recommendation for a method to undertake

[4:12:02] um public engagement for the uh I'm

[4:12:06] still calling it a cycling facility uh

[4:12:09] redesign that comes back from the con uh

[4:12:12] from the revisions.

[4:12:17] Okay. Um is there a second for

[4:12:22] that smart seconding? Okay. With

[4:12:27] seconded. Yeah, I need if we're going to

[4:12:29] consider this, we need to have a motion

[4:12:31] to extend the meeting by another 15

[4:12:33] minutes. So, motion to extend to 115.

[4:12:36] Move and seconded. I'm not surpris

[4:12:38] somebody at some point somebody's going

[4:12:39] to drop off of this. I will say I think

[4:12:40] we've gone through the main meat of this

[4:12:42] meeting. So, if people have to leave, I

[4:12:43] do appreciate that. Um motion on the

[4:12:46] floor is to extend to 10 11:15. I'm

[4:12:48] going to call the question on that. All

[4:12:49] those in favor? Any opposed? Not

[4:12:52] opposed. Okay. Uh, councelor Appleton,

[4:12:55] question of clarification for the mover,

[4:12:57] your worship. Uh, public engagement

[4:13:00] takes is pretty broad. Um, so can I get

[4:13:02] a sense of exactly what it is that we're

[4:13:04] asking staff to do in terms of level of

[4:13:06] engagement and in terms of scope?

[4:13:09] I think I yeah what I what I am seeking

[4:13:12] really is um uh greatly reduced public

[4:13:16] engagement than what we would have

[4:13:18] undertaken had we had we done it at the

[4:13:20] start of this process because we've

[4:13:22] already had a lot of feedback from the

[4:13:23] public. In fact that is informing the

[4:13:26] redesign that we are doing. Um and so

[4:13:29] therefore I would still like to have uh

[4:13:32] feedback from those who will be affected

[4:13:34] by this on on what they see before them

[4:13:37] in the redesign. I think that should be

[4:13:39] a um an expedited process because we are

[4:13:44] incorporating a lot of what we what we

[4:13:46] have heard into these design elements.

[4:13:49] So again, I'd like a a recommendation

[4:13:52] from staff on how we might undertake

[4:13:55] that process. Um if it got too

[4:13:58] extensive, of course, then we would need

[4:13:59] a project backgrounder. Uh but I'm

[4:14:02] looking for uh a light touch on the

[4:14:04] public engagement input into the

[4:14:06] redesigned uh cycling route.

[4:14:11] Thank you. I'm not sure I'm entirely

[4:14:13] here yet, but go ahead, Councelor Smart.

[4:14:15] Yeah, I think I I seconded this because

[4:14:17] I think that we can improve on um

[4:14:20] communicating the redesign to the public

[4:14:22] and I know that there's so much interest

[4:14:23] out there and I saw that open to what

[4:14:26] staff comes back with but potentially

[4:14:28] even having the consultant here in a

[4:14:31] meeting walking through the drawings

[4:14:33] clearly explaining the changes um could

[4:14:37] really benefit not only us but the the

[4:14:39] community and really understanding what

[4:14:41] is a very um

[4:14:45] thick drawing set for the average person

[4:14:47] to digest and really understand. So, um

[4:14:51] open to what it is, but I think that

[4:14:54] definitely

[4:14:55] communicating what these changes are um

[4:14:58] is going to be really important this

[4:15:00] time around. So, I appreciate the

[4:15:01] attention to making sure that that piece

[4:15:03] is covered.

[4:15:05] Okay. Thank you. Um I'll support the

[4:15:08] motion. I my thought on this one is to

[4:15:11] my mind what I'm hearing is sort of an

[4:15:13] enhanced notification process so that we

[4:15:15] make sure that people have a chance to

[4:15:17] to read it provide feedback and that'll

[4:15:20] help us inform that piece. I will point

[4:15:21] out when this comes back it will be open

[4:15:23] for public input. So that process is

[4:15:25] there. So I think I'm hearing more about

[4:15:26] a notification process if possible than

[4:15:30] more than that. But go ahead councelor

[4:15:31] smirk. Yeah thank you. And in addition

[4:15:33] to notification, which I think is really

[4:15:35] important, I I think actually walking

[4:15:38] through the design um um with the like

[4:15:43] having a a deeper presentation of of

[4:15:46] what the changes have been and what the

[4:15:47] whole route is could be really helpful.

[4:15:52] All right. Um go ahead, Councelor Green.

[4:15:55] This may pertain to my final motion

[4:15:58] before we leave tonight, but um we have

[4:16:01] heard over and over again the uh request

[4:16:04] for some collaboration, opportunities

[4:16:05] for collaboration and and consultation

[4:16:08] and particularly on two and three on

[4:16:10] those revisions. It involves a specific

[4:16:13] neighborhood and they've asked for

[4:16:14] collaboration time and time again. And

[4:16:16] so I'm wondering if there is room to do

[4:16:18] that in this um process for revisions

[4:16:22] number two and number three which is

[4:16:24] revise the design of Easttown Road, the

[4:16:26] Easttown Hala intersection and Florence

[4:16:28] Epworth and Halaine streets and revise

[4:16:31] the design for the Henderson Trail Trail

[4:16:33] also known as the Carrick Trail between

[4:16:35] Halane and Newton. We have talked about

[4:16:37] collaboration before. In fact, for the

[4:16:39] other projects, Mayor, you actually

[4:16:43] altered the um altered the wording from

[4:16:45] inform to consult. So, I'm just

[4:16:48] wondering on these two in particular

[4:16:50] because there has been a request um time

[4:16:53] and time again for some opportunities

[4:16:55] for collaboration that if that could be

[4:16:57] included in the motion. If not, I'll

[4:16:59] make a separate motion. Thank you.

[4:17:03] The mover is not indicating they want to

[4:17:04] change. So, I'm going to take all the

[4:17:06] question on the motion that's on the

[4:17:07] floor and then we'll take a secondary

[4:17:08] motion. Um, so the motion right now is

[4:17:10] essentially refer to uh ask for staff

[4:17:13] input on ways that we can um I guess

[4:17:16] improve awareness of the of the this

[4:17:18] when it comes

[4:17:19] back. Council, does do we have a motion?

[4:17:21] Does staff have a motion they can read

[4:17:23] back? I'm just want to make sure that

[4:17:24] we're clear about what we're asking

[4:17:25] because this has a the risk I think has

[4:17:26] been flagged of being a very big ask or

[4:17:28] a very small ask. And I want to make

[4:17:29] sure that we're we're I'm hearing the

[4:17:31] intent to make keep it a small ask, but

[4:17:33] I want to make sure that the wording is

[4:17:34] supportive of that. Uh thank you, Mr.

[4:17:37] Mayor. The wording that I have is that

[4:17:38] staff be directed to come back with

[4:17:41] recommendations for a method to

[4:17:43] undertake public engagement on the

[4:17:46] proposed design.

[4:17:49] Yeah, I'm sorry. On the revised design.

[4:17:53] Okay. I'm still hearing that that's a

[4:17:56] Yeah. Okay. So, bring back options for

[4:17:57] that is is piece. So, we're not we're

[4:17:59] not directing it. We're asking for just

[4:18:01] what those options might

[4:18:03] be. All right. Uh I'm going to call the

[4:18:06] question then. Not seeing any other

[4:18:07] hands. All those in

[4:18:09] favor? Hesitant, but in favor as well.

[4:18:12] Um okay, I think that's it. Councelor

[4:18:14] Green, you said you had one more motion.

[4:18:15] I have a final motion arising and that

[4:18:17] was to seek opportunities for

[4:18:20] collaboration on revisions number two

[4:18:22] and number three uh as presented with

[4:18:26] the most impacted neighborhood which is

[4:18:28] the cheffy neighborhood and the people

[4:18:30] that live on those streets. So um I know

[4:18:33] this has been an ongoing request for

[4:18:35] some opportunities for collaboration um

[4:18:38] and I think some of the feedback we've

[4:18:40] had has been helpful um to all of us.

[4:18:43] So, I'm hoping that that can be um

[4:18:47] something that is is worked out with

[4:18:50] second before we start motivating too

[4:18:51] far into this. Seconded. Okay. No, it's

[4:18:53] seconded. Go ahead. Is it seconded? Yes.

[4:18:56] I I you know, I don't think I need to

[4:18:57] motivate too strongly. I think that um a

[4:19:00] number of residents have spoken to us

[4:19:02] and and and want to help and want to

[4:19:04] collaborate on the impacts on their own

[4:19:06] in their own neighborhood. And I think

[4:19:09] items two and three involve the greatest

[4:19:11] impacts on residents.

[4:19:15] Thank you, Councelor Green. Motion is

[4:19:17] live on the

[4:19:19] floor. Not seeing anybody speaking to

[4:19:21] it. I'm just going to speak and weirdly

[4:19:24] in opposition to the motion. Um and and

[4:19:27] I'll lay out my my argument for this

[4:19:29] because on the face of it, it makes a

[4:19:30] lot of sense. But I think we have a

[4:19:33] process that is uh quite intentional to

[4:19:36] guide our decision-m and that is we ask

[4:19:39] that uh staff provide their technical

[4:19:42] advice on these pieces. Um and we as a

[4:19:46] council consider those that advice along

[4:19:48] with input from the community and other

[4:19:50] sources. And so we uh in in undertaking

[4:19:55] that process um what we've taken I think

[4:19:59] staff have done a walkthrough with with

[4:20:01] this with the community. We've heard

[4:20:02] loud and clear through much of the

[4:20:04] interfaces what should guide that. Um

[4:20:07] there's nothing stopping them from from

[4:20:08] doing that. If there's a specific

[4:20:10] question to go and speak with the

[4:20:11] neighborhood on that but I don't think

[4:20:13] this is a if we're going to do that we

[4:20:15] should do it with all of the

[4:20:16] neighborhoods for those pieces. Um I

[4:20:18] think at this point we want the staff to

[4:20:21] give their technical advice based on the

[4:20:22] feedback that we've given them and then

[4:20:24] we'll have feedback on that and I think

[4:20:26] that's really important for us to

[4:20:28] personally I think it's important for us

[4:20:29] to separate the inputs into council into

[4:20:32] the technical or professional the

[4:20:34] community um the advisory bodies and

[4:20:36] other aspects so that when we're making

[4:20:38] decisions we're not muddying the water

[4:20:40] too much. I think we just want to get

[4:20:41] the technical advice and we're free and

[4:20:43] I think in this case we've made some

[4:20:44] suggestions of things we want to change

[4:20:46] u that might divert from the pure

[4:20:48] technical advice but still there. So I I

[4:20:50] don't support the motion but I I and

[4:20:53] that's why strange as it is. Councelor

[4:20:57] Appleton. Thank you worship and yeah

[4:20:59] just speaking against for many of the

[4:21:01] same reasons that you have and and

[4:21:02] collaboration is you know is a real is

[4:21:05] is an excellent goal for sure and I

[4:21:07] think that we have you know listened to

[4:21:09] the community's interest in having input

[4:21:10] opportunities and and provided a

[4:21:12] specific focused input opportunity

[4:21:15] beyond the broader community uh the

[4:21:18] community conversation that we had. So

[4:21:20] there's been a specific Chffileled or

[4:21:22] Chffy oriented type of engagement. Um, I

[4:21:26] would also note that, you know, I think

[4:21:27] that there's a significant outcome as

[4:21:29] far as like listening to the community

[4:21:31] about how they want to be involved in

[4:21:32] these types of designs and it would

[4:21:34] would underline the fact that council

[4:21:36] has now implemented an and expanded and

[4:21:40] and quite a bit more detailed engagement

[4:21:43] process for subsequent projects as well,

[4:21:45] which is also an outcome from this

[4:21:47] process. So, you know, I I really

[4:21:50] appreciate the intent that this is that

[4:21:51] this is under and it's really responding

[4:21:54] really clearly to what the community

[4:21:56] has, you know, the concerns that the

[4:21:58] community has raised. Um, I I concur

[4:22:01] this is now going to be into a a

[4:22:03] technical discussion and there is still

[4:22:05] some opportunity for technical

[4:22:07] components to be communicated through to

[4:22:09] staff. um that opportunity remains and

[4:22:12] there's been a substantive change to

[4:22:14] subsequent engagements because of what

[4:22:17] we've learned through this process. So I

[4:22:18] appreciate the intent of this. I won't

[4:22:20] support it at this time but I see a way

[4:22:22] forward for subsequent projects that's

[4:22:24] really going to be informed by this. So

[4:22:26] thank you worship. Thank you councelor

[4:22:28] Robson councelor SM question. Go ahead.

[4:22:31] Uh thank you. Um, speaking against the

[4:22:34] motion on the table, but for

[4:22:35] collaboration, what I see as a way

[4:22:38] forward at this point, particularly with

[4:22:40] um, uh, the Carrick Trail and us still

[4:22:43] needing some more information from

[4:22:44] residents about all the special places

[4:22:46] and and you know, where the path should

[4:22:49] be and where it shouldn't be. Is is that

[4:22:50] our um, ability for residents to email

[4:22:53] us photographs? Um, you know, to even

[4:22:56] like lay out with skipping ropes where

[4:22:58] they see the trail, to send us drawings.

[4:23:00] they've been doing that and I hope the

[4:23:02] community continues to do that and and

[4:23:03] and actually keep sending information to

[4:23:07] engineering as soon as possible about um

[4:23:10] all their ideas. Um and I can see that

[4:23:13] collaborative process still being able

[4:23:15] to exist through email uh to us and to

[4:23:18] engineering. Um

[4:23:23] thanks for second time. I'll make it

[4:23:25] really brief. Yes, it's a technical

[4:23:28] process. It's a technical report, but

[4:23:31] the impacts are also social. They're

[4:23:34] they impact cultural, they impact

[4:23:36] livability, they impact safety and

[4:23:39] health and well-being. So, while it's a

[4:23:42] technical process, it has all these

[4:23:44] other implications. So, I I I want you

[4:23:47] to appreciate that as well. Thank you.

[4:23:49] Yeah. Thank you, Council Green.

[4:23:51] Councelor Patterson. Yes, Mayor. I'll

[4:23:53] speak very briefly about this. I I

[4:23:55] certainly appreciate councelor Green um

[4:23:57] bringing that forward and and

[4:24:00] justifiably so because throughout this

[4:24:02] whole painful process to this route. Um

[4:24:06] councelor Green has con consistently

[4:24:09] asked for engagement with the public and

[4:24:11] I think certainly um once we started

[4:24:14] listening we we there has been better

[4:24:17] collaboration and I hope that that will

[4:24:20] continue into the future. I see number

[4:24:22] two and number three already

[4:24:24] incorporating

[4:24:26] um many of the aspects of what was

[4:24:29] presented by by the community on this

[4:24:33] and hopefully that will transition

[4:24:35] through. Um I also hope that with the

[4:24:38] recommended um engagement process to

[4:24:41] review the redesign drawing that it will

[4:24:43] capture that. So, I won't be supporting

[4:24:45] it, but I I certainly admire um the

[4:24:49] consistency with which councelor Green

[4:24:51] has um pushed us to demand public

[4:24:54] engagement. So, thank you for that.

[4:24:59] I'm not seeing any other discussion on

[4:25:01] this at the moment. So, I'm going to

[4:25:02] call the question on the motion. Uh all

[4:25:04] those in favor and those opposed,

[4:25:07] councelor Watson, Appleton, Patterson,

[4:25:10] Smart, and myself opposed. That motion

[4:25:11] does not carry. I believe that Last

[4:25:14] motion I I saw people intending here

[4:25:16] tonight in terms of motions arising. So

[4:25:19] I'm going to move to item can't believe

[4:25:21] I'm actually getting to do this 12.1.

[4:25:23] This is a notice of motion. Um I might

[4:25:26] just ask that someone move it and second

[4:25:28] it and I'll quickly speak to that. I'm

[4:25:29] going to make a motion.

[4:25:32] So this is just a very odd one, but the

[4:25:34] way our bylaws are written, uh the ask

[4:25:37] of a widening is deemed to be a u not a

[4:25:40] staff determination. Didn't meet the

[4:25:41] criteria for staff to consider it. And

[4:25:43] so it has to come to council, but

[4:25:45] obviously council can't be in a position

[4:25:46] of say approving something without

[4:25:48] having staff input into it. So, um, the

[4:25:51] wording of the motion that's that's in

[4:25:53] here, um, basically just ask staff to

[4:25:55] pro to go ahead and process their their

[4:25:57] request and then review that for safety

[4:25:59] concerns and bring it to council with

[4:26:01] their advice. Um, it's just odd, but in

[4:26:03] that in that language, they just didn't

[4:26:05] feel they could they could accept the

[4:26:07] application. So I'm at the request of

[4:26:10] the applicant uh and of staff of bring

[4:26:12] this forward so it can be considered. So

[4:26:16] uh that's moved and seconded. Is there a

[4:26:18] discussion on it? I know this is a very

[4:26:20] strange one. I guess it's the first of

[4:26:21] this type I've ever seen

[4:26:23] before. Okay. Not seeing any discussion.

[4:26:25] All those in favor? Any opposed? None

[4:26:27] opposed. Uh and then we go to uh

[4:26:31] correspondents from government.

[4:26:34] Oh, is that in that order? My apologies.

[4:26:36] Yep. Sorry. notice a motion. I think we

[4:26:38] had two council and then councelor

[4:26:41] Braithway just read into the into the

[4:26:44] record. Uh thank you worship. So I would

[4:26:47] uh under under yeah notice of motion

[4:26:49] that I would make a motion to request

[4:26:51] that staff prepare a project

[4:26:53] backgrounder on the resource

[4:26:55] requirements to design and install a

[4:26:58] pedestrian controlled crosswalk on

[4:27:00] Windsor Road at the north end of the

[4:27:02] Windsor Park Pavilion Access Road.

[4:27:11] Okay, on the same thing. So, okay, that

[4:27:14] will be coming back for consideration uh

[4:27:16] in the next council meeting, I guess. Uh

[4:27:19] any other discussions or new business?

[4:27:21] Not seeing any. So, then we have

[4:27:22] correspondence from the government,

[4:27:23] other levels of government. Receipt. Uh

[4:27:26] so, we have a motion to receive. Is

[4:27:28] there a second? Thank you. Um I'm going

[4:27:31] to call the question on receipt because

[4:27:32] it's fairly straightforward. Thank you

[4:27:34] everybody. Uh all those in favor for

[4:27:36] receipt any opposed does any other

[4:27:38] direction I mean I I'm going to respond

[4:27:40] basically uh I think but it might be

[4:27:43] helpful to have a direction from council

[4:27:45] to to write a letter back the

[4:27:46] expectation of the government is to I

[4:27:48] would do it probably with by default but

[4:27:50] no harm uh if we had more time I'd

[4:27:52] probably ask for some feedback so maybe

[4:27:54] I'll ask for that offline if there's

[4:27:55] anything people want to cover. Um so can

[4:27:58] I get a motion maybe just to direct

[4:28:00] myself to to respond to move. Yeah moved

[4:28:03] and seconded.

[4:28:04] from members.

[4:28:06] Yeah. Um so that motion is on the floor.

[4:28:11] All those in favor? Any opposed? Un

[4:28:13] opposed. Um since we're all here

[4:28:15] together, I'll just give it verbally.

[4:28:16] Can you just if you have thoughts on it,

[4:28:18] please just share them with me and I'll

[4:28:19] uh I'll do that. I'll I'll share with

[4:28:21] you my general intent on this is not to

[4:28:23] go into the body of the report and start

[4:28:25] picking apart all of the bits and bits

[4:28:26] and pieces. It was really to primarily

[4:28:28] focus on the two directives. Um, but if

[4:28:31] there's aspects, if people feel

[4:28:32] differently in that, please let me know.

[4:28:34] If people want to add anything else,

[4:28:36] kind of some terminology, language or

[4:28:38] tone that you want to see seen, please

[4:28:39] share it with me and I'll do my best and

[4:28:41] I should have time to circulate it for

[4:28:42] some comment before I send it off. So,

[4:28:45] okay, a motion is made and we have a

[4:28:47] motion to adjurnn. Moved and seconded.

[4:28:50] All those in favor? Any opposed? None

[4:28:51] opposed. Thank you for your patience and

[4:28:53] your time tonight.

Council Meeting - 26 May 2025

Transcript