This is just audio check online. Thank
you.
Um,
well, at home you might have a secure
one. So, it's really I mean, you're just
accessing Sorry.
Good evening everyone and welcome to our
regularly scheduled council meeting for
May the 26th. Uh I'm Kevin Murdoch the
mayor of Oak Bay and it's my pleasure to
welcome you all. Uh as we start our
meeting, we just like to take some time
to acknowledge that we are gathered on
the traditional territories of the coast
and straight Salish peoples and
specifically we acknowledge the Lquangan
people known today as the Songhes and
Casapsum nations and how the connections
to these lands and adjoining waters
continues to this day. Uh up first in
orders of business is approval of the
agenda. Can have a mover and a seconder.
Moved and seconded. Thank you. Any
changes or amendments? No. All those in
favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. We have
adoption of minutes of May 12th, the 6
and 7 p.m. Moved and seconded. Um any
other
discussion? Seeing none, all those in
favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh we
have received the committee minutes. Oh,
I should just make a clarification um to
Miss Plof on the council minutes. Uh
there was a change there. Was that
correction made in the um in the
minutes? Uh yes, your worship. Yes, that
was just the notice of motion wording
was slightly off. So, thank you for
changing that. Make sure we approve the
right ones. Uh, and then moving to 4.1,
which is committee of the whole minutes.
Um, sorry, this is receipt of the
minutes moved and seconded. All those in
favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh, we
have a rise and report. Uh, we don't
need to do anything other than move the
rise and report and move and second.
Thank you. All those in favor? Any
opposed? None opposed. If we get to move
through some procedural things fairly
quickly at the beginning of our
meetings. Trust me, it'll slow down uh
probably faster than you want. Um
mayor's remarks. Uh I just want to
express my appreciation to the
organizers of the Oak Bay half marathon
which happened on Sunday. Uh a great
event. I think probably the most
smileiest run I've I get to have a
chance of attending. Um, I also just
want to let people know a few weeks ago
council uh supported an ask uh that was
made by the view royal council uh asking
the school district 61 to explore
electoral area representation on school
boards. Uh something they've agreed to
do and have called their first meeting
on that for the mayors of the various uh
uh u communities that make up school
district 61. So we'll see where that
goes. It's early exploration time for
that.
Uh I want to just remind people that we
have a community survey uh that's gone
out and that's closing on July 2nd. So
if there's um it went out with the tax
notices and also with a mail
notification. Um but you have until July
2nd to provide that. That gives helps
gives us some feedback as we go into uh
priorities in the fall. Uh and we also
have official community plan
engagements. So two of uh inerson events
have completed with great turnout. So
thank you everybody who's made it. Um,
but there's two more coming up this week
as well. On Thursday at uh UIC and
Saturday at the Windsor Pavilion. Uh, if
you have the opportunity, it's worth
going in person. There's a lot of really
good uh panel boards and things to
inform and uh and you can provide your
feedback either in person or through a
um through the online uh survey process
as well. Um, but just I keep reiterating
this to people. this is our chance to
inform where uh and what kind and what
shape of housing we want in our
community. Um it's probably the the best
chance we have to have that conversation
in the next number of years. So we
really do look for public input on that
on that decision-m
process. Um those are all the things
directly related here. I just uh going
to take a moment to do something I very
very rarely do which is speaking on
matters that are related to other levels
of government. Um, but I just wanted to
take a moment and just amplify uh some
significant concerns raised by the unit
of BC municipalities and quite a few
others regarding the bills of 13 and 15
that are uh sitting at the province
right now. We're waiting approval in
legislature. Um, and it's just really
for awareness. The, uh, as described,
there's a Vancouver Sun article a couple
weeks ago, uh, which described bill 13,
which was named the Miscellaneous
Statutes Amendment Act, amends the
Housing Supply Act, and the local
government act to give the provincial
government the power to nullify any
municipal bylaw that conflicts with
provincial housing mandates. So, that's
zoning, subdivision controls, building
permits, affordable housing provisions.
There are all uh, they would all be
subordinate to the provincial um, uh,
input. And bill 15 probably has had more
press, but it's noted same article, the
infrastructure projects act allows the
province to take over permitting for any
infrastructure project deemed to be a
provincial significance. Um, so
obviously particularly in areas with a
designated transit areas, it's
essentially total provincial planning
authority within those. So I raise it
just um province has long had their
right uh we delegated authority from the
province to overrule municipalities uh
in areas that they feel are critical. Um
but that's been a public process and and
clear um this essentially just enables
the um bypass of local municipal
knowledge and authority. Um
theoretically under the community
charter we uh these kind of changes are
supposed to happen in consultation with
municipalities but as the union of BC
municipalities has noted um that
consultation has not happened. Um I'm
just raising it tonight just to raise
awareness. I think a lot of these things
bypass unnoticed. uh they are out of the
realm of our authority obviously at the
municipal level but I think uh for
anybody interested in uh good governance
they're probably of of probably some
personal
interest thank you that concludes my
remarks I am now going to open it up for
we have a section of the every council
and committee of the whole meeting
allowing for public input um this is for
items not on the agenda this evening but
items that might be of general interest
to the community um so With that, I'm
just going to invite uh we can if you're
on the online application, you can raise
your hand to speak to council. If you're
uh in the room, you can just put up your
hand and come
forward. Please come
forward.
Oh, you can be our our demo here.
There's Cochran. Uh so, yes, push the
button in the middle to turn it on. Is
it not turning on? We may have to turn
turn the whole thing
on. Oh, there we
go. Uh, name, municipality of residence,
and then you have up to three minutes.
Thank you so much. My name is Heather
Cochran. I am an Oak Bay resident, and
I'm here to talk to you this evening
about pedestrian safety at Windsor Park
and in particular the need for a
crosswalk. I have handed to the director
of corporate services a map as a visual
aid for my little presentation. And I've
also handed up a petition with over 200
signatures uh collected in just one
week's time in favor of a crosswalk as
well as other trafficcoming measures at
Windsor Park. As you all know, I'm sure
Windsor Park has a great new playground.
It's home to expanded recreational
facilities, licensed child care, soon to
start up summer camps, sporting events.
There's also a wonderful new ice cream
shop across the street, as well as the
Windsor Cafe. As my six-year-old child,
sitting behind me, will attest, it is a
child's dream come true. Except for one
thing. There are no crosswalks anywhere
around Windsor Park. There are not even
curb cuts that would allow you to easily
roll a stroller, a scooter, or a
children's bike easily across the road.
So instead, pedestrians need to contend
with buses, traffic, trucks, and those
raised curbs to access the park. I
actually called the engineering
department about this um last week and
when I asked them if they considered
putting in a crosswalk at Windsor Park,
they told me that they didn't think
there was any need because most people
drive to Windsor Park and there's
parking available on the playground side
of the park, which is true that there's
parking there and there's parking across
the street, but it's this council's
priority to encourage active
transportation. And if you walk down to
Windsor Park on a weekday evening or on
a weekend, then as any parent of young
children or other park user will attest,
it's full of people who bike, walk,
scooter, stroller down there, as well of
course as dog walkers who make regular
use of the park on foot and on paw.
Um, so as I said, we started a petition
to gauge whether it's just us or whether
there's public support for this. And
indeed, in just over one week between
working and whatnot, we collected over
200 signatures while Elliot very
obligingly played on the playground. Um,
and I chatted with other park users. Um,
so as you'll know, pursuant to section 4
sub 2 subc of the streets and traffic
bylaw, council may designate crosswalks.
And we would like to urge council to
designate a crosswalk for Windsor Park,
especially sooner rather than later
before the summer season truly kicks in
and we have more playground users and
ice cream shop visitors who
unfortunately have to dodge between
those vehicles to access that. On the
map that I've handed up, I've
highlighted the playground in purple in
the bottom left. Um, do you have the
map? We do. Okay, thank you. Um, and
I've shown the ice cream shop and cafe
in orange in the top right. In red, I've
shown where there's stall parking along
one stretch of the north side of Windsor
Park, but there's only a sidewalk, which
I've shown in blue on the other side.
So, even if you do drive to Windsor
Park, there's not going to be a sidewalk
to assist you on that side, and you'll
still struggle to cross the road if you
choose to get something from the cafe.
So, again, I would urge council to at
least designate a crosswalk where I've
placed a yellow X on the map. I've also
shown in some kind of inset photos to
the best of my technological abilities
what the view is like looking across
that paved pathway in front of Windsor
Park to the property across the street.
And we've got the owner of that property
here who's going to speak to you as well
um in support of this. Um and I would
suggest as well other trafficcoming
measures on other parts of the the
street or the around the park. So I'm
sure my three minutes is up. It's just 5
seconds over now. So thank you very much
background. Thanks so much for your
time. Thank you. Uh and certainly invite
the next person to come forward to
speak. I think I saw a hand at the one
in the front and one in the middle
second row, third row. I uh also want to
uh as you come forward uh just
procedurally here, thank you for the
request. Uh just procedurally here we
would consider perhaps uh notices a
motion uh at the in in under new
business at the end of our meeting. So
we don't at the um public input portion
have any motions arising at this point.
So, just make that clear there in case
anybody's wondering what we're doing
with these comments. I really do
appreciate your your your comments. Uh,
welcome. Uh, thank you. Hello. My name
is Eric Zelka. I am an Oak Bay resident.
Um, is that the information you need
from me? That is it. Welcome, Mr. Zulka.
Thank you. Uh, first of all, let me
start my comments by saying God saved
the king. uh so pleased to see that uh
our sovereign is uh is uh in in the
country and I do note that uh the
picture of the of our head of state is
not on the wall. I took the liberty of
getting a copy uh of the latest official
version that if you'll allow me to give
to um our CEO uh for possible framing as
as council sees fit, I would very much
appreciate that. I certainly you could
give a gift to the district. I will let
you know, Mr. Zelka that we did uh put a
request in and receive our official
portrait and it's just in the process of
being framed for this room. So, I'm not
sure what we're going to where that's
going to hang because we already have a
version that's going to be coming in
here. Um so, I don't want you to give
that away if you have another good use
for it because I'm not sure what we're I
think I can get another one. It's all
right. Okay. U allow me to continue. Um
uh first of all uh to uh m uh um your
your uh your honor uh mayor and
counselors uh I wish to make um uh uh
reference to uh I I don't believe I'm
may not be allowed to to speak to one of
the items on the agenda 11.1 um since it
doesn't say not for public input. I'm
hoping everyone here knows that I'm not
in favor of bike lanes and uh and uh
that's probably going to be going going
to be enough for the comments for that.
But I did want to make reference to the
whole concept of compromise. Um I did
note in Oak Bay news um a very
interesting article about uh this
particular item that's coming forward uh
on today's agenda and um I just want uh
I'm very much looking forward to seeing
uh the counselors demonstrate what
compromise looks like. I know there's
the deadlock and I know that this is
very contentious issue and I know
there's people from across uh uh the
Victoria area not Oakberry residents who
are would love to speak and love to see
changes here. I am an Oak Bay resident.
I don't want to see changes here. I
think uh the way we have it right now
where it's a shared space for our very
small roads, if there is any action that
needs to be done, I would hope that you
would just simply lower the speed limit.
I think that might be the appropriate
thing. In which case, the only speeding
tickets would be from the cyclists as
they zoom through crosswalks and those
other things. But we'll we'll we'll see
whether whether that happens or not. Um,
I did also note um that the province has
brought forward uh their comments with
respect to uh bylaw changes. I'm so
pleased to see you're receiving them and
I do look forward to you enacting them
as quickly as possible. I do note that
some of the suggestions have been before
council three or four times. It would be
great to see them done so that staff can
actually do some work without everything
being micromanaged at the uh head table.
So, thank you very much and I do look
forward to seeing some common sense.
Cheers.
Thank you. Mr.
Za, please come
forward. Um, Mr. Mayor, your honor and
council members, my name is Karen
Wonders. I live at the corner of uh
Windsor Road and uh transit. And so
that's where the uh Oak Bay Half
Marathon began and ended on Saturday. I
think maybe a thousand people were
there. It's very well-known corner. And
um uh I've circulated now a letter I
wrote uh eight years ago in 2017
regarding uh traffic uh problems on
Windsor Road. And I've just um written
another letter today uh some of the same
points. And um so I don't I don't think
I need to address those points. Um
Heather's done a good job on that. What
I'd like to just uh mention is uh my uh
experience, which is virtually every day
I I meet my neighbor in the park. She
has a dog and I have two dogs. Uh the
mayor has met my dogs, I believe, almost
adopted one. Um, and Joselyn Harris has
lived on Windsor Road and Oliver for
over 50 years. And she's a
psychotherapist. Her office is here on
Oak Bay Avenue. Um, and she she comes to
the park with her dog and we walk
through the park and then uh to get her
home she takes the asphalt path that was
put in I don't know about 10 years ago.
Bay got a grant in order to make um some
sort of pavement from the pavilion to
the play park. There was no way for
people in wheelchairs or with strollers
to get easily to the park. So, there was
a pathway created inside the park. So,
we go down that pathway and then we get
to the corner of uh transit and Windsor
and there's no sidewalk on the south
side of Windsor Road. It's an extra wide
road and the intersection there is extra
wide and so I have to go with her um
across uh first uh transit and then
across Windsor and it's very difficult
because she's a mobility challenge.
She's 87 years old uh moves with great
um difficulty and is in pain and is very
slow. So we we go together and with all
the dogs and just pray that whoever is
coming down uh Windsor Road toward the
park is if uh they see us that they will
slow down because we can't get across
that road fast enough and and this is my
daily experience and it's really
nerve-wracking and I think it needs to
be addressed. Um I I mention in my
letter I've seen two dogs hit by
speeding uh cars and I myself was hit on
Windsor Road two weeks ago. Windsor Road
is not a small road. It's a it's a wide
road and I was uh cycling and and over
to the side and it certainly uh was just
um totally frightening to be uh accosted
from behind a driver, an aggressive
driver. And uh I I'm very concerned that
uh the traffic issues be addressed
especially at the park where there are
so many people that that is our three
minutes. So thank you very much. No,
thank you very much. I'll just try and
keep people on time so that we have make
sure everybody has a chance to speak.
Yes, please come forward.
Honorable mayor and council, it's
Kathleen Matthews. I also live at
Windsor Park and I'm absolutely
delighted to have learned that there is
a survey that has gone on with now 200
signatures I know and my name is on that
I have sat here a couple of times and
mentioned the need for crosswalks into
Windsor Park and I have sent many
emails. I've never had any response and
nothing's ever happened. I'll speak to
the Curry side of the street. I too have
a dog and I have grandchildren that come
to
visit in the morning with the dogs. It's
not the dog drivers much. It's the
people coming into Oak Bay to do
gardening repairs, you know, very
they're coming in in their in their big
pickup trucks. They come around the
corner at transit and they, you know,
Curry is a really straight flat road and
they just roar down there. They don't
see the stop signs. They don't see the
warnings. They don't see anything. And
there is, of course, Monterey School at
the end of that. There's a lot of people
going back and forth on that sidewalk. I
think I would like to be clear. I think
you need I was going to say three
sidewalks, but having listened to the
ice cream shop one, you need four
sidewalks. You need two coming in where
the pavement is to Windsor Park, you
need one where the rugby shack is, and
you need another one, I guess, from the
ice cream shop. People are just
wandering all over the place. And when
my grandkids come, they just I can't
say, you know, go to the crosswalk and
make sure you're careful. They just run
all over the place. So I think I really
support the need and I have for many
years. So I'm just so grateful for you
folks for having come up with a a survey
and so thank you very much. I just want
to let you know it is so essential
especially when the number of cars but
also it's the workers they they just
roar down there and then young people
too down and then these bicycles that
roar down there as well. Okay. Thank you
Miss Matthews.
Anybody else wish to speak to council on
matters? Yeah, please come
forward. You learn the process now. Just
name and municipality and you're welcome
to speak. Do I need to press Oh, you
don't. Perfect. All right. Uh my name is
Sonia Sun. I live here in uh Oak Bay and
I am just speaking on behalf of
supporting the crosswalk at Windsor
Park. I too have a young child. Um she
is 5 years old and we go to Windsor
Park. Uh we're walking distance to the
park and we go there on a very regular
basis, especially since the ice cream
shop has opened. And I have to say that
um um I am always nervous when we
approach the park from both sides, both
coming from the curry side of the street
as well as when we go to the ice cream
shop and come back. um many times um
when we're about to cross um because
there are cars parked on both sides of
the street as well right up to where the
uh air the the marked part of it it is
um the cars will come and it is very
difficult for us to see the cars and the
bikes and so in terms I'll keep it short
because I believe that my neighbors have
done a good job explaining but I wanted
to just add my voice to uh to u the
thank you thank you
Uh, anybody else in the room or
online last chance to come talk to us
about anything of interest in Oak
Bay? Okay, I will uh conclude this
portion of the meeting. Thank you very
much to all those who spoke. Um, we
don't hold it against you. If you've
come here to speak but want to leave,
you're more than welcome to do so.
Appreciate, especially with families,
it's sometimes nice to head out again.
Um um moving on to section to number
8.1, we have a streets and traffic bylaw
amendment, elephant's feet, quote
unquote. Uh we have Mr. Renick, our
director of engineering and public works
here to do a brief introduction.
Uh thank you very much uh Mr. Mayor,
members of council. Uh as the mayor
said, I'll be very brief. Elephant's
feet crossing are a type of marking that
is being used in a lot of jurisdictions
around British Columbia, particularly in
the capital region. An elephant's feet
crossing indicates an area where a
cyclist is allowed to cross a road
without dismounting. Some people refer
to them as cross rides because they
operate in the same manner as a
crosswalk where a pedestrian has the
right of way. Cross bikes or elephants
feet markings themselves do not alone
indicate right ofway, but they are often
used in conjunction with another form of
traffic control such as a flashing
beacon. Uh the amendments before you
tonight are simply to allow Oak Bay to
have the ability to create these. We are
not currently seeking to add any.
However, there are a few elephants feet
marking in the Henderson and Hala
design. Uh so as was referenced when the
Henderson Hala design was first brought
to council, there would need to be a
bylaw amendment in order to uh authorize
the creation of elephants feet marking
and so that bylaw amendment is before
you tonight. I am happy to take any
questions. Uh thank you Mr. Renick. I
think this is fairly straightforward but
I'll turn to council and see if there's
any questions. Oh councelor Green and
then Patterson.
[Music]
Thank you. Thank you very much and
through you to Mr. Renick. Thank you for
the report and the bylaw draft. Um just
one question and that is what is the
experience from other communities? I'm
thinking of Sanin Victoria in the use of
elephants feet. Um I'm I'm just
wondering what their what their
experiences have been like in terms of
traffic patterns and movement and so on.
Thank you, Mr. Renick. uh through the
mayor. Elephant's feet have generally
been wellreceived. Um they're generally
advocated for by uh through the
provincial design guidance. Um I think
that they're used in a lot of places.
City of Victoria has used them on the
crossings on Bay Street. Districts of
Sanage uses them a great deal and uh
they generally seem to be wellreceived
and I have not heard a lot of uh
negative feedback on them. Thank you,
Councelor Patterson.
Yeah. Yes. Thank you, Mayor, and through
you to um Director Renick, if I could um
just just for clarification. Thank you
for the report. Um where the elephant
feet crosswalks would be used. If they
are used in conjunction with pedestrians
and you have two-way pedestrian paths
and two-way um cycling
paths, does that not expand the amount
of um width of the uh the corridor? And
if so, um how how did how is it
accommodated?
Mr. Renick, through the mayor, there's
two types of applications that are used.
There's ones that are combination of
bike and crosswalks and there are also
areas where there are separate bike
crossings from separate crosswalks.
Really depends on how much room you have
available. We tried to keep the bylaw
language flexible. But I would note that
in the proposed bylaw, it states that a
person riding a bicycle in a crosswalk
must yield the right of way to
pedestrians who are using that same
crosswalk. just to address that
hierarchy of movement that pedestrians
always have the right of way over
cyclists who are using shared
facilities.
Any? Yes, thank you. And and just
another um clarification if I might uh
mayor through you to Mr. Renick. um just
to perhaps share with us where how the
decisions are made where um
circumstances are crosswalks limited to
pedestrians only and where where you do
the elephant feet crossings
through the mayor. The elephant's feet
crossings would typically be restricted
to areas that are on a designated
bikeway. Um we are not looking to
wholesale replace pedestrian crosswalks
with cross rides at this time.
Thank you. I didn't see any other hands.
So, um this is good practice for the
audience if uh this is our standard
process. Uh we have matters that come
before council. Staff will do a brief
introduction. Uh members of council have
the opportunity to ask questions and
then I turn to the a where there's
public input uh allowed under a
procedure bylaw. I will turn to members
of the public if they wish to if they
have questions or have any comments on
an item. Mr. Zulka will come and
demonstrate uh the uh uh we'll just
invite people up but the conclusion of
public input. We will close the public
input portion and come back here and
seek a motion from council to advance or
direct next steps for the matter at
hand. Um we have a number of items on
the agenda tonight that are for public
input. So uh this will be the standard
process. Staff introduction, council
questions, public input and then back to
this table for direction. Mr. Zelka,
welcome. Uh, your honor, mayor,
councelors, thank you for this
opportunity to speak to this item. Uh,
my name is Eric Zaka. I live in Oak Bay.
In fact, I live in the northern part of
Oak Bay. I'm very pleased to see that
Oak Bay has been piloting Elephant's
Feet in the uh um University of Victoria
area. uh uh the corner of Midgard and um
and Gordon Head if anyone is familiar
with that that that uh that uh corner.
Uh I go by there every almost every day
taking my child up to uh Mount Doug High
School and I get to see uh the effects
of um these elephant feeds in Oak Bay.
Um uh first of all, they're in Oak Bay
and I see they're just being made legal
possibly today. Very strange to see
something already in use. But on the
other hand, maybe there was a a
temporary by I wasn't familiar with but
uh I didn't wasn't aware of. Um my
experience as a as a uh first of all as
a as a um vehicle um um uh driver is
that uh this elephant feet uh has makes
the crosswalks much less safe. Um what I
found um at the time usually is at the
beginning of school or at the end of
school when there's lots of children
around. Um, of course you you I'm I'm
busy as a driver trying to be very very
careful already. It's it's a reduced
speed limit and and at that particular
intersection it it's even got a got a
raised crosswalk. So uh you have to slow
down no matter what. But even with all
of those um shall we say traffic calming
mechanisms. What um absolutely surprised
me was the number of bicyclists who
would fly through the intersection. They
would come down Midgard. I I I I there's
nobody in the intersection. And I think
I've got got a way through. And I if
they didn't hit me, I would have hit
them. Unbelievable how fast they would
go through. Not bothering to stop, not
bothering to press the button, not
bothering to flash the lights, but
basically taking the right of way. Now,
this is what concerns me about some of
the comments that I heard from your from
your um from your staff that that that
there's no as of right uh right of way
with the elephant feet. But
unfortunately with some of the signs
that we've been putting up for our our
for our um bicyclists with with words
such as take the lane, we are teaching
our cyclists to be very not just
assertive but frankly aggressive and
they think they have the right of way.
What I would like to see as an amendment
to this, and I would suggest you take
option three on this and ask staff to
come back with amendment, is to please
put a stop sign on both sides of a
crosswalk with elephant feet because at
on the Oak Bay side of this particular
intersection at Midgard, there is no
stop sign essentially. And and now
there's a there's a lovely little uh um
opportunity there for a cyclist to
possibly stop, press the button, and
then proceed and cycle across.
Unfortunately, there's no stop sign
there. They don't have to do that. In
fact, most cyclists weren't doing this.
So, please put a stop sign in to let the
cyclist know they have to stop to make
sure the way is clear and that they do
not have the right of way unless there
is an obvious sign up in there. And in
this case, there isn't. The second place
I noticed where where um elephant feets
are in use is at the southern end of uh
Oak Bay, excuse me, of UC campus. uh uh
at at at the at the bike lane that goes
across the the circle into the campus.
Um the signs there are all over the
place. I'll admit it it I'm sure the
whoever designed that did was trying to
do a good job. Uh again, there's no stop
signs on either side giving the um uh no
indication that the bicyclist cyclists
need to stop for the pedestrians and no
indication that they need to stop for
for for cars who may not see them.
Please, dear God, we want this to be
safe. We want this to be traffic
calming. I do hear calls for uh for um
crosswalks to be put in all around
because there's a belief that it's
traffic calming. Unfortunately, those of
us who pay attention to mathematics and
statistics know the most unsafe place in
the entire road is a controlled
intersection for a pedestrian. That's
where all the accidents are because
pedestrians think they're safe with
those magic lines. Unfortunately,
they're not. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Zulka.
Anyone else wish to address council on
this item? Please come forward.
Welcome.
Oh, we need to push the button to turn
on. I think I think it's on. It's not.
You just need to push. There we go. It's
on. There you go. My name is Judith
Slimman. I live in Oak Bay. I wasn't
intending to talk tonight, but the these
elephants feet uh have brought up a
question for me um through the mayor. Am
I to understand that the elephant's feet
at a
crosswalk means that a person on a
bike can ride their bike across a
crosswalk? Is is that what elf's feet
are intended to do? No. Uh um I was
going to answer your question, but I
think I'll hand this over to Mr. Renick
just maybe just take a moment. Uh I
appreciate it's not common terminology.
So why don't we explain and perhaps Mr.
Renick you could also just talk to I
know in the current designs where we've
contemplated them as been stop signs but
uh perhaps just talk a little bit about
best practices for design.
Uh thank you very much Mr. Mayor. There
are a number of different bre best
practice treatments and it would depend
on the type of road that's being
crossed. Sometimes they are paired with
stop signs. Sometimes they're paired
with a traffic light. Uh in response to
the direct question from the resident,
yes, a crosswalk with an elephant's feet
does indicate that a cyclist may use it
without dismounting their bicycle. Thank
you. So that but but it's not just a
bikeway. It's also a pedestrian
crosswalk. Is that accurate? So it's
combining both a pedestrian c crosswalk
and a bike.
So there's they're they're called
they're as he's mentioned they're
sometimes called a a rideway. So they're
just an indicating like a crosswalk that
it's a place that bicycles may be
crossing. So um I'm sure there's
anything else you wish to add to that
Mr. Renick.
Um just as I I'm sorry through the
mayor. Um, as I stated earlier in the
proposed bylaw language for council in
situations where a cyclist and a
pedestrian may be using one of these at
the same time, the proposed bylaw
language is that the cyclist must give
way to any pedestrian using the
crossing. Thank you. The comment I have
to make about that, which is an ongoing
concern that I have on our roads in Oak
Bay, is that in reality that does not
happen. In reality, what happens is that
pedestrians give way to bikes because
they're afraid if they don't, they're
going to get hit. That is just the
reality of those two different ways of
getting around when when they're in the
same space, pedestrians
yield. So, I'm not sure that it's an
effective thing. Thank you. Thank you
for your
comments. Uh, anyone else wish to
address council on this item?
Don't see any other hands either online
or here. So I'm going to bring back to
this
table. Uh probably any any other
questions we'll take first and if not
I'll go to motions. Last seen questions.
Go ahead. Councelor Appleton. I thought
you were move receipt of the staff
report. Moved and seconded. Thank you.
Any discussion for receipt usually? All
those in
favor? Opposed? Not opposed.
Uh your worship I would move that
streets and traffic bylaw number 4100
2000 amendment bylaw number
4908205 be read a first and second time
and seconded. Thank you. Um this is our
chance to debate and discuss any
discussion.
Yeah. Go ahead. Councelor Smart is a
second and then councelor Green.
Oh thank you. I I just want to um
address and I really appreciate um
members of um the public coming up and
and sharing their concerns today that
what we have in front of us right now is
a a bylaw allowing us to use this new
tool and I as we go forward and use this
tool in new situations. We um will very
much have your thoughts. Um thank you
very much
Green. Thank you. I I would really
appreciate some use user data on on on
these um on these mitigations, elephant
feet. I'm not saying that they're not
popular or that they don't work, but I
am mindful of the comments from from
pedestrians and I myself have have
experienced that as well in a crosswalk.
Um, so it would be I would really
appreciate more information um and some
traffic uh some traffic data from other
communities, specific data to the use of
this tool. I'm not against using the
tool, but I think I need more
information. Thank you.
Thank you, Councelor Appleton.
Thank you, worship. So, in in favor made
the motion. Uh the the thing with
elephants feet, you know, being on the
on the on on the road network and and
cycling pretty regularly is is that
they're in the greater Victoria area,
they're more or less cosmopolitan now.
They've become sort of the standard
indication that a bicycle may cross at
that point. And so I I take the view
that actually because we haven't been
able to employ that really uh distinct
visual cue for all types of road users
in Oak Bay because we haven't been able
to because there's been no bylaw that
allows it. Uh we actually stand kind of
apart from the rest of municipalities.
The these were uncommon maybe 10 years
ago but are now pretty much
cosmopolitan. All types of road
crossings all through the CRD. Um, so I
think staying consistent with standard
practice across the region actually
makes things more predictable for all
road users.
Thank you, Maria. Thank
you. See any other discussion? Uh, I'm
just going to speak in support of the uh
of the amendments to the bylaw. I think
it's another tool that we can use in our
design pieces. Uh, I take the point that
it's true that most accidents do happen
in crossings. Even marked crossings are
are a key problem. Um I do think there
is going to be pros and cons to this
that we'll have to look at. But I think
there is one of the positive approaches
and this is touched on by councelor
Appleton. Um just having this this the
pieces on the road. Uh these can exist
where there's not a crosswalk. Uh and
they can indicate um crossing so that uh
cars and other bicycles can be aware
that there may be cyclists crossing at
that point which hopefully will erase
some of that awareness. So I think it's
useful to have these tools in our
toolkit and uh supportive of that uh
just having that tool in our tool
toolbox. Go ahead, councelor Patterson.
Yes, thank you, Mayor. And I do
appreciate people coming forward um from
the gallery to speak about this because
yes, crosswalks can be um quite
intimidating places for um for
pedestrians and um and uh unfortunately
it doesn't really matter what you're
driving. Aggressive drivers are
aggressive drivers and and um cautious
drivers are cautious drivers. I what the
what I I will support this though
because the bylaw enables it doesn't
mandate us to do it. It enables us to do
it and um monitor whatever changes are
made. And so uh by just allowing us to
enable it, it allows us to in fact um to
utilize these and to monitor how they
are used and whether more modifications
are necessary. Thank you. Oh, councelor
Reed for a second time. Very quickly, I
I will support the motion, but I want to
say that I would like us to practice
real v
vigilance on this particular bylaw and
that in fact that we do monitor it and
and make sure that people are safe
because the mix is challenging
especially with ebikes. Thanks. House
agreeing. Seeing no other hands, I'm
going to call the question. This is for
first and second reading. All those in
favor? Any opposed? None oppose. Can I
have a mover third reading?
Your worship, I would move the streets
and traffic by line number 4100 2000
amendment bylaw number 4908 2025 be read
a third time. Is there a seconder? Thank
you. Uh all those in favor. Any opposed?
None opposed. That'll come back for
consideration of adoption at the next
council meeting. Uh we move to item
number
8.2. I'm not surprised that there isn't
a didn't think anybody was here just to
see that one item. So we'll continue on
to other items on the agenda. uh
development variance permit DVP
000175 at 181383 St. David Street. We
have Mr. Green, our deputy director of
community building and planning uh to
introduce the item. Welcome.
Uh good evening worship members of
council. Uh the district has received a
development variance permit application
for the property located at 1383 St
David Street. The requested variance is
to reduce the setback for the sighting
of a new heat pump from 1.5 m to 1.5 to
1.0 meters from the property line, a
variance of.5 m. The new heat pump
replaces an existing heat pump that was
subject to a bylaw compliance file
following complaint that the district
receive. Staff are recommending that the
requested various be supported and
development variance permit DVP 00175
for 1383 St David Davis Street be
approved. Two pieces of correspondence
have been received following the
district giving notice of the
application and which is attached to
council's agenda. The applicant is also
here to answer any questions that
council may have on the application and
likewise I'm also yeah concludes my
presentation and happy to answer any
questions that council may have on the
application.
Thank you very much Mr. Green. We have
the report in front of us. Uh are there
questions from members of council either
to the applicant or to staff? Please go
ahead. Councelor Smart.
Uh, thank you. Um, through Merit to
staff, I I just wondered if it could be
clarified a little bit further. Um, in
the report, it mentions um anticipating
causing the least disturbance to
neighboring properties. I was having um
difficulty in looking at the drawings
and reading the report and understanding
how placing the heat pump in the front
yard, which seems to be more than 25 ft
away from a sidewalk, could actually be
more disturbing than placing a heat
pump, just feet away from a neighboring
house. Um but maybe I'm missing
something. So, I just wondered if staff
could clarify how uh the front location
would be more disruptive. Thank you.
Mr.
Green for your worship. I think the
applicants are proposing or suggesting
that it would be more visually intrusive
if that heat pump was located on the on
the on the on the in the front yard or
on the on the front of the property, I
should add. It would have been in the
front yard. It would be on the front of
the house. And so I think they think
from a visual perspective that they
think it would be better to be screened
in the side of the house rather than the
front. and uh the need for further
screening to uh to u which is now
required in in the
bylaw. Now I believe that if the the
applicant may wish to add something to
that effect if they are here I believe
they were invited to the meeting. Seeing
them yes good afternoon Mr. Mayor and
council. Thank you. Um yes to answer
that question um I believe the the the
essential essentially the um the
variance is requesting for 0.5 meters.
um should we essentially looked at two
locations with one which is the current
location where we require the variance
of 0.5 meters um and in that location
and the current location um which is
again only one meter from the property
line there is a 6ft cedar fence that
runs along the entire property line so
the heat pump in its current location
and where we're requesting a variance to
retain it we're replacing it of course
with a new high efficiency quiet model
um would be essentially equally or even
more quiet for the immediate neighbors
at 1387 given that um six foot cedar
fence which does not exist at the front
of the house. So the alternative
location at the front of the house would
not only be visible from the street, it
would also not have that that cedar
fence between the property line which we
believe would would essentially mean
that extra 0.5 meters would would not
reduce the sound any further. Hopefully
that answers your question. Yes. Thank
you. Mr. Borland, can I just ask you to
just state your name and municipality of
residents just for the record? Sure.
Mark Borland, Oak Bay, 138 David Street.
Thank you very much. Um, smart. Anything
else? No other questions? Any other
questions for members of council for the
applicant or
staff? Okay. Uh, at that point then
we're going to go to members of the
public. We have received some
correspondence on this uh expressing uh
their opinions on the application. Um,
happy to uh take anybody who wishes to
speak to us in person as
well. and we can take if this if
anybody's online and wishes to speak,
you can raise your hand within the Zoom
app by using the react tab. If you're
listening and calling into the 1855
number, you would hit star 9. It's star
9, not pound 9, star9 to uh uh raise
your hand. I see one hand raised online,
but we have a somebody in the audience.
Uh please state your name. Municipality
residents and welcome. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor. John Armitage. I'm a resident of
Oak Bay. I I came here not intending to
speak to this issue but um
professionally as an architect I've had
fair bit of experience with heat pumps
of various size up to multi-ton units
one of which uh was required to be shut
down on a project
because it was placed on a roof with uh
an upstand wall of about a story or so
behind it and that projected the sound
out uh a very large
distance such that
neighbors at the other end of a sports
field and across the road were disturbed
by it because these things come on at
2:00 a.m. and so forth and it's so um
that's my professional experience and my
professional experience dealing with
acoustic engineers is that um a
hedge is acoustically
transparent. A cedar fence is
acoustically
transparent. Um, any kind of house
structure is a
reflector. So, it doesn't matter whether
it's half a meter variance
or some other number. Um, it will still
project whatever sound, which may be
minimal when the unit is new, it will
project that onto the neighboring
property. If it's at the front of the
house, you can screen it visually by
other means. Um, and it will project
that sound over a greater distance where
there's more environmental friction in
the way of uh other vegetation and and
obstacles that break up the uh the
impact of of sound. So that's the extent
of my comments. Thank you. Thank you
very much.
We have a hand up online. Uh uh Johan
Boseman, if you could just again state
your name, municipality of residents,
and uh you're welcome to address
council. Yeah. Um good evening, mayor
and council. I'm Yan Bosman, 1387 St.
David Street, and I'm speaking to oppose
this development uh development variance
permit. Um this variant seeks to
legitimize a heat pump that's placed
just 1 meter from my property line and
directly opposite our bedroom windows.
Uh there are three critical reasons to
uh deny this application. Um first of
all, there's no real hardship here.
There's only convenience. Uh the
applicants own a large 10,000t property
that offers them many compliant
locations, including the entire south
side of the property where there are no
direct neighbors and a right-of-way
laneway and also front and uh rear yard
locations that would be much further
away from the property line.
We are the uh only property directly
affected by this noise pollution and
literally any other location on their
property would have less or zero noise
impact to us as their neighbors and also
not require a variance. Uh the reason
that there's existing duct work is not a
hardship, it's a convenience. Uh the
reason to avoid the south side of the
property is simply because that's where
all the applicants bedroom windows are
located. They're not facing hardship.
They're just seeking convenience at our
expense.
The second reason, uh, there's
documented noise nuisance and health
impact. Uh, this isn't theoretical. We
filed many repeat noise complaints,
sound level recordings, even a log book
documenting all the noise pollution. And
for nearly 2 years, we've endured uh,
sleepless nights due to continuous
mechanical noise and compressor cycling,
uh, forced closure of our bedroom
windows at night with no ventilation or
fresh air, and real health impacts from
chronic sleep disruption. Uh, the heat
pump's location directly opposite our
bedroom window makes a normal quality of
sleep almost impossible, especially
during the colder months when the heat
pump is always cycling on or off and
almost constantly
running. Uh, in third, uh, they're
acting in in bad faith. Um they've
violated the bylaws multiple times and
after operating the heat pump illegally,
receiving many repeat noise complaints
without taking action and finally
disabling the equipment as instructed by
the district. Uh they've now installed a
new heat new heat pump in the exact uh
same illegal location just last week uh
without approval on this variance
application pending before you. During
that installation, the HVAC company
cycled on the new heat pump several
times to verify proper installation and
the noise level at the property line
averaged 58 dB while in operation uh
which does not meet the allowable noise
level set by OP bylaw especially the
maximum 45 dB at night. So this proves
that the proposed sighting cannot meet
the maximum allowable noise level. In
summary, there's no hardship. Uh there
are many alternate sighting options
available. Uh this is directly affecting
our enjoyment of our property, our
sleep, and our health. Uh there's a
lengthy documented bylaw file with noise
pollution complaints. Uh the noise
limits can simply not be met in this
location, and the applicants have acted
in bad faith by installing a new heat
pump without variance
approval. So there are viable
alternatives. Uh they've simply chosen
not to use them because it's more
convenient and less expensive to violate
the bylaw. So, I ask that you deny this
various application, that you uphold
OPE's new zoning setbacks for heat
pumps, and that you require immediate
compliance with the existing bylaw.
Thank you. Thank you for your comments,
Mr. Boseman. Uh, we can't address the
compliance issues at this table, but I
appreciate they're related to the to the
variance concerns.
Um, anybody else wish to speak? Please
come forward.
I'm Terry Batrit and I'm in Oak Bay and
I was the original installer of the heat
pump in 1383 St. David Street. I wrote a
letter to council. I'm just going to
read it again so that we do have your
letter on here so you don't need to read
it aloud. So then I will um maybe
correct some of the misinformation in
the letter uh that you received from the
neighbor opposing this. By the way,
um we did not illegally install the heat
pump. There were no bylaws when it was
installed. Um the new unit, the the the
current owners installed the new unit to
be in compliance.
We installed the new we installed the
heat bomb originally because we wanted
to be environmentally conscious and to
do our
part. Um, so you understand that when we
heard that we uh our neighbors left
their bedroom windows open all the time,
we changed uh the cycles of the heat
pump and after that there were no
problems, no complaints. So, the only
complaints about the heat pump are from
the current
owners. Um, when this uh the
complaintant who just spoke spoke about
the zoning regulations and protections
of the neighborhood
character. I I find
it startling that they would say that
after having received a much larger
variance to have
a secondary dwelling on their property
that hadn't been
approved. Um I think that contradicted
the neighborhood's character and I think
that the current owners are trying to do
everything they can to make this
situation work.
um they're being environmentally
responsible and I think their efforts
should be um applauded and
encouraged. Um there's also just there's
some errors in the timeline for when it
was installed. It was not installed in
2008
um and things like that. But the only
uh and I think it's important to
understand that yeah, the current heat
pump is well within the guidelines and
they're asking for only a half a meter
variance. So I would encourage you to u
approve this variance. Thank you. Oh,
and I wanted to say thank you for all
the work you do. I know it's a thankless
job and I appreciate it. See, not a
thankless job. You said thank you. Thank
you.
Uh any other members of the public wish
to speak? Please come
forward. Just want to point out we had a
couple of comments are drifting off into
other aspects. I just really want to
keep our focus both at this table and
from the public on the merits or lack
thereof of the variance application. So
welcome sir and just the same process
name and municipality of residence. You
do have to hit the button on the on the
microphone.
James Stockell uh resident of Oak Bay
1397 St. David Street. Uh my wife uh
Deborah Stockdale and I uh support this
uh variance. We are two houses away from
uh the house that is requesting this
variance. I I believe this is an issue
related to sound. It's not a uh any
other issue involved. The distances I I
understand are uh in the bylaws saying
you should place a heat pump but it's
basically about sound. From what I
understand uh it has not been connected.
They have not connected uh the owners uh
at any time or the company providing uh
the heat pump. Uh so some thoughts or
suggestions that it had been done are I
believe incorrect. I think the owners uh
when they speak to you will be able to
uh clarify uh that situation. Um cuz I
believe that uh this heat pump only puts
out 48 uh dB and uh that will decrease
uh as you get close to the property
line. and I think it's a decibel uh per
foot which should put it in the
acceptable range. I the owners of 1383
have gone to uh considerable efforts uh
to mitigate the sound uh with the uh
cedar uh fence that they've placed up
and putting in an expensive heat pump
that's uh I understand is
state-of-the-art.
Uh I I think the thought of putting it
in front of the house is aesthetically
not pleasing and not necessary and would
incur a significant further sum of money
on top of what they have already spent.
And we're talking about a young couple
here with two young children. And I
think we have to be respectful of uh of
their uh very sensible wise uh uh
approach here. And I would think uh the
mayor, if I could paraphrase one of your
statements, is this would seem to be a
very reasonable ask of the or Thank you.
Thank you.
Uh, any other members of the public
online or in person who wish to speak to
the
application? Yep. Oh, I see Mark online.
Please go ahead. Are you the uh are you
the owner? Yes, that's correct. I am the
applicant, Mark Borland, 1383 St. David.
Um, yes. I just want to clarify. I'm not
going to go into um some of the the he
said she said. I just want to clarify
that we did speak with five different
HVAC companies and um they each carry
multiple models of heat pump and the
heat pump that we have chosen to replace
the existing unit is the single quietest
model that we can find. It produces 48
dB as Mr. Stockdale said at the unit
which uh 3 ft away from the property
line translates to 45 dB at the property
line. So even at with only 1 meter from
the property line it will produce 45 dB.
We also understand that that um regular
servicing is necessary and the warranty
on the heat pump requires annual
servicing to be valid. So um rest
assured that we will continue to ensure
that it stays at 45 dB at the property
line. Um yeah, that's pretty much all I
have to say and uh thank you for your
consideration.
Thank you, Mr.
Borland. Any other members of the public
wish to talk to council on this matter
before I bring it back to this table?
Oh, do I see a hand online? Yes, I do.
Uh Pamela online, please name and
municipality of residence. Yeah, I'm
Pamela. I'm the next door neighbor at
1387 St. David Street, uh Oak
Bay. Um we are the only neighbor that
hears this heat pump and I would hope
that you would take our uh lengthy
history into consideration. Um, if I had
confidence
that this heat pump could be maintained
and that I could have communications
with the neighbor to to discuss the
matter or if bylaw could support any
issues I'm having in in sleeping at
night, um, then, you know, it might be a
different story. But I've got two and a
half years of documented problems. Uh
initially we we went to them directly
and talked to them about it and it's
actually not true that the previous
owners of our house did not have uh
problems. Uh they they did have
problems. We found out later. Um we also
have young children. We can't put in
earplugs because we need to hear our
children at night. Um we can't sleep
with windows closed because it's you
know it's not uh conducive to sleeping.
Um, and what has been said already is
that the new PE heat pump has already
been installed. Um, and when it was
installed, we called bylaw and bylaw
came to visit and we provided them the
readings from the property line of of 58
dB. And so bylaw allowed that heat pump
to continue being installed. They did
not stop the installation. They
authorized a continuation of the
installation. And so that was an
additional frustration on our part given
the you know 2 and a half year history
um we've had with this issue. Um
I know you have to be able to take um
comments from everybody but I think you
know the history of this part of the
neighborhood and um I would hope that
you do not consider opinions of people
who do not sleep in my bedroom at night.
Uh I appreciate the previous architect's
comments. Uh it is completely true that
a hedge and a fence do not block sound.
Um and
um that heat pumps can actually be run
up to 150 ft away from the source of
ducting. And so even turning it around
the corner to face the front yard of
which there is a large roto which would
hide the the heat pump from the public.
Um you know I think there are still
other locations that would not disturb
anybody.
Um, so you know, that's all I have to
say. It's not very eloquent, but you
know, this is since we moved into this
house, it's been a problem and it's
pretty upsetting when you can't get a
good night's sleep uh and can't speak to
your neighbor about it and can't depend
on bylaw to help enforce things. So, I I
we ask that you deny this variance and
thank you very much. Thank you, Miss
Uvea. Um, anybody else wish to speak to
the council on this matter?
See no other members of the public
wishing to speak. I will uh just bring
it back to this table. We have the uh
the report in front of us. I'm going to
ask that we have a motion to receive the
report. Thank you. Moved and seconded.
All those in favor? Any opposed? Un
opposed. I'll move the staff
recommendation. Uh just to be clear,
this is the uh to approve the variance.
Moved. Is there a seconder for the move?
Move and seconded. Motion is now live on
the floor for debate. Go to councelor
Smart.
Yeah, thank you. I won't be supporting
um uh the motion on the table. I already
expressed concern when we recently
revised our bylaws to the um 5t away
from the property line and and because
there's not been enough room to create
soundproofing when there are issues in
this very situation. Um I also work in
architecture. This comes up a lot. Um
and I concur with the comments about a a
fence um you know often if nothing else
making uh the sound issues worse and
certainly not better. Uh this is a
quality of life issue for the neighbor
and there are many other um locations
particularly in the front yard that
would be available without a variance
that would have less impact on
neighbors. Um there is not enough space
with this reduced variance to create
what would be needed to mitigate the
sound, which would be um a structure
with insulation. There's a lot of
different structures out there, but in
creating such a structure to mitigate
the sound, you wouldn't be able to
actually access access that side of the
house with such a small setback. So I'm
not in favor of this.
Thank you. Any other
discussion, Appleton? No, thank you.
worship. So, I too am not in favor of
the variance uh on the floor. If if for
no other reason than I think it's really
important we we as councelor Smart
mentions, we've had we've had an
extensive discussion around the council
table quite recently about proper
sighting and placement of heat pumps. Um
and I think it's a timely one because
with the push to electrification, you
know, this is just going to become a
very very significant issue. So I would
like to see us be as consistent and as
uh and following as closely as possible
the standard that council has just
adopted. Thank you worship.
Thank
you. Uh other discussion around the
table don't see any. Um thank you. Um I
think there's anything I want to talk
this one I will just say I struggle with
a little bit. I I hear the uh the
comments made by my uh counselors around
the table here um both sides of the
equation. I do I tend to be fairly
flexible on these if the owner has gone
to significant lengths to reduce noise
and um just recognize these are
sometimes difficult especially if
they're replacing legacy. Um, so I think
the owner has gone to lengths that they
can to mitigate noise. And so the
question then becomes whether or not we
control this by the sighting in this
situation or do we do it by the noise
bylaw uh aspects of it. I think that's a
tricky part about this. We are here
considering the variance versus for
sideyard. But it's really ultimately
going to be the impact on the noise to
the neighbors. So um I I struggle with
that one. I'm not going to lie. I think
there's there's pros and cons to both
sides of this equation. I'd be happy to
hear anybody else's thoughts before I
call the question, but Oh, there we go.
Councelor Watson.
Yeah, very interesting multifaceted
issue. Um I um having heard an architect
speak and our own counselor SM speak on
this issue um while I first thought you
know it's minor whatever just I I do
think that um it makes sense to approve
it because if we grant the variance and
there isn't and then there becomes an
issue we do have a mechanism to deal
with that and so then it's kind of in a
way at the owner's risk if they they've
come with an application that that seems
in very in many ways minor and uh u with
um uh
um cert sort of certifying or suggesting
that there won't be an issue if things
are left as they are. Um so um I'm
prepared to support the variance request
and then um things will you know follow
the course they follow. So that's my
it's a more expedient approach to it I
think but I'm happy to do that.
Thank you, Council Patterson. Yes, thank
you, Mayor. Um, you know, I'm I'm kind
of on a third generation heat pump, I
think, in the home that I'm in. And and
obviously, the first two were um uh
certainly produced more sound. However,
the newer units, particularly if they
are highquality units, are extremely
quiet. And we do have many situations in
Oak Bay where um the installations of
the duct work etc inside the house were
done for where heat pumps were cited and
we haven't until recently had um any
guidance for for homeowners on that. So
I will support this as it is and I
believe as the staff recommendation
before us and um I believe too that
there is uh remedy through the through
the noise bylaw if that should occur.
However, with with a quality system in
quality maintenance, it really should be
the the sound quality should be
minimized. Thank you.
Thank you. I don't see any other hands.
I appreciate the the the debate. I'm
going to call the question. The motion
of the floor is to approve the variance
as put here. All those in
favor and those opposed. I have
councelor Smart and Appleton opposed.
That motion carries. With that, the
variance is approved. Um I hope the two
neighbors can have open communication.
So if there is noise issues, you can
share it and the owner of the heat pump
can make any mitigations required to
keep the neighbors happy. Moving on to
8.2, Two, we move to uh development
variance permit DVP
0000001 175 at 1383. Oops,
sorry, forgot to change my uh page 8.3
developments variant for DBP 00174 at
1311 Victoria Avenue. Uh we have Mr.
Green again to introduce the matter.
Thank you, your worship. Uh the district
has received a development variance
permits application for the property
located at 1311 Victoria Avenue. The
requested variances are to facilitate a
proposed accessory dwelling unit on the
property. The following variances are
being requested by the applicant. A
reduction to the required exterior
sidelot lane setback from 3.7 m to 1.53
m. An increase to the maximum permitted
building height from 4.4 m to 5.71 m. a
difference of 1.31 meters. Uh I should
note that the staff report noted a
building height of 6.01 meters, but
further plan checkers identified that
this should be 5.71 m lowering the
proposed building height. And thirdly,
an increase to the maximum permitted
roof height from 6 m to 7.23 m, a
different a difference of 1.23 m. Mr.
Green, can you just repeat those so we
can jot them down? Yeah. A reduction to
the required exterior sidelot line set
back from 3.7 meters to 1.53 mters. An
increase to the maximum permitted
building height from 4.4 m to 5.71 m a
difference of 1.31
m and an increase to the maximum
permitted roof height from 6 m to 7.23 m
a difference of 1.23 m. I should note
also that the front west elevation join
that is included in council's agenda uh
on attachment six uh in page 72 does
show a peak roof of a peak of the roof
beyond the 7.23 mters but the applicant
has identified that this is an error and
has resubmitted a revised building plan.
Uh but I should note that this does not
affect the variance that is being
requested and which is correct in the
staff report and the draft permit that
is attached to the council
report. Staff are recommending that the
v requested variances be supported and
development variance permit DVP
00174 for 1311 Victoria having be be
approved. Uh several pieces of
correspondence have been received
following the district giving notice of
the application and which is attached to
the council agenda. uh both the
applicant and the owner are both here to
answer any questions that council may
have and I'm also happy to answer any
questions that council may have on the
application.
Thank you very much Mr. Green. I have
councelor Short to begin.
Thank you um through Mayor to Mr. Green.
I was wondering if you could just remind
us we had an infill um bylaw before us.
I believe it was in February with
regards to increasing the height of um
ADUs and that went back for just one
small request to look at permeable area
percentages and it was going to come
back to council in March. We haven't
seen it yet. Um so I'm wondering if that
bylaw had passed already um would this
um particular project be within height
compliance for for building height and
roof height? Thank you.
Mr. B or Mr. Green, my recollection is
some of that is completed, has it not?
But any I'll hand it over to you. Yeah,
through your worship, uh, obviously,
yeah, February the 10th, council
received an update on the infill uh uh
infill program and some refinements to
the bylaws and there was uh two changes
to accessory dwelling units in relation
to both roof height and building height.
Um, as I talk, I'm trying to remember
exactly. I believe there was increasing
the roof height from uh to 7.5
m, but I can't remember what the
building height change was.
Thank you. That answers my question
enough. Appreciate it.
Okay. Thank you. Uh are there any Yeah,
go ahead. Councelor Breathweight. Um
thank you very much. I'm just wondering
I mean looking at this um and we call
this an ADU. Um, what's the difference
between an ADU and a single family
dwelling?
Mr. Green, uh, through your worship, the
definition of an accessory dwelling
unit, it says that the accessory
dwelling unit must be smaller than the
principal building on the lot, which in
this case when you take the gross floor
area of the single family dwelling
compared to the gross floor area of the
ADU, the ADU is smaller than the
principal building.
Thank you. And can you just remind me
what the floor square area of the advis
of the ADU is?
Mr. Green, do you have that information
handy?
I think I've got it in my Let me just
through your worshippers, give me one
minute to find that um calculation.
Total floor
area 137.05 square meters or
1475.2 ft.
Any other questions? Councley. Thank
you.
Go ahead, Councelor Watson. Uh, thank
you, Mayor
Tharification. Could you just um please
let me know again for um what the
maximum lot coverage is for this
property and what the maximum lot
coverage is for the ADU on it by itself.
might be best if I ask the applicant to
answer that question if that's okay who
is probably most familiar with the the
drawings.
Sure. I'm happy to welcome be Mr.
Collins. We can be willing to come
forward and answer that question.
We have live landscaping coverage
required 20
percent that has it here is 50%
but I can come back to that question if
people want to look up the answers to it
and because sometimes finding the exact
number you're asking for the coverage
coverage maximum
we've made it more confusing with the
live lot coverage and the paving
percentages
So,
Mr. Green, welcome back.
Yes. So, the proposed lot coverage is
37.7
uh% and the requirement is 40%.
Thank you. Anything else? Counc is there
anything in is there anything about the
lot coverage for an ADU or is it just
all included as one total?
Mr.
Deip, it's a lot coverage of the site.
However, there is that essentially when
the infill bylaws were presented to
council where council wanted to retain
an existing single family dwelling.
There is that ability to um increase the
lot coverage by an additional 10% if the
single existing single family home is
being retained. But it does that doesn't
mean to say that the ADU then has a lot
coverage of 10%. It means that the
overall site has a maximum of 10 of 40%.
So this could go up to just to clarif
for for this site this could be 50% and
that would still be within the bylaw
framework. Yes. 40 + 10. No, it's 40%.
30 plus 10%. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you for that clarifying questions.
We're also getting used to the new
rules. Uh go ahead, Council
Braithweight. Oh, thank you. I did have
one other question. Um I I noticed that
this is this is set very far far back at
the back of the lot. And I wonder um why
it was not and it's it tends to be up on
a little bit of a hill. Um, and I'm
wondering why it was not moved a little
bit closer to the um, main residence so
that it wouldn't have as much of an
impact on um, on 2144 Brighton.
The why questions I have to give to the
applicant. So, why don't you come
forward
for your worship? I think that question
is best answered by Mr. Collins that to
do so. Um, for the record, can you just
state your name and municipality
residence at the beginning of your Russ
Collins from Zebra Design? Thank you.
Thank you.
Um, so sorry, the question was was why
was it situated uh so far back on the
lot um as opposed to because we want to
save the trees that are on the property.
As it is, we're affecting two trees
where we put it and if we put it any
closer closer to the other house, we're
going to start losing some fairly
substantial trees.
Thank you. I'll let you stay there for a
moment as we get see if there's any
other questions. Uh any other questions
directed to the applicant or to staff at
this
time? Can I just have one question which
just relate regarding the glazing? Uh
appreciate the efforts made here uh on
reducing glazing facing onto the the two
neighboring properties. Um can you share
uh what um what overlook that is? Are
those frequently used rooms or would
they be relatively lightly used um rooms
that are that would be doing the
overlook?
Oh, sorry. Uh, just curious about the um
the nature of the I said I appreciate
the the reduced glazing on looking onto
neighboring properties, but I am just
curious a little bit on the second
story. What is the the nature of those
those windows? Are they looking over
like are they sort of uh high social
area uh windows or are they um you know
intended to be sort of like bedrooms and
and bathroom windows? All of the main
windows of of the proposed um ADU face
either the street or internally to the
other house. We only have um one window
on the second floor which is at the end
of a hallway as you turn to go down the
stairs. So, it's something that you're
going to be passing by. You're not going
to be standing there staring at the
neighbor. And then um I'm trying to
remember what was on the other There's
one top left glazing on the uh south
elevation.
Yeah, we have a sewing room that is
facing the
um north property and then there's a a
dining room windows that are going to be
facing the north property, but there's
also going to be a fence like six foot
high fence. So, that window in the
dining room shouldn't be have any
overlook to the neighbor to the north.
Right. I was just thinking of second
story windows at this case. So, okay. I
appreciate the answers. Okay.
Um, yeah, Council Watson, and then I'll
go to I keep glancing down and seeing
council, your your name tags are
switched, so councelor Appleton's name
is in front of you, so it keeps throwing
me off when I look down. Go ahead,
councelor Watson. As long as the votes
are recorded properly. Um, uh, thank
you. I have one further question for
probably Oh, no, it'll be for the
applicant actually. um uh in terms of
the um effect of the requested increases
in height on the neighbor uh immediately
adjacent to the east. There's quite a
lot of slope between those two lots and
I just wonder um
uh what will happen to their
outlook on that in that last I guess um
1.3 meters that are that would be added
above what you would be allowed as of
right if you could give me a sense of
that. they've got they've got they're
facing looking west into the evening sun
and and the you know I guess south kind
of west southwest really they're
capturing that and I just kind of want
to know what the impact would be of that
additional amount you're requesting. So,
um, one of the things I guess I was I
wasn't quite sure how it was answered
earlier. The question about the, um, why
did we pick these heights that we're
proposing? It's, it is because it was
the height that we thought was going to
be in front of council and approved by
now. We didn't actually expect that we'd
be asking for variances on this at this
point. It just turned out that that
hasn't come to council yet for approval.
So, that's what our variances were
applied for.
Um, we do have a hip roof which is
sloping away from the neighbor. So, it's
not like we don't have a gable facing
them. We we're trying to keep the height
as minimal as possible. We've also
designed this ADU with only 8ft
ceilings. So, there's no standard height
nowadays in a regular house is 9 ft on
the main floor, sometimes 10 and 9 ft
upper floors. We're proposing 8T and 8T,
which is basically minimum that you'd
want to have for a a ceiling height.
Thank you. Anything else? Councelor
Wilson. Go to councelor Green.
Thank you very much. Um first of all,
just to councelor um Smart's earlier
question about the the bylaw coming or
yes, the bylaw coming back to us through
you to Mr. Green. Um could you tell us
when that bylaw might be coming back to
us then on on height? Um thank you.
Mr. Green. Yeah, we've just been uh
working with our design on the uh
addressing council um sent by those
bylaws back for some refinement in
relation to the impermanal servicing.
So, we are hoping to bring those bylaws
back for council's consideration of
readings in sometime in June, the
current timetable.
Um, just further, I happen to know 2144
on Brighton because uh, Fred and I tried
to buy that little house when we first
moved here. So, we've been through it a
lot and we know it well. My concern
follows on the questions from councelor
Watson and that is light um and evening
sun and shadowing and and that kind of
thing because if we look at the house on
granite across the street, they have
lost all of their light to the west
because of height. So, I'm just hoping
that perhaps
um you you could assure us that that
isn't going to happen to 2144 Brighton
because um Evening Sun I I think there's
also quite an active garden on at 2144.
I'm sure there are gardens on both
properties, but I think that would be a
concern, the overlook and the loss of
light. Thank you.
Go ahead,
Mr. Push the button. Sorry about that.
Um, we've also kept the the
the full depth of the house quite narrow
at that point when it comes closer to
the lot so that the actual depth of the
house is is um an additional looks like
at least 10 ft further away from the
property line as it comes towards
Brighton. So, we tried to minimize the
the depth of it. It's only 23 I believe
23 feet deep that portion of the house.
It's very small. That's the depth of
like a a double car garage
basically. And also, if you look on the
site plan that we're showing, it says
where it says number 2144, you can see
the the line that's drawn there. That's
the edge of that existing house. And
there's quite a distance between the two
houses. It's actually very close, if not
the same, as what you'd expect between
houses anywhere in Oak Bay. Like a 5ft
setback on one side and 10t close to 10
ft on the other. So, it's very normal if
if these were lots that all ran this
way, that would be very normal to have
the house placed that close to the other
one. Thanks very much. I appreciate
that.
Thank you. I'm not seeing a lot other
questions popping up here. So, perhaps
the applicant can sit and we'll if
there's any members of the public who
wish to speak to council on this matter.
All is subject to public input. So, I
see a hand raised. Why don't you come
forward?
You can just state your name and
municipality of residence and uh you
have up to three minutes to talk to
council.
Uh that's good. We can hear you. Yep. My
name is Mitchell Tempmpkin. I uh a
resident of Oak Bay. I live at uh 1311
Victoria Avenue. I am in the homeowner
the homeowner of the house under
question. And I just like to make a a
few quick points.
Um, one is I would just like to restate
because this is very very important to
us that the purpose of our building, the
successory dwelling unit is to enable
intergenerational living. Our daughter
and her husband were raised in Oak Bay.
He was born there. Ours wasn't. They
have three small children. Uh, they
currently live in the Nimo. They have an
opportunity through his work to come
back to Victoria. They would love to
move back to Oak Bay where all their
friends are, but like so many young
people now, they can't afford to do it.
Uh the fi the dynamics of this project
will allow them to do it. I don't need
to go into the details, but I'm happy to
explain afterwards to anyone. So, this
is uh very important for us for
intergenerational living and for our
support as we grow older. I also think
it's really important for the community
that there be intergenerational
succession. If people who have grown up
in Oak Bay, um ultimately when they go
out into the work world can't afford to
move back here or to live here at all,
um the uh whole community I think will
lose a lot of its vitality and could
become sort of a monotone a monotone
enclave for the wealthy, which I'm sure
is, you know, we're halfway there
already. it's not entirely desirable.
So, that's is extremely important for us
that our grandkids will be there. Uh,
someone asked a question about why we
didn't want to move the house, the new
dwelling closer to the existing house.
Uh Russ said, "Yes, there are three
mature Gary Oaks in the way, but by
positioning the houses as we have, um we
have uh an interior safe play space in a
yard for our grandchildren between the
two houses where there is eyes on."
Someone in a submission suggested that
we, you know, move the house only, you
know, 3.17 meters or whatever the code
requirement is from the existing house.
um really then the grandchildren don't
have a safe play area anymore if we do
that. So trees and grandchildren um
along with puppies everybody loves them
but th those are our our reasons. Um
um uh when I read some of the comments
uh that were submitted uh regarding our
plan,
um many people seem to think uh either
by uh misapprehension or misinformation
perhaps that we have actually requested
a setback variance along the property
line between our lot and 2144. But the
the setback along that property line is
as per code. And you know, when I walk
around Oak Bay, I have my guess is that
the majority of Oak Bay residents live
in houses that are appro approximately
6, seven or 8 m from their neighbors
next door. This is by design. This is
often the case for twostory houses of,
you know, different heights. um and uh
it is actually completely normal and I
don't see why there should be uh a
special exception in this case. Um
finally, the last
uh question I'd like to address is the
one of the mass of the houses because
some people have remarked to me, well,
it's just too big. It's just too big. Uh
too big for what is the question. We're
surrounded by very large houses. uh uh
compared to which both 2144 and our
proposed new house look dimminitive
frankly. Um um and the fact is that you
know thinking just about the visual mass
of the house uh uh what we're proposing
is very similar to the house at
2144. Two houses side by side per code
uh of similar proportions. Uh the the
footprint at 2144 is a little smaller,
650 ft. I believe we're 740 something
something like that. But um the uh house
at 2144 uh the footprint is L-shaped,
meaning the exterior perimeter walls are
longer. Um and they have a I believe a
gable end on the to the roof on the side
facing our lot. So you know the the
visual perception of mass of that house
is pretty much going to be identical uh
to the visual perception of mass in our
house. I think the point is actually
moot. Um uh the the house at 2144 also
sits very close almost upon the road and
we're even with the variance that we
have requested
uh uh along Brighton Avenue. Um we still
sit farther back than that house and
there is uh you know going to be light
uh entering there. Uh the question of
light is is also interesting to me
because right now we have a massive uh
mature uh uh arbutus which we're going
to lose if we build this house. I
completely regret it. We had long
conversations with the arborist about
how it might be saved. Um and his advice
was that uh it would be risky to try to
do so. trying to save it would probably
weaken it. And it's already lost two
large limbs which have fallen on on our
outuildings now. So, um it's going to go
it blocks already an enormous amount of
light in the afternoon from the west. Um
when it goes, we can't grow anything
under it. No vegetables, no grass,
nothing. Um when it goes, Mr. Tin, I'm
going to ask you just to kind of wrap it
up. You know, come back to you for
questions if there are any, but wrap it
up. I think that yes there will be
uh there there will be more light due to
the loss of the arbutus. There will be
less light due to the structure of the
building. But with respect to the to
shadows between buildings, they are
reciprocal between buildings. We won't
have morning light. They'll have less
afternoon light. Um you know it's it's
sort of equal. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hamkin. Others wishing to speak
either online or in person are welcome
to come forward.
I'm hearing mumbling but no hands.
There's somebody coming forward. There
we go.
If you can come forward. Same process as
before. Just the name and municipality
of residents and uh just asking people
to speak to the variances which is the
the uh sideyard setback and
heights. Welcome.
Thank you. My name is Helen Richardson,
although I'm commonly called Jake. So,
you're all very welcome to call me that.
Uh, my comments are extremely brief
because you should have in front of you
a full presentation of written letters,
uh, some dimensional uh, notations and
also some simulations of what the mass
of this proposed building is going to
look at.
So, I've been a homeowner and a taxpayer
obviously uh in Oak Bay since
1978. Uh Mitchell's right. There have
been some uh some misinformation, some
confusion,
misconceptions, whatever. Uh in the
immediate neighborhood regarding the
application, but we have several people
here tonight from the neighborhood and
they can speak to you about that if they
so wish.
I need to say that I obviously would
prefer not to have any trees lost and
not to have any
building because
uh but there's nothing we can do about
that. Mr. Eie tells us what to do on
that. Okay. Now, Mitchell and I have
been good neighbors for 20 years. We
still have each other's house keys. and
I thought the trust that that
implies. Nonetheless, one day in April,
Mitchell announced, "We are building and
laid out drawings on my kitchen table."
Seemingly a fate to
complete. No notice. M. Richardson, I'm
just going to ask in the interest of
time if we can just speak to the varian.
I am under three minutes. Oh, no. I just
just for the interest of of just because
we have a decision to make on the
variances. The more you can speak to the
variances themselves, the that more this
helps us. Okay. Thank you. I'm sure
you're familiar with the technicalities
of this application which largely ignore
the Oak Bay guidelines for infill
housing. I have a big problem with that
and certainly the spirit of it and uh to
acknowledge uh Councelor Green, let us
avoid any semblance of the sighting
tragedy that was visited upon 2149
Granite Street. Built as drawn, and this
is a fact. Two, this twostory over
height 1,800 square feet 1814 actually
house will block significant light and
air and completely obliterate the view
from my living room windows. The view is
of that abutist tree.
It is sufficiently large that I don't
even have any window coverings because I
don't need it. I have the arbutus. Okay,
you've seen the
illustrations. I presume I can't imagine
why my neighbors want to live that close
to me.
Besides, okay,
now in closing, I guess my house is the
ultimate downsize, and it's my
affordable home. It costs me onethird of
my income to maintain ownership of my
850 ft house on a 2400 square foot lot.
Not sure that'll hold after this year's
tax bill, but we'll see.
This is very important. The streetscape
of this portion of the Centennial Trail
on the Brighton on the Brighton
Greenway. This trail is enjoyed by
walkers and runners including the school
teams. Okay. Dogs, cyclists, garden
gazers and liloos of all kinds and
mobilities.
Proincially, this does nothing to
address density or
affordability. It will simply devalue my
house in dollar terms. And a good thing,
it would give Oak Bay uh one unit for
their density quotota. Okay. Please
consider my request for improved
sighting, which also precludes paving
over Paradise for at least some of the
parking.
I bought this house 20 years ago,
setting myself up to age in place. Now
I'm over 80. I feel like I'm being
evicted. All I want is to live out my
days in peace in my small affordable
home in this little slice of Oak
Bay. Thank
you very much, Miss Richardson. I think
I saw a second hand popping up. Anybody
else wish to come forward to speak?
Please do.
Welcome and municipality and then
speaking to the variances. It's helpful
sometimes if we have the upfront if you
if you know if you're for or against the
variances being requested. Okay. Uh my
name is Steven. Uh I am a resident of
Victoria uh on the Oak Bay board. Um uh
I am currently against uh the
application uh simply because of the
size of the building and there was some
question about whether this ADU is
larger than the main house and I never
did I didn't get a solid answer from
that but according to the application
the main house is 1400 something square
feet and the ADU is
1,814 square ft which tells me it's
larger than the main house.
I might just turn that question to
staff. Um or if you want to continue or
finish your speaking, I can I can deal
with No, that that's the main the main
point uh I have. The the drawings do
seem to indicate that the but I'm not
sure if that's the way that the old
house is measured uh that they include
the the total size is including a
basement or something. But Mr. green
then the the supplied drawings do show
and my apologies I read out the wrong
number that the I I read the existing
house not the new house exactly yeah Mr.
Can you just confirm that? I mean, sure.
Yeah. Through your worship. Yeah. We
believe the the gross flow area for the
existing single family dwelling is just
over 272 m and the ADU is uh just over
168 square meters.
So, but that's not what the application
says. That's not what the actual drawing
says. So, why don't you continue your
comments and I may just turn to the to
the applicant afterwards and and uh get
that clarification for sure. Okay.
Um so when I reviewed uh that
application that's uh one of the issues
I saw with the application. The second
issue uh was the uh building height
which I believe was corrected. Uh the
uh building height was measured from the
you can direct your question at me and I
can the main floor uh elevation and not
the uh um average grade
elevation. So there was a discrepancy in
in that
measurement. Uh and the there was one
comment made that the uh setbacks uh on
the exterior lot line
uh it's quite a quite a significant
intrusion into the exterior lot line and
the
uh
that uh intrusion into the exterior lot
line causes a lot more light to be
blocked from the neighboring house, the
2144. So, u the house itself looks
fantastic. It looks like a really nice,
attractive house. It does suit the
neighborhood. Uh I think moving that
house further away from uh
2144 will uh balance the streetscape out
and but it would also uh provide uh or
help keep some of the light and some of
the view uh that 2144 has. And I'm not
sure if you've got uh uh some of that
imagery that was created uh to support
that.
Thank you. I think some may have had it
circulated but not all. So we should
include that in the in the package. We
don't want people having mixed mixed
information. But I will take your
questions to staff this time. So if if
the main house is the size that you say
and it is larger then the calculation
for uh the uh so I don't know the name
of it but it's the 6 is the allowable
percentage or the allowable point uh of
the um lot coverage. So that means if
the main house is larger then they've
miscalculated how much ratio there
actually is how much uh total ratio
there actually. Okay. I'm happy to put
that question to staff as you anybody
else wishes to come forward. I'll I'll
turn and turn that question over to to
staff or the applicant. Um perhaps you
can just we can just confirm the uh
those ratios that the ADU is smaller and
therefore those ratios apply. I just
want to make sure we're we're not
missing something. I think if we have to
get that clarified before we deal with
this, that's okay to do. Mr. Green.
Well, in terms of gross floor area, in
terms of square footage, then the single
family dwelling is bigger than the
ADU. If you take an F, but uh then the F
of the ADU will be bigger than the
single family dwelling, but that's
because there is a significant exemption
in relation to basement for an existing
single family dwelling.
So that's that's the answer is that the
the square footage includes the basement
um because it includes that as as part
of its the comparison for size but not
and the floor area ratio. Yeah. So from
staff's perspective our interpretation
of the definition of excessive dwelling
unit when it says that the ADU must be
smaller than the principal building
we're applying that in terms of gross
floor area the ADU must be smaller than
the single family dwelling. We're not
we're comparing apples with apples
rather than apples with orange. we
started to compare areas of a single
family dwelling that are exempted from
floor rate ratio i.e. basement or
covered landings and things like that.
Okay, thank you for that clarification.
That's helpful. There was just also make
sure I didn't miss anything else in
terms of those
questions. Uh I think the height yes
height is measured from average grade
rather than from the main floor
elevation. So yes, today we did a uh we
triple checked the plans. So which led
to uh yeah some discussions with the
applicants as well as internally and we
confirmed that the as I mentioned at the
start of my presentation that the actual
building height has decreased. However,
the roof height is remains the same.
That's in the the staff report and the
draft permit. Thank you for that
clarification. Welcome
John Armitage. Uh I live on Victoria
Avenue. Um I know both of the
u parties to this current debate quite
well. Um I sent in a submission this
afternoon, so I'm I was after the um the
deadline, so begging your indulgence. I
would like to take 20 seconds to read
not all of my letter, but bits of it.
Um 1311 Victoria Avenue is located on a
charming portion of the
pedestrianoriented Brighton Avenue
streetscape and will be very close to
the original carriage house next door.
Maybe it's a gate house. Carriage
house. This dwelling is as charming and
non-conforming as anywhere in Oak Bay.
It may not be as small as a certain
house in Upland border, but it must be
close.
Um, so it makes a compelling case for a
flexible appro approach to planning
constraints. What that means is just use
the
bylaw as guides, not
rigid because the beauty of Jake's house
is how much it doesn't
conform. However, the important
relationship between the two has not
been presented for
evaluation and is likely to be awkward
and overbearing.
I might be proven wrong, but we we we
can't tell from what's been
submitted. The exterior sideyard setback
variance is contextually appropriate.
I.e.,
uh it's not as bad as Jake's house.
That's fine. In fact, any house there
should build right up to the property
line, not away from it. So, that's fine.
It can be supported as is. It could even
be alleviated by 230 mm by reducing the
north side set back to 1.5. In other
words, there's a little bit of space at
the northeast corner of the subject
property where if you really were
worried about
it. The two height variances, however,
will likely create a problematic and
unbalanced relationship to 2144 Brighton
Avenue. The proposed design is very
complex and is predicated on full height
upper floor walls throughout.
However, a Carl Lassenesque cottage
design such as this, and man, am I glad
to see a design this is just delightful.
And if they follow through with a Carl
Lassen color scheme,
yay. Um, that can go in the record. Yay.
um such as this is ideally suited to a
more picturesque composition with
variations in wall height that adjust to
circumstances and reduce its height and
massing adjacent to 2144 Brighton. In
other words, it could be sculpted a bit
more and simplified which I think would
help it. Terms of design DNA a hip roof
on a car len type cottage is
wrong. Attached or I attached some
sketches of what that might be. Uh I
believe the proposed design is almost
there but should be sent back for
reconsideration of height and massing
including a study of the relationship to
the neighboring carriage
house. And lastly, I bemoan the loss of
the arbutus.
The 30,000 square uh 30,000 foot view of
this project is we're going to see
dozens and dozens like this in the
future where magnificent community
assets are muscled out of the
way. In this case, the applicant is
limiting the damage as much as
possible. Um too bad it's nabas because
they they never get replaced. They're
too hard to propagate.
[Music]
Um, and fortunat perhaps fortunately,
the slope of the land might
mitigate some of the effects of the
proposed house towards Jake's house, but
I don't know. We don't we don't see that
study. That study would all it would
need to be is a composite elevation of
exist of the two existing houses with
the new one in between with the slope of
the land.
Um and last thing um I'd like to say is
the reference has been made to oh sorry
such an elevation would reveal that
regardless of floor areas the existing
house would clearly be the main house
because it's much longer. It would
clearly look much larger than the other
one. On the subject of its proximity to
the property line and I am going to wrap
up very very quickly. This is more like
two sideyard
setbacks. It's a bit of an anomaly that
one of these setbacks is a rear yard
setback and there are different
requirements applied for ADUs than
principal um principal dwellings. If it
were a sideyard setback with a principal
principal dwelling like we see
everywhere, yes, there'd only be a five
foot setback and then there'd be another
five feet at the second story.
And that massing provision that's been
in our bylaws for a long time to survive
many variations is intended to control
the massing and protect adjacent
properties uh view and outlooks. So um
you can't strictly speaking apply that
here but that's the principle that
applies here. So we have a situation
like that normally but this time we have
this. Thank you.
Happy to take any questions if I wasn't
here.
Thank you. Does anybody else wish to
speak to us on this matter? Yeah, please
come forward.
Good evening. Uh my name is Doug Laura
Spletch and I'm a resident of Oak Bay
for 41 years. Welcome. And uh I'm here
to support both parties because the
reality is that with the way the um the
law has changed this house can be built.
The problem is for Jake and the size and
I know Mitchell spoke about the massing
but the there has to be a a sort of
compromise here and I heard that word at
the beginning from another individual
and I think the compromise needs to be
dealt with with the variances and I
think there's some confusion on numbers
both in the planning department and uh
the architect etc and I think it needs
to go back and be revisited
uh but I believe a compromise guys can
solve the situation and we can live
happily ever after. Thank you.
Thank
you, Mr. B. Thank you, mayor. Um I'd
like to close the loop on a question
from the very start. Uh one of the
councils asked about the proposed
regulation in February. I just want to
clarify that um under the existing um
regulations for ADUs for accessory
dwelling units, two stories is in bylaw.
It's part of our program. Uh secondly,
there were some changes in the works.
There are changes in the works that
haven't been implemented yet. And those
height limits for the roof height and
and the building height um would would
exceed or would be about what is uh that
is what what is proposed. So when the uh
designer was commenting on they were
anticipating these changes, uh I just
wanted to clarify in response to the
question that is indeed that those would
be higher height limits. So um that's my
response to that question. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. B. That helps.
Uh you can well let me just go for
continue the the any other members of
the public who wish to address
council. Seeing people scrimming in our
uncomfortable seats and no hands raised.
I think I'm ready to bring it back to
the table here. Nope. We have one person
who wishes to come forward and address
council. Please come
forward. Speaking to the variances.
I'm going to speak to the general idea
of the variances and these laneway
so-called houses. And I'm just learning
a lot tonight. And I've been learning
because I've been walking around and
seeing some of these what were supposed
to be laneweed cottages turning into
these really giant houses in people's
backyards. And I'm concerned that if you
start approving all of these variances
of height and setback that it's going to
create a precedent and I think these
requirement or this the ability to have
these big backyard houses now is really
concerning. But I think we need to do
not create precedences that allow so
many variances that things like light
don't get into people's backyard and
that we're ruining the people that are
living around that. So if you can figure
out a way to, you know, we have to do
what we have to do, but at the same
time, I'm getting increasingly concerned
when I see some of these monster laneway
cottages that we were kind of excited
about um in people's backyards. So I I
mean I don't know enough about I would I
would say please don't accept do do what
people are suggesting is to try to make
it work but but not in a way that is so
disruptive on the people and their light
and their ability to live their life out
comfortably in their house. Thank you.
Anybody else wish to
speak? Please come forward.
Hello. My name
is There you go. There we go. Hi.
Welcome Webb. Uh, and I'm a homeowner in
Oak Bay. I'm actually the neighbor um to
the other side of both Jake and
Mitchell. Um, and I oppose this variance
on the basis of the that the mass of the
ADU is too large. Um it seems a little
unnecessary to have two stories for a
secondary um unit that's going to and I
support intergenerational
um housing and having that option, but
the secondary unit would be for my
understanding would be for Mitchell and
his wife and the primary unit would be
for his children. Um, and it just seems
excessive and uh too much change and too
much impediment on Jake's view of her
living room and her main living area, a
loss of light and a loss of um air space
that she enjoys. So, thank you for
speaking, Miss
Web. Uh, sorry, I don't want to give the
impression that we don't want to hear
from you. So, if there's anybody else
who wishes to come forward, please do so
at this
time. I don't see anybody else. So, I'm
going to bring us back to the council
table. Uh, councelor Bracefit, you had a
question. Um, yeah, just um through you
to staff um in regards to accessory
dwelling units being allowed to be two
stories. Um, and a question I think from
Mr. Armitage or a point from Mr.
Armitage. Um, why is there we don't have
any concession in there to have a five
foot setback like we do on a on a single
family dwelling? Is that correct? on the
second
story or it's 5 foot. Yeah, it's 5 foot.
Um, sure to give it to Mr. Green, but at
this point that isn't uh in place yet.
And the rear yard. Yeah, through your
worship. Yeah, there is no second
service setback like there is with a
principal building on a on a on a
accessory dwelling unit. If that answers
your question.
Thank
you. Any other questions? If not, oh,
councelor Green Watson and then
Appleton.
Thank you. And through you to Mr. Green,
just for the information of the public,
can you um can you explain? Oh, you
know, I just had it and then it it went
um I'm sorry. I I I'll think about it
and come back. Thank you. Here's Council
Watson.
Yes. Thank you. This may actually be a
question for you, Mayor Murdoch. Um, as
we all know, certainly the seven of us
and maybe others in the in the in the
chambers right now, we've been recently
criticized quite openly by the housing
advisor about how we consider
applications like this. So, I just like
you to clarify what it is we are allowed
to focus our attention to when this
comes before us. the public have been
talking about things beyond the scope of
the variances uh which are context to
the whole situation and I'm struggling
with how I separate the context from the
very specific request. So I I'm really
looking for some guidance since James
Ridge has been quite harsh in his
judgment of us as a decision-making
body. Thank you.
Sure. Thank you, Council Watson. I can
only share my opinion. Um I did read his
comments in that report. Uh I was
actually queried about it when I was
doing a media piece with on CFAX. Um
I'll try and remember what exactly what
I said there. I can't exactly but my my
take of it is that I think we have and
I've asked people to speak to the
variance as much as possible. But my
read of the legislation is that we are
required to have public input on
variances. Um, and obviously the context
of the ask is important because we're
often adjudicating the reasonleness of
the of the ask for variance from the
standard bylaws. So I think it's helpful
for us to understand the why things were
done and I think also the potential
impact of the uh ask for variances on
the community. Um I think we uh I think
the the question about you know getting
spinning into sort of broader policy
questions is gets outside of that realm
but I think uh I would also say that in
my opinion um we are changing our zoning
and bylaws. We've iterated them a couple
of times. We're still in that process
and I would generally feel like these uh
these are informative as we have these
applications coming forward under the
new rules. I personally don't mind
leaving a bit of latitude because I
think we're we're also trying to
understand what the impacts of the
policies are, right? We we have guidance
and input um in the principles and we
look at some studies, but until you see
some of these coming through, it's hard
to know whether they're meeting the
expectations of ourselves in the
community. So, that's where I'll leave
it. I I I think there's at the end of
the day, we are we have to consider and
speak to the variance, not to the
broader social issues or other things.
Uh so I think that's very important from
our perspective but I tend to think that
it's helpful for us to understand where
people are how other people are viewing
these things and and asking the the
questions of why is not an unreasonable
question. Does that help?
Okay. I had councelor Green you remember
what you were going to say? Okay.
Welcome. Welcome. Thank you for Thank
you for um coming back to me and through
you to Mr. Green. Mr. green for the
benefit of the general public in plain
language. Could you explain what governs
the size of an ADU on a lot? Um, I think
that's I think that's information that
people need to understand. What are the
the the guidelines and what are the
restrictions? Thank you, Mr. Green.
Um well the definition of a accessory
dwelling unit um basically says that um
it must be located in a building smaller
than a principal building located on the
same lot. Obviously there are also other
height regulations or setback
regulations. Um there is also total lot
coverage as well as flow area ratio
regulations that apply to the placement
of au on on a
property. Does that answer your
question?
Yeah, I just I think I'm responding to
the comments that it's too big and I
just wanted to make sure the public
understood how the how the size and
massing are estimated or calculated.
Thank you. Yes. So there's no maximum
size
um essential yeah an access to a
dwelling unit under the definition u
that in relation to when that new
definition was uh placed in the bylaw by
council last June then that is the
definition that it must still must be
small there is no maximum size of an ADU
in relation to square footage uh or um
yeah things like that it's just needs to
be smaller than the principal building
that is located on the same lot. Thank
you.
Thank you, worship. So, through you two
staff, I'm going to be pedantic because
Mr. Mr. Bull just said this, but for the
purpose of of of uh for the public's
edification, uh this uh these variances
are based on essentially for once for
all intents and purposes the first
iteration of our small scale multi-unit
infill housing that has recently been uh
reviewed and amended by council. So just
for the public's clarity, uh the
variance that is specified here is
because of the current standard of
bylaw, but in the revised bylaw, this
height would not constitute a variance.
Is that correct,
Mr. B?
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, that's
correct. In the proposed regulations.
Thank you.
Thank
you.
Um I'm just going to ask one I'm going
to ask the applicant to come forward and
I have one question and that's just a
little bit about recognizing this. If I
can get the applicant to come forward
I'm I'm going to just I have one
question and that's just the one
remaining is that is the um um the shape
of the building that we had questions
about setbacks and heights and things.
Um it's hard not to notice the lot is a
bit of a uh it's a diminishing size
towards the back and perhaps could you
speak to um what drove sort of the shape
of the house was is it is it the width
is it these other aspects I'm just
because there is that the house is you
know it is it is a height that's being
asked for and I think it might be
helpful to understand the the the why
it's the shape it is
um in the context of that lot
I I guess the shape it is is because um
we want it to
be parallel to the rear property line
and I guess parallel to the because it's
the north property line that has a
slight angle to it and so we had we have
a bit more space on on the north side
with just a little bit is f as you go
further left you can see that the
setback gets a little bit greater so
we're just keeping it parallel to the
street and parallel to the rear property
time.
Thank you for that. Um, I don't see any
other questions, so I'm going to turn to
members of council. We can certainly get
a motion to receive the report at this
point to start with. Moved and seconded.
There's a debate receipt. All those in
favor? Any opposed? None opposed? Um,
seeking a
motion. Councelor Smart. I'll move the
staff staff recommendation.
Second it. Just for clarification, staff
recommendation uh here is that the DVP
uh be development variance permit,
sorry, be approved so we're clear about
what we're speaking to. Go ahead,
councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. Um
speaking just directly to the variances
that are in front of us uh today um with
regards to the height um I've already
spoken in in favor of the current um um
height um increases that we looked at
around this um council table a few
months ago. Um, so allowing accessory
dwelling units to have modest heights
such as this with I really appreciate
the 8ft ceilings. Um, as well as an
attention to detail with creating a a
pleasant massing at the top of the roof
form while keeping the height low. Um,
and then with regards to the setbacks,
they seem quite reasonable um to me
because they demonstrate a typical
sideyard setback situation while also
prioritizing saving the trees. So just
speaking directly to the two variances
at the table, I do find the variances
reasonable.
You does anybody else wish to speak to
the Go ahead, councelor Appleton. Thank
you, worship. So yeah, speaking in favor
of the the variances, uh most primarily
because as I just confirmed with staff,
the proposed revisions to small-cale
multi-unit uh specifications that
council has recently debated would
accommodate this height. So I think that
we've had a recent conversation where
we've reviewed what we believe to be
acceptable heights and have revised the
current standard in order to accommodate
that. And I think that how that
manifests itself in this particular
building is a is a two-story building
that is uh I guess I would say complete
in its floor plan. Uh you know a a home
that really can be used uh again either
for downsizing and a multigenerational
use or for other uses as well. It's sort
of a a complete structure with a couple
of bedrooms and some additional space.
So it it it appeals to a number of
different occupants and has that has
that additional space. So and it's
extremely important to be looking at the
variances uh in well I guess interior
setback in order to protect the trees
and and the loss of the arbutus is is
very regrettable and I very much
sympathize with that. Um doing what we
can to conserve the remaining trees is
also really really critical. So there's
no doubt that small-cale multi-unit
housing on the lots the in Oak Bay that
that vary a lot in size and dimensions
and just the nature of how they're laid
out is always going to be challenging
and this is uh there are some things
which stand uh outside of the ideal
here. I think on based on on all balance
of factors and on merits I'm I'm
interested in supporting. Thank you.
Thank you councelor Appleton. Councelor
Briew. Um, thanks very much, Mayor. Um,
and thanks for the comments that we've
heard so far around the table. Um, I'm
really struggling with this one because
I I I do realize that, um, when the
revised bylaw comes back that the height
will fit in with this. Um, I I I think
the design of this house is beautiful. I
think that, um, Mr. Collins, you've done
a wonderful job of the design of this
house. Um, I I think to to to my
property and and my house is 820 ft. I'm
in trouble when I want to make a when I
want to build a secondary or an an ADU
because I'm going to have to build it at
like 800 square feet which is going to
be really teeny. But anyhow, um I um so
I think that the design of this house is
beautiful. Um I understand that the
height um would will in the future um be
acceptable. What I struggle with is the
positioning of of this h of this
accessory dwelling unit so close to the
house at 2144 Brighton. Um, and that's
where I really struggle. I I I
understand that this this house um will
probably get built and it's great that
we're going to have um a house that's
there for intergenerational use,
intergenerational living. Um, I wish
that the house could move just a little
bit closer to the to the main house. And
I understand that that might that might
take another tree out, but I think for
the sake of of of the context of how
this house is going to look on the
street and how um how it affects the
neighbor the surrounding neighbors, it
would it would almost be worth moving
it, you know, a 10 ft closer in so that
that it gives a little bit more space
between 2144 and this accessory
dwelling.
So, I I am really struggling with this,
but I I my I'm leaning towards um voting
against um this um this proposal because
I I do think that it could come back in
a in a better position on the lot, but I
do love the look of the house. Thank
you.
Thank you, Councelor Braithweight.
Council,
thank you and thanks to everybody who
spoke. Um there are two compelling
stories here um from each of the the
parties. Um one is about
intergenerational living and the need
for that and I'm very sensitive to that
myself. The other is the concern about
the interference with the existing home
and the owner who has lived there for
many many decades. Um this is a really
difficult one but the reality is that in
June if if all goes well this would not
have come to council at all because
there would not be any variances
required. Um this would have no no sorry
um but anyway what I'd like to say is
that they are two compelling stories. I
am also struggling with it. Um and I I
would like to hear the rest of my
colleagues before I make a final vote.
Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Green,
Councelor Watson, and then Patterson.
Um, perhaps maybe what I'm going to say
are really just more observations about
the situation we are in at the moment.
Um uh with respect to the variances
themselves, I would say that um they
aren't they aren't huge, but um I have
argued previously with respect to a
request that we're really just setting
up our framework and trying to evaluate
it as we go along. And what we're
hearing is that some of the implications
of those decisions we've made um what
they're already having. I I would say
it's probably not fair to refer to the
bylaw we might adopt the one that we've
sent away for review because that
actually isn't the law right now in Oak
Bay. And whether it will or not be the
law, we'll only know when it comes back
for discussion and decision. But what
I've heard from um the public
participating in this is that um well
certainly from the architect is that
some of what is actually contextual
relates to the fact that this is a
laneway and we've designed a bylaw that
considers this sideline as something
different than what it's perceived of in
the street. And that's certainly an
issue that we probably we may not have
considered. I know I didn't think about
that actively when we were discussing
our framework before and I think that's
an important consideration that may need
a further looking at.
Um and I and I also think that what is
being asked for in the community is just
um as somebody well put it really quite
nicely is just sort of some kind of um
collaborative approach or or um working
together to achieve an outcome in the in
the form of this building that wouldn't
necess that wouldn't require these
variances and white address some other
concerns. So, I'm really struggling in
permitting or and in voting to approve
variances when I think there might still
be a better outcome um if we say no to
them and then the designer, the owner
have to go away and think about how they
would realize this this ADU on this
particular piece of property. Um, and
yeah, I think that's all I want to say
at the moment. I'm not I'm not entirely
sure how I'm going to vote at the
moment, but I am really torn about the
whole situation that we find ourselves
in as we're in such early days about
figuring out how we how we create and
maintain beauty and um uh and a a some
kind of coherence I think to our to our
our streetscapes while
permitting wonderful new homes. like I
don't think this thing is too large
necessarily. Um I think it makes a
lovely uh additional living unit in our
community, but there are there are
issues at large that will never be
addressed if we approve these variances
tonight.
Thank you, Councelor Watson. Councelor
Patterson.
Yes. Thank you, Mayor. And um I share
some of Councelor Watson's concerns. I
realize that
uh when we when we look at at some of
what we have uh decided um as a council
we would um accept as changes to the
bylaw um then and looking at this
this kind of meets meets those those
needs if it comes back and is approved.
But um uh it it is it is very difficult
as we're going through this process
because
um what we are looking at in in adopting
some of these new standards is really
based on kind of a cookie cutter
approach and so many lots in Oak Bay
just don't fit that they don't fit that
model and certainly this case is um a
clear example of where uh uh Yeah, a
more collaborative approach um could
perhaps work better for the community
over over the long term. So I too
struggle with approving what is before
us tonight, which conceptually I think
is good design. Um it provides good
housing solutions uh to suit the purpose
of why it is is being proposed and
before us. I certainly um commend the
fact that we've we've gone for eight
foot ceilings, not not tried to push the
ceiling height more and tried to uh
maintain as many trees as possible on on
the lot. But this is one of these
situations where um what we what we as a
council have decided we would adopt and
move forward for housing in the
community.
um it it it it is not it's less than
ideal for this
situation. So I I'm I'm not totally
confirmed that we should move forward
with it um tonight and and instead refer
back to uh to staff to continue working
with the applicant and hopefully find a
a better um collaborative approach to
it. But I'm listening to all of the
comments around the table.
Uh thank you. I guess I'll speak my
piece on this one and I I do want to um
just really focus on the
um on the variances and the impacts the
rabbi. I think this is a like many of
these that we have coming forward as a
good learning experience. I don't think
when we were contemplating our our
bylaws and looking at rear yard setbacks
that we were contemplating that would be
a sideyard setback in some situations
like this. So um but we're not looking
for variances uh at that point on that.
We're looking at them on the sideyard,
but I think I could have no argument
with the sideyard setbacks. I think the
um the context of the neighboring
buildings, this is actually set back
from those um the articulated front face
of the building. I really don't have any
issue with those variances uh with that
variance. And I certainly Yeah, I think
that's uh it's pretty hard to argue that
that isn't a positive uh benefit. Um so
the really then boils down to the uh
concern of the impact of uh allowing the
variances of the extra 1.3 meters or so
uh in the height building and roof
height um uh to 2144 Brighton and that's
a hard one because um as noted we are
contemplating that as a piece um uh and
probably good reminder that the context
of that the rationale for it is uh we do
allow two stories um the the argument
for the change of allowing for a higher
above ground height uh really rotated
around the fact that we were trying to
minimize blasting uh for these kinds of
accessory dwelling units, trying to make
sure there is adequate space above
ground without having them required to
go down into the ground. Um and there is
benefit to that to the community as
well.
Um I, you know, if I'm looking at this
and assessing it, I have to kind of use
my my best effort guesses. I'm familiar
with the house at 2144
um Brighton as well. Um, and I certainly
wouldn't want to cause any, um, lack of
light going into that house. It's a
beautiful house on a very small lot. Um,
uh, that being said, so I'm really then
down to is the is the variance ask on
the height um, reasonable? And I tend to
follow on the side that it is. Um, I do
appreciate that, you know, if if not
seeking significant blasting to ask
people to go down and we really can't
have less than 8ft heights into the
ceiling heights, then this is kind of
where we ended up, why we ended up at
the heights that we're at in our ADU uh
discussion. Um, I don't think we did
contemplate it. But I I will say the
plus side of this as well is because of
the the close the farther setback um the
building is set farther north than the
adjacent house. So it does allow more
light to that house. Uh it also um uh uh
it is not I say directly south of the
house that would block the light
meaningfully. It would it will block
let's be realistic uh a significant
portion of the evening light coming in.
Um so on the balance of those aspects I
do believe that the variances being
asked for are reasonable. Um, I'm not
trying to downplay the the impact on the
neighbors, but I do think that there is
a rationale for the ask here that is at
least compelling enough to consider. So,
I do appreciate the thoughts that other
members of council have shared here and
how they're weighing their their
thoughts. Uh, any other discussion
before I call the question on the main
motion? Yes, go ahead, Council Green.
Before I vote, I do hope there is a
compromise. I hope the neighbors can
come together and work something out.
there is time to do that and they have
good professionals working with them
including our staff. So I would be
encouraging those two neighbors to sit
down. Thank you.
Thank you councelor Green Council
Watson. And finally, because I I I I
just am mused about my own thoughts, but
I just think that um whatever happens
here, one of the things that is really
lovely is that we have an owner who is
going to retain an existing home that is
really a gem um and uh and is looking
for a plan that will make that happen.
So, that's definitely one of our values
and things we want to do. It's a very
complicated situation with many things,
many many issues to balance in terms of
making a decision. So, I just wanted to
say that
Thank you. All right, I'm going to call
the question on this. So, the motion on
the floor, just we're all clear, is a
varote to vote in favor is a vote to
approve the variance. That's where we're
at at this point. Uh, so I'm going to
call the question. All those in
favor and those opposed. None opposed.
That Oh, sorry. Councelor Braith, my
apologies. I didn't My peripheral vision
apparently weak on the side.
U looking for you over in Spain, but you
weren't there. Um uh so that carries. So
the variances are approved. Uh building
will go ahead. I certainly uh share the
the things I um if there are things you
can do to mitigate the impacts on the
neighbors, please do um and look forward
to how that works out. Uh that took a
little longer than I was anticipating.
There's a number of people here who came
for this application. So I will give a
moment for people to leave before we
move on to the next item.
As people take one minute to move
around, if anybody wishes to stand up,
stretch in place, we're not going to
leave. We're just going to come back
here in less than a minute.
God, I can I
can come to recess at
Okay, now that the
uh we we're doing a switch over into the
next stage of the uh of the agenda
package. Uh we have uh section nine
which is reports and memorandums. Um
they are still subject to public input.
So if anybody from the public wishes to
address council, you're more than
welcome to do so. Um we're going to take
a brief int introduction by Mr. Sukovich
who's a manager of engineering capital
projects. Welcome. Uh and then we'll get
to questions from council
uh questions from our comments from the
public and then back to this table for
consideration. Welcome Mr. Sukovich.
Thank you, mayor. Uh, good evening.
Um, yeah. Is this the first time you
you've been in this chamber? No, it's
the second. No, it's the second time. I
thought so. I thought just I saw you
looking for the button. I wasn't sure if
we had the first time. I'm asking for
money. No,
fair enough. There you go. Yeah. Thank
you for your time today.
No, no, no. That's right. Hopefully, do
this. Okay. All right. Yeah. Thank you
for uh the time uh this evening to um
request uh approval for an increase uh
for the authorized expenditure amount
for the Estavan project. Um they're uh
this is one of our major capital
projects uh happening right now in the
district of Oak Bay. And um this project
was expanded during uh the detail design
stage to include um in addition to the
uh storm outfalls uh an additional
catchment to the storm outfalls, a water
main uh service and some additional
sanitary lines as well. Uh with that
addition uh the consulting engineers um
requested additional funds and uh as
well planned for the uh engineer record
uh services during construction. Uh the
reason this wasn't provided uh earlier
in January uh when we first kind of got
notice of it is that um we didn't have
the level of detail uh supporting that
scope of work and we wanted to ensure
that um there was adequate uh input from
the subconultants um reporting to the
prime consultant including archaeology
and um foreshore engineering and
environmental uh support as those are
major risk um aspects of these
delivering these projects. So, I guess
um it would have been ideal to have had
this ready at the time that we approved
the construction budget to have it
together with the consulting fees, but
we didn't have that organized. So, I'm
here tonight to uh request that uh the
budget be expanded to for the project to
include the additional
$585,470 for the prime consultant
through the completion of the
construction. Thank you for that
overview. Um turn to members of council
if there's any questions. Councelor
Braithweight. Uh, thanks very much and
through you mayor to staff. Can you tell
me where in the budget this money comes
from? Mr. Simukovich.
Thank you. And through the mayor. Um,
this would come from the setup uh
project uh amount. Um, and it would
actually be funded through additional um
storm and water um capital funds. Uh,
but we would have to add it to the
project uh amount.
Mr. Renick. Yes. Uh just to clarify in
response to that question, no additional
transfers from reserve would be required
to authorize this. This would be
approved funding in the 2025 capital
plan. Thank you,
Dr. Watson.
Thank you, Mayor. Just a question to
staff, either one of the gentlemen in
attendance. Um um as I understand it and
you can correct me if I'm wrong, the
project was um the pro this project was
bundled as a design and construction
project. Is that typical practice? And
in what cases would design occur first
and then construction be tendered
separately?
Okay, thank you. Uh so it would it was
design uh and construction services by
the design engineer, not a design and
construction by with the contractor. So,
thank you. I misunderstood that and
that's helpful. Thank you. I don't see
other questions from members of council.
So, I'm going to go to members of the
public. Is anybody here in the public
wish to speak to council about item 9.1,
the Estabban storm sewers and outfall
replacement, budget change
request. Don't see a lot of hands
popping up. So, I'm going to come Not
seeing any online. I'm going to come
back to this table. Moved and seconded
for receipt. All those in favor? Any
opposed? None opposed. I'll move the
staff recommendation.
Moved and second. This is to approve the
contract amount of
$585,470. Any further
discussion? All those in favor? Any
opposed? None
opposed. Good luck with the
project. Thank
you. Uh we move now to section 10 for
committee of the whole recommendations
from the meeting held May 20th. Um these
are two items for optimized development
processes and grant and aid applications
that had public input at the committee
of the whole. Uh committee of the whole
doesn't make decisions. So those
recommendations come from committee to
this table. Uh I'm just going to see if
is there anybody members of the public
who wish to address either of these two
uh that perhaps didn't make it to the
committee of the whole or wish to add
something to the public input. We'll
take them on either item at this time.
Otherwise, we'll typically just go to
council, that's the worst, and have a
procedural receipt uh of the of the
recommendations. No, seeing no hands
from the public. I'm going to come back
to this table. So, 10.1 uh the
recommendation from the committee of the
whole is here for signing off on part
two of the project. So, we just move the
recommendation that came from committee
of the whole. Uh any further discussion?
All those in favor? Any opposed? None
opposed. And 10.2, the grant aid
application, basically approving the
process in place. Moved and seconded.
Any further discussion? All those in
favor? Any opposed? None opposed. That
carries. Uh that concludes section 10.
We now move to section 11. Uh which is
reports and memorandums. Uh we have the
Henderson and Halting estimate
neighborhood bikeways. Uh and this
includes the estimated cost breakdown.
Uh Mr. Renick, third times a charm. You
provide a brief overview of the report.
Uh yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
In response to the motion that was
passed by council on May 12th, uh staff
has prepared a bit more of a breakdown
of the class B estimate that associated
uh that was associated with the 90%
design submission. And uh I'm happy to
take any questions that council has to
facilitate their deliberation.
Much Mr. Renick. Um we're sort of back
here again sort of considering the whole
of the uh of the ask. Um I'm certainly
taking any questions related to the
report uh from staff on the costs uh or
any other aspect at this point. Are
there any questions of staff on the
report? I'm not seeing any. So um uh
we've had this matter before us a couple
of times and tried a couple of different
ways of of advancing it. Um I've uh I
circulated ahead of this meeting just
some suggestions. Everybody, if you
check your emails, if you haven't seen
it, some suggested approach to motions
um that might allow us to clarify what
council wishes to see in the design
aspects of this and um and a possible
approach. Councelor Green, you mentioned
to me that you may want to have a a
motion before that. Um so, I'm happy to
go to you if there's something you wish
to to raise. I really I really
appreciate that. But I do have a motion
that I would like to make um before we
get into the minutia of the of the
issue. Um and it concerns um the Carrick
Trail. So I wondered if I could make
that motion and with your permission and
see if if there's any support at the
table. Uh sure. Is it my my suggestion
might be that we consider that uh it
changes to the design within the motions
of amendment. But if you wish to make it
at the beginning, I'm I'll take that. We
don't really have a a motion on the
floor right now to a amend right
procedurally. So it's a bit hard to take
a motion to on the carrot trail at this
point because we don't actually have a a
proposed path forward. So I might
suggest because the path I I put here
was the um that we put essentially a
direction to to amend the original
design as as desired by council. And so
that if your motion is to amend the
design then that or to remove something
from the design that would be the
appropriate place I would think. So not
now then no if that's the motion to
remove like an aspect of the design I
think it would be better done in the
context of a motion to uh to advance
subject to the following changes and
then we could take a motion to from that
design.
Okay. So back to this table. Councelor
Smart.
Uh thank you. Um, I'd like to make a
general motion then to start us off that
the detailed designs for the Henderson
Hallane Estan neighborhood bikeways be
endorsed as presented with the following
amendments.
Okay.
Would you like me add a couple of
amendments to start and then or do you
want do you want um a seconder on just
the uh initial?
It's a good question. procedurally here.
I think um I think what I need to do um
what I'll do is I think put a motion on
the floor to to to approve the design.
Um if that's moved and seconded, then we
take a motion to that the following um
uh amendments to to change it would be
the appropriate process. So um I think
the process would be to approve as
designed kind of like we tried last
time, but I think we have a few
suggestions of maybe advancing this. So
motion to approve as designed. Moved and
seconded. Oh no question question for
clarity your worship. The original staff
reporting materials was to approve the
90% design. So that is my still my
understanding that we're still using the
original staff recommendation to approve
the 90% design and amending from there.
Uh correct. I think the only design we
have in front of us right now is that
90% design. Seconded your worship. And
then you wanted to make a motion that
the um I think we just take amendment
motions to that. And in my suggestions,
I suggested that we take iterative
approaches to that uh to that amendment
process. Uh I did actually offer to
councelor Green that uh that an a motion
to amend would be appropriate at this
point. So I think I'll go back to her
for that. Um so the motion would be then
to uh amend um uh that the basically uh
basically the following be referred back
to staff to incorporate um a an aspect.
So that's that's okay. I have I have
wording, but um so my motion is to amend
and it would be that and refer back to
staff um that the Henderson Road Trail
referred to as the Carrick Trail by
local residents be removed from the
Henderson and Holene Estan neighborhood
bikeway plan and then I can speak to
that if you'd like. Okay. Uh there is a
seconder. So you can speak to your
motion. Thank you.
When this active transportation plan was
conceived and adopted 11 years ago now,
the natural riding environment did not
include ebikes. That that um that
predominance now of ebikes has changed
the riding landscape
significantly. Um we've all seen the
Carrick Trail. We've I believe we
visited the area. It is a natural
environment, significant green space in
a highly densified neighborhood. It is
primarily a pedestrian pathway, a play
area for children, and a location that
attracts multi-use, including excursions
from daycare and school children. No
ebikes. As I said, when this ATP was
active transportation plan was adopted
11 years ago. Ebikes have completely
changed the cycling landscape because of
travel, speed, motorcycle parallels
without the safety of clothing,
training, and licensing. And I was a
motorcycle rider for nearly 20 years. I
know that these ebikes are traveling at
at least 30 kilometers in most instances
without the benefit of safety clothing,
proper helmets, training and licensing.
So there is a hazardous mix that we are
asking to put on this very small
trail. The removal of chicane gates also
creates a shoot through. That's a term
that was defined by the um Victoria Bike
Network, a shoot through which in in my
parliament means a really fast little
route to um another corridor. So that
would encourage high speed and increased
safety hazards.
Again, there are reasonable and nearby
alternate routes halting East Newton to
Estavan for cyclists traveling through
this area and the neighborhood has been
very vocal about their concern of the
loss of um the Carrick Trail. So, I
would ask for support for this motion. I
think this would certainly help to lower
the temperature on the anxiety in this
neighborhood about the plan going
forward and um that is my motion. Thank
you.
Thank you, Councelor Green. We have a
motion on the floor to remove it from
the bikeway. Um other discussion on
that, I'm just going to ask us to keep
the debate as as pointed as possible
because we have a number of things to
get through. Uh councelor Smart, anybody
else wish to speak? Watson.
No, thank you.
Um uh I won't be supporting uh the
motion on the table. I do fully agree
that the Carrot Greenway is an extremely
special place. Um uh I do think it needs
to have a safe pedestrian pathway and I
do think it needs to remain a place for
children to play, but I am confident
that there can be a sensitive and
innovative light touch design that still
allows for it to be part of our our
network.
Um I yeah I I'd like to see a um
revitalized um light touch design um
come back um to council to look at and
review, but I'm not in favor of taking
it out of the route. Thank you.
You have councelor Watson and Appleton.
Thank you, Mayor. Um and um I I will not
be supporting the motion either. there
isn't possibly another u proposed one we
could get to next which talks about
doing a doing a redesign to address
concerns that have been raised about
this this special part of the route but
I am not supportive of anything that
will change the route per se the routes
east west and north south have been
consulted on quite extensively now and
at at this kind of point in the process
starting discussions about what would
replace this log logical corridor going
north south I think it would be really
detrimental to the whole process of
trying to move forward our active
transportation strategy
thank you Watson council sir Appleton
thank you worship yeah not in support of
the amendment as it stands I think we've
heard loud and clear from folks that
they want to see an alternative design
from what was presented in the 90%
design for the Carrot Greenway and that
was also presented in his amendment last
time this was debated by council so I
think there's absolutely a need for a
revised design that's sensitive to that
specific area. Uh community has been
very very clear about that. I think that
there's a way to do that and accomplish
that goal and uh accomplish a a safe and
uh low impact environment for everybody
and keep the connectivity of the
proposed bikeway uh as it was originally
proposed. So I think there's a way
forward there. um not favor in favor of
the detour, but rather a redesign of uh
what's currently proposed to address the
community's concerns. Thank you, your
worship.
Thank you, Councelor Appleton. I have
councelor Patterson next. Yes. Thank
you, mayor. Um, and I will support the
motion because I I too agree that um it
will um it will help lower the
temperature of some of the discussions
and will still allow for a cycling um
pathway. But for me it comes down to um
is is this a cycling pathway or is it in
fact a shared use pathway? um because I
have h had a distinct feeling um from
some of the discussion that has been
going on that really there there's a
strong desire to um push the cycling
aspect of it uh rather than the active
transportation and the shared juice
facility and I think that there there
there are places where um the shared
juice model does is not conducive in the
best interests of the community and I
think this is one of those places. I
think allowing the community to uh
embrace it and move forward with it as
uh as part of the the cool kit program
and keep enhancing enhancing it as such.
Uh provides u a very safe pedestrian
place for the uh for the neighborhood
residents um and those visiting the area
to use it.
um independent of a shared use cycling
path. So I will support the motion.
Thank you. Any other discussion on the
motion on the floor?
I'll uh speak to it briefly because I
always I I and I appreciate the the
spirit in which it's brought and I it
may reduce temperature, but I can't
support the motion as it is just to
remove it. Um, I think that u there's a
I would certainly like to give the
opportunity to give some direction back
to staff to consider a redesign that
would allow for uh the safe joint use of
bikes and pedestrians. I think there's
ways of of prioritizing pedestrians on
that. Um I'm fine I'd rather have that
opportunity and to look at it before
making a decision not to include it at
all. So that was my my piece. So I'm not
going to support the motion as it is.
I'm very supportive of a motion that
would
uh um yeah that would think so I'm not
going to support the motion on the
floor. Any other discussion on the
motion? Um thank you. I'm just
circulating anything. I circulated by
email just to make sure everybody's got
a hard copy of it in case they need it.
Um not seeing any other discussion. I'm
going to call the question on the
motion. The motion right now is to amend
the design to remove the Carrick
Henderson trail from that design. Uh I'm
going to call the question. All those in
favor and those opposed. I have Watson,
Appleton, Smart, and myself opposed.
That motion fails. Um, moving on to go
councelor Appleton. Your worship, just
based on uh your comments and and based
on the uh the the discussion around that
previous item, I'd like to uh propose an
alternative uh amendment with respect to
the Carrot Greenway uh in line with what
you have presented, which I think has
merit. So, I would like to move an
amendment to the motion on the floor to
revise the design for the Henderson
Trail, also known as the Carrick Trail,
between Hala and Newton, to minimize
elevation changes or widening of the
trail, to provide a design and signage
that keeps bicycle speed compatible with
pedestrian enjoyment of the trail, and
to protect and enhance the green space
of the corridor.
Seconded.
Um, so this is a mo motion to amend the
design to include uh for those changes
to come back with the revised
design. So speaking to the she just
briefly your worship. So again just to
my earlier point I think we've heard
loud and clear that there is an interest
in creating a sensitive design for the
Carrick Trail. Um and so I think sending
this to staff for a design revision that
responds to some of the concerns that
were raised and addressing bicycle speed
and shared use of the corridor I think
is eminently reasonable. So I think that
this is a a good amendment that keeps
the alignment as was directed by council
when the original uh concept was
approved and allows us to respond to
what the community is telling us. Thank
you. Thank you. I have councelor Green
and then smart and then Breathway.
Um I will not support this motion and um
I will remind councelor Appleton that
when we approved this plan we did not
have the information we have today. We
did not have the input and data from the
neighborhood. We did not have um
sufficient consultation and so I I am
quite comfortable in changing my mind
given that I have been informed um in in
in a much different way since that time.
I will also add that what whatever you
do a light touch means what exactly and
I think these term terms are very
confusing for the public. light touch uh
redesign. I think no one knows what that
means. And if if we're going to do that,
then I would encourage us to collaborate
with with the neighborhood that will be
mostly most impacted by by any changes
that are made, but I will not support
the motion as it is. Thank you.
Thank you, Councelor Green. Uh councelor
Braithweight, I think you had next or
smart, sorry, then Brie.
Yeah, thank you. Um just speaking to um
supporting the motion and just wanted to
add to what has already been said just
the ability to keep some of the
beautiful bedrock outcroppings um that
really provide a sense of character in
the space as well as reducing the the
paving and really looking at innovative
um approaches of of paving less and even
where some of the trees are potentially
you know having smaller paths one
directional paths. There's so many
different opportunities to be a little
bit more innovative um uh a little bit
more minimal um while still um basically
um addressing the fact that this already
is a path that bicycles can go on. So
let's actually deal with making it
making it better for everybody.
So brief. Uh thanks very much. I I would
agree with Councelor Green's comments.
Um, and and when I look at some of the
wording here, like minimize elevation
changes or widening of the trail,
provide a design and signage that keeps
bicycle speed compatible with pedestrian
enjoyment. Um, and protect and enhance
the green space of the corridor. Well,
what better way to protect the and
enhance the green space of the corridor
by not doing um by not removing any of
the of the um green space by by not
blasting out any of the rock. I mean,
for me, I like the way it looks right
now. I think that it's used as a bike
way right now. Um, and it's used
successfully as a bike way right now.
There doesn't seem to me to be any
change. We can keep it in the plan, but
we don't need to make any changes to it
whatsoever in my humble opinion. And I
think having the gates there really
helps um to not have it as a speed
through or shoot through or whatever the
terminology is. So, um even though I
appreciate that this is trying to um
move us forward to inclusive and keep
the keep this um design as a a a full
design of of this space. I I actually
personally don't think we need to make
any changes to it. Um and so it scares
me when I I see the minimize elevation
changes or widening of the trail because
I don't want to see any of that. So, I
will be voting against the motion.
Mr. Patterson.
Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I will also speak
against the motion. I I do um I do
appreciate that um that uh council
members have been listening to members
of the public that have have um spoken
extensively about this and the need to
protect it. I'm less confident that um
that uh just minimizing elevations
changes or widening the trail and
particularly providing design and
signage that keeps bicycle speed
compatible with pedestrian enjoyment. I
think it's it's you know it's wishful
thinking to think that signage will um
in fact uh achieve reduction of of speed
to u maintain not just pedestrian
enjoyment. It's not just pedestrian
enjoyment. it's pedestrian safety on the
trail. Um, and I don't see that uh
expressed as a concern in here. So, I
think that that the the trail in its
present form has existed for decades
now. Um it is it is used by extensively
by pedestrians, predominantly by
pedestrians and uh by some some cyclists
who who are not riding perhaps ebikes
but they are they are riding um standard
bicycles at at a moderate pace um
respecting the chicane gates that are
are there that uh provide safety for
pedestrians. So, um, what I see before
me, while it it's it's a step towards
recognizing that pedestrians also have a
right on the path, it still is
predominantly, uh, promoting this as a
cycling path rather than a pedestrian
path.
Thank you, Councelor Patterson. Council
Watson, did you wish to speak? And then
I'll go to second time speakers. Just
very briefly, I will be supporting the
motion. I think it's very clearly
worded. there are really clear
objectives about in uh doing things to
enhance a treasured space that will make
it better for both sets of users. And as
I've argued here before, there are
certainly aspects of the existing
arrangement which are not conducive to
pedestrian activity through the area
particularly for anybody that has any
kind of physical mobility problem or
impairment. So I think to get a just as
we are designing this this whole network
to allow bicycles and cars to share the
road uh giving um you know support to
cyclists here we I the outcome if these
objectives are met will be to create a
way to share this special space uh where
pedestrians um are are protected um and
I think that's possible. So, um it's an
important part of the trail and I think
we could achieve um a really special
outcome if we do a little bit of work on
the space. Thank you.
Thank you, Council Wson. Before I go to
second time speakers, I'll just want to
speak to the motion. Um so, I uh I am
supportive of this approach. I just I
guess my hope here is um uh we look at
this as a whole and and look at every
opportunity as does the motion improve
it and if I think we had a chance to
have a discussion around removal of this
from the bikeways and that didn't pass.
Um, so now I guess my my thought on this
is if not removing it then we still have
this pathway that's going to right now
has substantive changes to it with
significant widening, removal of green
space, blasting, reorienting. Um, my
appro my opinion is is shared by I think
what I heard from the people who are
currently indicating non-sup support. I
think that the trail as it is meets most
of the needs of the community. Um that
being said, I think that allowing this
to go back with these guidelines
attached to it um you know without
prescribing exactly what that is will
allow it to come back to this table if
the whole goes forward. I think it will.
So I guess I might ask here is that if
you if you support changes to that then
I would suggest you support the motion
at the end of the time. um if you don't
support the overall changes that are put
in there, then we can't support the
overall motion and that's that's the way
this goes. Um but I do think that our
job at every iterative approach is does
the motion on the floor improve the
design so that if it does go forward, it
would be a better design at the end of
it. And that's how I'm looking at this.
I'm looking at this. Are these
recommendations back to staff to say
improve the pedestrian
safety, you know, minimize if if not
eliminate any removal of rock, uh
maintain green space, focus the design
to make sure that the design and the
signage, but I think primarily design uh
helps with pedestrian safety and
enjoyment. Um that's my that's just so
people understand my philosophy on this
one. It's not is it going to I I don't
not trying to presuppose it. I'm trying
to uh give back to staff guidelines that
will help them come back with options
that that address the concerns that have
been raised here. So, um that's kind of
the spirit I think that if we're going
to go through this process that we kind
of look at it. So, sorry, Council Green,
over to you for a second time.
I guess my point is that why are we
touching this lane at all? It works for
bicycles now. It has for decades. Um
what concerns me about this new approach
is that it's through the lens only of
cycling. is a cycling centric approach
and I'm really concerned about that. Why
would we alter something that already
works for everybody? And and we've been
told that over and over again. It is
used by cyclists now safely. It's used
by pedestrians now safely as it is. And
they've even now incorporated it into
the cool kit program. They're rewing uh
the native plants. They're they're doing
all kinds of things to make in a very
high dense area to make a green space
that's very special and serves the needs
of the neighborhood as it is. Why do we
want to alter it? I just I guess I I I
don't understand that. Which is why I
thought it made sense to pull it out of
the plan because it's still there. It
still takes bicycles. But if it's if
you're wanting to improve it to make a
commuting trail, then I'm very concerned
because that's what will happen. Any
improvements you make, you will up the
speed of those ebikes particularly. Um
it will no longer be a
quiet contemplative place to be. It will
be a shoot through and I think that is
going to spoil the whole thing. But
anyway, those are my comments. I I I
really wish people would reconsider, but
that's the way it is. Counc Patterson.
Uh, thanks very much and and I I do
appreciate the the um this coming back,
this this um this motion in its in its
wording, etc. Um and and you know, but
does it improve the design? And and I
don't think it does. And when it comes
back, because it looks to me like this
is going to move forward. Um but when it
comes back, then we have the opportunity
to to approve it. it when we see what
staff staff brings back. So, I think
that voting against it now doesn't mean
that that we're not going to when when
it comes back to us, we might look at
that design and say, "Yeah, that's
really great. We we want to approve
that." Um, and I just want to clarify
something that Councelor Watson said in
regards to um the um mobility vehicles
and how they they how they can get or
that they can't get through that space
right now. And I I don't think that's
correct, Councelor Watson. I believe,
and I'm not sure if staff has has the um
information on this, but I believe that
those gates are actually wide enough for
um wheelchairs, etc. to pass through
them. Um they I I believe they are 48 in
wide, and I believe a wheelchair is
something like 33.5 in wide. So, I think
as as those gates stand right now, they
are they are passable with mobility
vehicles.
I'm just going to ask everybody to just
not speak directly to anybody else just
through to me. Uh just to make this
because I think this is a bit of a
contentious topic at times and just that
wasn't anything rude, but I just want to
make sure that we just keep that the
quorum.
Um is the uh councelor Patterson next?
Yes. Thank you, mayor. I I do appreciate
that this is is attempting to move this
forward and I I I suppose I have an
additional ask then if um if this goes
through um and uh and that would be that
um we actually use the tool that we we
have now available and um we also u
engage the uh accessibility advisory
committee to review this
Thank you, councelor Patterson. I might
suggest uh the motion right now is for
directing, you know, whether this goes
back to staff for some amendments um and
a redesign to come back. Um I think at
the end of that, if this does get
referred back to staff, I think an
appropriate motion arising would be to
also if that's will of council to to to
include that as part of the the feedback
loop. Um I don't see any other hands on
this particular question. So right now
the motion to amend is as read out to
direct staff to revise the design of the
Henderson Trail or Carrick Trail um in
with those parameters. So if this passes
the design will be sent back to to staff
and they will come back with a revised
design. If it fails then this the design
remains as is um for them have other
motions to to amend. I'm going to call
the question. All those in favor and
those opposed councelor Patterson
Braithweight and Green opposed. So, that
amendment carries.
Um, go ahead, council briefly. Um, I'd
like to make a motion that the district
work with SD61 to address compatibility
of the Goldsmith parking lot changes to
align with the planned track entrance
design and explore future options to
continue biking path south onto SD61
property to the crossing at Epworth and
Cadbury Bay.
Second, do you wish to speak to it?
I just think that it's really important
with the changes to the um track that
are coming up um that um the district
does have that conversation with them to
see what um design plans they have for
the front of the track in particular um
as that might um cause some issue with
um where the biking path is proposed to
be.
Thank you. And just for clarification,
the second part of that is not part of
this design. That's a future options
piece. Okay. Thank you. Um, any other
discussion on
that? So, I moved and seconded. Right.
I'll call the question. All those in
favor? Any opposed? None oppose. That
carries. Were they all that easy?
I I'd also I'd also like to make a
motion that we remove the speed humps
from the design except we're used to
reduce cut through traffic.
Move and seconded. To speak to that? Um,
yeah. I think that when I look at the
design with all of these speed humps um
that are proposed um a lot of them don't
make a lot of sense to me. Um and I
think that they um they they would be
very good on certain roads and I think
probably Florence and Epworth would be
places where they they might be good. Um
and I think in the other um areas like
on Estavan it doesn't make any sense to
me at all to have those speed humps
there. I think that they would actually
detract from um from the the bikeway
itself.
Thank you. Uh councelor Smart then
Appleton. Yeah. Um uh speaking uh
against the motion um I'm I'm riding an
electric bike myself at times. I'm very
aware of the importance of speed humps
to slow um bicycles down as as well as
traffic. I do not want to play traffic
engineer at this table and Um, I see the
speed humps as a critical part of this
design to slow down um, traffic speeds
of both bicycles and cars. Um, so I'm
not comfortable um, with this motion.
Thank you, Dr. Appleton. Well, thank you
your worship. Speaking against the the
motion on the floor, um, similarly,
speed humps um, very important for
neighborhood bikeway traffic calming. Um
and I've heard very very clearly you
know through both through this process
and in the initial discussions around
some of the other bike lanes folks have
raised on numerous different occasions
you know their cons their concerns and
their interest about how do we achieve
all ages and abilities uh standards
without significant level street
interventions and what I've been what
the design guidelines and and how we
achieve that in in a large scale is
reducing car volumes and reducing our
speeds. So, speed humps are actually a
really effective way to lower vehicle
speeds and get us closer to an all ages
and abilities cycling network without
having to do largecale street
interventions that folks have raised
concerns about. So, it's really
important to me that we address try to
get ourselves as close to that AAA
standard that council has endorsed as
possible and we do that by lowering
vehicle speeds has all kinds of
ancillary benefits to vehicular traffic
as well. So, I think that there's a
great number of benefits in that regard
and uh I think that the streets that are
involved in this particular design uh
can do with that traffic calming. I
think we've heard repeatedly from the
public about people about people cutting
through and people traveling too that
fast through that corridor. Heard it
loud and clear. Speed humps are a
critical element in achieving that
additional safety and that's for
everybody that's in and around the road
space, not just cyclists. So, thank you
worship.
Councelor
Appleton, other speakers? Chanc Watson.
Thank you. Just to add, I will not be
supporting the motion either. I think
that the plan that includes the speed
bumps humps is an integrated plan and so
those speed humps play a role in the
section of the road where they've been
designed and uh and included. So um I
think it's uh we we can't be um we can't
be um designing this ourselves because
we don't have the experience to do that
and know how the pieces fit together and
and actually modify behavior. So I don't
want to start um redesigning this oursel
by taking something out that clearly the
design engineers feel are necessary to
create the effects we're looking for
which is commerce streets.
Thank you councelor Green. And then I'm
going to get a motion to extend.
I I I will support the motion. I think
that speed humps are good and bad. Um
they I' I've watched in Sanage and I've
driven through Sanage a lot. people
speed between the bumps and bounce over
the top. So, I think really um where we
can minimize speed humps and encourage
lower speed limits and and and better uh
safety that that would be preferable.
Thank you. So, I will support the
motion.
Thank you, Council Patterson.
Yeah, I will I will support the motion.
I and I'm not I agree with Councelor
Watson. We're not um transportation
engineers. uh and the goal is to to
reduce um speed. However, I don't I
don't know that the the speed humps do
it because as councelor Green has said,
what happens is uh the cars do speed up
as soon as they're over them. But more
importantly, they quickly also learn
what streets they're on and what streets
they're not on. And so the um the in in
fact can just divert the problem to to a
neighboring street. And so um I'll
support the motion as presented um and
see what comes back in the
design. Uh thank you. Uh can I get a
motion to extend the meeting? We're
going to probably need to at least 10
say 10:45 is probably a reasonable
expectation. Moved and seconded. All
those in favor?
Any opposed?
All right, we'll keep it to 10:45 at all
costs. How's that? Um, all right. I'll
speak briefly to the motion that's on
the floor then. Um, and um, so I'm I'm
in I'm supportive of this. I think, you
know, I think the wording here where
it's carefully it's not banning them,
but just using them really carefully
where to use them to to uh to reduce cut
through traffic. That's where they're
most effective. Um they're also the
easiest to my mind to add in if we're
seeing that other traffic calming issues
aren't in place. And for those who've
gone through the report in detail, they
um they're substantially used on the
Henderson uh part north of of Newton um
where there is a uh there's already
there one of the other additions is in
there is a multiple new uh stop signs
that prevents through. So there's
there's multiple stops on that route
down that I think should meet it. And as
someone who doesn't ride an ebike, uh,
but rides up hills, I even with a a
carving in the middle, those things are
are not necessarily um attractive for
cyclists or for some of the newer things
with the fatter wheeled bicycles or the
or the hoverboards and other things or
scooters. So I think this just at this
point that's seems the easiest one that
we can try and if we're seeing that it's
not achieving the goals, then we can
easily add them in again. Um, so I'm
supportive of that approach. Um, but I
don't want to ban them from the design.
I just think that we should minimize
them where possible. I want to tell one
quick anecdote on that as well and that
is we actually historically I think
about 25 years ago or so they put speed
bumps on Estan as a test to try and slow
people down and they found that it
attracted motorcycle clubs coming down
and trying to get as much air as they
could off of them which wasn't
necessarily the intended outcome of the
of the design. Not that that would
necessarily happen again but uh they're
not always affect they don't always have
the intended outcome. Uh, sorry,
council. I'm going to second time
speakers here. Councelor Smart, I'd just
like to make an amendment to the
amendment. Sure. Um, uh, and where, um,
speed humps are removed and traffic
speeds are anticipated to be greater
than 30 km an hour, alternate traffic
calming measures are proposed.
Can you say that
again? where speed humps are removed
from the design and where traffic speeds
are expected to exceed 30 kilometers an
hour that alternate trafficcoming
measures are provided.
Movement seconded. Go ahead. Um I just I
would not be able to sleep at night um
if we are providing and encouraging
people to cycle on a bikeway route and
have not provided adequate traffic
calming. When we use a shar approach, we
must make sure that the traffic speeds
and the traffic counts are meeting um
safe requirements. Otherwise, it's
unethical for us to be designing a
bikeway and putting people in harm's
way. Thank you.
Other speakers. Go ahead, Watson. And
then Appleton. I I think Mr. Appleton
was ahead of me. Way. Go ahead,
Councelor Appleton. Thank you, your
worship. Yeah. So, in speaking in favor
of the amendment, because I really think
we need to if if the speed hump approach
is not the favored one, then I really
think we need to do we do need to look
at other types of interventions to
achieve that that safety outcome that
everybody wants to see happen. And this
is again not just for cyclists who will
be using the neighborhood bikeway, which
is what we're designing here. Um, but
also for all road users, like I would
really like to see road speeds on these
neighborhood roads come down. we have
the ability through the implementation
of this bike way to create
infrastructure that can lower vehicle
speeds and that's just a benefit for
everybody that lives in that
neighborhood. So, however we do it, if
speed humps are not the preferred
option, um then I would really like to
see us use a different tool so that we
can achieve that achieve that safe
outcome that everybody wants. And that's
what really everybody's talking about.
So many of the neighbors that that spoke
to me talked about the speed of traffic
and talked about how unpredictable the
traffic was. Uh, and I would just really
like to see us address this through
this. So, this is not exclusively
uh a bikeway or a bike improvement
project, but I I see it as a
neighborhood safety project and
responding to what the community is
telling us. So, if we don't use speed
homes, I'd like to see us use something
else. Thank you, Worship.
Watson. Thank you. I won't be supporting
the motion or the motion as amended. Um
I think that um what we've heard and
people comment about it all the time is
that um some cars speed and if you have
a speed hump their their motion through
the area because of the physical
limitations the constraints of the
roadway must change their behavior.
Dropping speed limits by putting up 30
km an hour signs alone do not have that
effect. And I think it is um too late in
the day to us to be thinking about
basically significant redesigns to to
portions of this route uh if we if we um
remove speed humps. So while I
understand the intent of the the
amendment, I I I just don't think that's
the way to go right now. We're trying to
move forward an active transportation
neighborhood bikeway where speed humps
will provide the calming that we're
looking for to create this as a shared
roadway. So I am not in favor of the
motion or the amendment. Thank you
councelor Watson. Anybody else wish to
speak on the amendment?
I'll just I'll speak briefly and then
I'll go to second time speaker. Just I'm
I I really appreciate the intent of this
um motion. I think it's asking for a
significant relook at at multiple other
pieces. I think a motion I would be
supportive of is to uh to track the
speed of these areas and to consider
again I I don't have a I don't
personally like speed humps that much,
but if they're the if they're the best
approach, I don't want to take it off
the table, but I would much rather us
try the implementation as is. If we're
seeing that the speeding is occurring,
then add those in. Uh I think asking
essentially for well let's do something
else before we've had a chance to see if
they're the best option possible isn't
isn't my preferred approach. So I have a
hard time supporting a motion as it's
made. Go ahead councelor Smart. Oh thank
you three. Is it possible just to ask a
question of staff as to whether the um
current speeds and traffic counts were
taken into consideration with the design
of the speed humps? Yeah, you can always
ask that question. Uh Mr. Renick. Uh
thank you very much through the chair.
Yes, vehicle speed and volume counts
were conducted to support uh this design
and uh speed humps are one of the
recommended tools in the active
transportation design guide, but they
are not the only tool.
Thank you. Um yes, so I just wanted to
expand upon um my amendment. Um, I like
while it potentially could include
signage to low to lower speeds, I was
thinking of it more strategically
around. There's other ways of traffic
calming in certain situations. Um,
sometimes they involve like little
concrete islands with signs in order to
um narrow the feeling of the road.
There's other approaches um uh as we've
just heard from engineering um that the
best practices often include speed
humps, but there are other strategies
out there. I want to make sure that we
leave the consultant with the option to
come back to us and flag the fact that
may you know maybe it isn't a good idea
to remove these speed humps. I don't
feel like the motion as it stands
unmended really allows for the
consultant to to object to what I see as
an operational um uh and traffic
engineering um design motion from
council which makes me extremely
uncomfortable.
Thank you, councelor Smart. Councelor
Patterson. Yes. Uh quite interesting
conversation about traffic calming and
uh but I I will speak just from my
experience as a pedestrian
um extensively throughout the district
where there are speed humps and where
they're used too widely. Uh my
experience has been that it that
actually um encourages the cyclists to
use the sidewalks instead of the roads.
So, um uh it
it's they don't necessarily work to
reduce the um the vehicle traffic on the
streets as effectively as we would want.
I would rather see different um uh
methodologies used to uh to have traffic
calming, but
um it it certainly has been my
experience that cyclists don't like the
speed humps either. And so, uh, yes, I
know that you can create narrow channels
and they can go through them, but, um,
many of the particularly young cyclists
or those now on ebikes just, um, go up
onto the sidewalk and travel the
sidewalks instead.
Okay, we have the motion, the amendment
motion right now, which is to if, uh,
and to look at other uh, calming
measures. So, this is a this is a call
on the amendment. All those in favor of
the
amendment and those opposed. I have
Green, Watson, myself, Braithweight, and
Patterson. I see your hand up. Opposed.
Okay, that the amendment motion fails,
but we're back to the main motion.
Um, I might again uh I'll leave that
there for now. So, back to the main me
that one amendment motion, which is uh
at least consider most speed humps, but
not all to be removed. So that's a
motion on the floor. All those in favor
and those opposed. I have councelor
Smart, Watson, and Appleton opposed.
That does carry. Um any other motions
here that people wish to see move
forward? Council Green.
One of the motions that I I've been
contemplating um is as we send all of
this back to staff to look at and and
potentially revise
um neighbors have talked a lot about
collaboration with neighborhood w with
the neighborhood most impacted and I'm
wondering if if that requires a motion
to encourage collaboration wherever
possible on these projects uh while
they're under revision. I think that
would be a really important step
forward. It would also be consistent
with what we learned in a a community
engagement workshop a few weeks ago. I'm
going to suggest procedurally that'd be
best done again as a motion arising at
the end of the meeting. Okay. I'll do it
I'll do it as a motion arising. Thank
you. Thank you.
Right. Councelor Patterson. Yes. I would
like to move uh number one on here.
Review the intersection design at the
corner of Cadboro Bay and Estavan to
ensure the needs of commercial and
pedestrian traffic are met.
The motion thing is off. Motion moves
and seconded. Um do you wish first of
all see if anybody wishes to debate
that. If not I won't ask you to
motivate.
Yeah. So go ahead councelor Patterson
and then go to councelor Smart. Yes.
Thank you mayor. And um I the the plans
that were presented do of course um show
the the cycling crossing at that corner.
they are uh they do not have any
clarifications on the the loading areas
in in uh that are located there now. And
I think that it is it's important as we
look at this that we also consider the
needs of the commercial areas that are
also vital to the um to the community.
And uh that we we don't just push them
aside or ignore them in any way, but we
actually um engage and actively state
what the intent is, how it will be meet
the needs of the commercial district and
um offer the the commercial tenants in
the area um something that they can
actually speak to and um uh share their
comments with us because right now there
is nothing on the design work for them
to look at.
Thank you, Councelor Smart.
Um, thank you. Um, I I will vote in
favor of the um motion. I just um
appreciate having a little bit more
explanation there because it is sort of
such a light touch at that corner. I
didn't see um the concerns, but I I
appreciate what has been said and I'm um
supportive of the communication piece
there.
Well, thank you, worship, uh through
your question for staff. Uh I just
looking for confirmation that there is
an established loading zone there, the
council itself itself established uh
there next to the old farm market. And
so was the existence of the loading zone
factored into the design?
Mr. Renick, uh through the mayor, no
changes are proposed to that loading
zone uh as a result of this design.
Thank
you. Anything else? Any other
comments? I'll just speak briefly. I
this may be one of those ones that
doesn't result in any changes at all,
but I think it's just important to make
sure that there's any anything there
that has been missed or looked at then
we we should consider it. So certainly a
critical part for that that commercial
area. Um seeing no other hands, I'll
call the question. All those in
favor? Any opposed? Opposed?
Go ahead, Councman. Uh, thanks. I'd like
to um move that uh we revise the design
of Eastbound Road, the Easttown Halane
intersection, and Florence Epworth and
Hala streets to reduce cut through
traffic onto Hala, enhance pedestrian
crossing safety, reduce conflict between
southbound, east on eastbound vehicle
traffic and eastbound bicycle on a
haltane at the intersection, and reduce
parking losses.
second move and seconded. Uh you can
speak to it if you wish. Uh sure. I
think that this is really important. I
mean this is obviously um where we've
heard so much from our residents. Um we
heard loud and clear from our residents
what what um their their feelings were
around this particular area. And I think
that um they did come up with some some
good um information for us to take into
consideration. I also think that uh uh
we we perhaps didn't take into account
the um amount of construction that will
be going on around there and the
increase in densification and how that
might affect this design. So I would
really like to see us um look at and
look at this and perhaps revise that
design to encompass those things. Thank
you,
Councelor Smart. Then go ahead,
councelor Smart. Uh thank you. Um I'm in
in favor of almost all of this motion.
So I would like to um propose an
amendment to the amendment. Um and that
would be um for the last point reduce
parking losses to read reduce parking
losses if safe conditions for
pedestrians and cyclists can be
maintained.
Moved and seconded. Sure. Go ahead.
Thank you. I just want to um make sure
that we're again not playing traffic
engineer and um potentially um
encouraging parking spots to be removed
and therefore um creating situations
where there are not sight lines between
motorists and cyclists and pedestrians.
Thank you. Go ahead, councelor Appleton
and then I'm going to ask a quick
question of staff before I go to the
next speaker. Go ahead. Thank you,
worship. Yeah, and we heard really and
so definitely in favor of this amendment
to then the bulk of this proposed
amendment to the design I think is
great. I do appreciate this additional
amendment to speak to the parking thing
specifically because it's really
important to note that the parking uh
the parking some of the parking removal
will need to the most critical places
where it's removed is in and around
intersections where we know is you know
a safe is a problematic area for safety
both for pedestrians and for cyclists.
So being able to create those curb
extensions, being able to create that
that safer uh pedestrian uh crossing
environment and also uh the cycling
infrastructure is is really really key.
The sight lines around infrastru we've
heard it a couple of times tonight.
Intersections are the place where the
most conflict occurs both for
pedestrians and for cyclists. So, I
think we should look at the parking
topic, but there are some very key areas
that parking may need to be removed in
order to achieve a much safer situation.
So, I think that there's probably some
stuff on mid block that could go either
way, but especially around the
intersections piece, I think we need to
really cast our minds to the safety
element of it because everybody wants to
see that both for pedestrians and
walkers and better visibility for cars
as they approach the intersection as
well. So, I'm I'm definitely in in uh in
support of this because it considers how
significant the removal of some limited
amount of parking, especially in
intersections, creates a much safer
consideration, much safer condition.
Thank you, Sure. Thank you. I'm just
going to just just in interest of just
clarifying the wording here. Uh I just
that wording if safe conditions can be
maintained. I'm just want to make sure
that's what that means. So I might just
go to the mover and then I might have to
go ahead counc. Um thank you. Um if the
safe conditions proposed by the 90%
design can be maintained would that
clarify the question? Um
guess maybe just it helps me just with
the intent. So the intention is that no
change that the changes here would have
no negative impact on the safety at all.
Is that the
intent? Okay. Getting a nod. Uh, okay.
Thank you. Go ahead, councelor Green.
Thank you. This is a really good example
of where neighborhood collaboration
would be perfect. Um, because there is
new density proposed for Easttown. Um, I
believe and we don't know what the
impacts of that will be and parking as I
learned when I attended the briefly the
neighborhood meeting on April 29th,
parking is a huge challenge in that
area. So before we remove parking, we
also have to make sure that residents
who live there have access to their
homes and those who are disabled have
access to their homes. And so whatever
we do, I think I think that the um that
this would be a great topic also to be
referred to the accessibility committee
for their review before we start
removing parking spaces. I don't
disagree with the intersection issue. I
I understand it completely, but I think
we have to be really careful how we
approach this and talking to the people
who actually live and park there would
be a good approach, I think. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh, any other discussion on
the motion? Go ahead, Councelor Watson.
Yes. Thank you, mayor. I'm I'm really
hesitant about amending it to try and
make it more palatable. I just think
that reduced parking losses losses
should come out of this entirely. And I
think that equivalent to a motion we now
have approved to remove speed humps,
we're doing this in the absence of
really understanding how the whole thing
works as a whole. So we're getting into
the weeds now at least twice in this
overall design. Um
and
safety is becomes very subjective when
you discuss it in a community context
and how will we know or measure whether
we have we have maintained the same
safety level because we right now we
don't have safety. So I I
I would just would prefer that we don't
have reduced parking loss as an issue at
all. the road. This is a public right of
way in a neighborhood bike way that is
supposed to be providing safe access for
bikes in a space that is not shared at
the moment. Our focus in my view should
not be concerned about parking at all.
It should be concerned about how do we
share this roadway with cyclists while
as a as a consequence also it will be
made more safe for pedestrians. So I am
so against the idea of having parking as
an issue that's being discussed in this
recommendation at all. Appreciate the
passion. Councelor was uh councelor
Patterson.
Yes. Thank you mayor. And
um you know it yes safety is very
important. So is parking though. And you
know the the the
the dilemma here is we are just now
engaging in undertaking a revised
OCP for and some of these bike pathways
in fact uh that we're they were trying
to um accommodate in the community now
were the same ones that were proposed
back when the first OCP was done and the
first report on this was done. And in
fact, um, even what we're discussing
here tonight, um, once
we complete our our public engagement on
the OCP and start the revision of the
OCP could change all of this again
dramatically. And I don't think we're we
I don't even think that we can really
discuss with any um credibility and
intelligence what exactly will be
required by way of transportation in
that area and certainly how we will
accommodate uh people living, people uh
walking, people cycling and people
parking in the area until we review the
OCP process also. So um uh you know
we're we're trying to to push this
through rapidly I think to to um
accommodate uh some of what we have been
asked to do but we are doing it with
very limited inter uh information until
we in fact um engage with the community
on the OCP.
Thank you. Um I'll just speak briefly to
this. I I'm not crazy about the
amendment. I think that is sort of
implied, but I um I'm accepting of that
wording. Um I do I do think that
reducing parsing losses is a laudable
goal. There is um you know there is a
serious parking crunch in that in that
neighborhood and I don't think that we
should ignore that. So I think including
that as one of the design guidelines to
go back is a good one. Um uh so I'll
I'll support the amendment. I don't
think it it it's harmful. It is a gray
area. I'm going to say safety is always
uh you know is if it's if it's 1% safer
but it loses 50 parking spots I'm not
going to support that. If it's you know
90% safer and you lose one parking spot
I of course support that. So I don't
think this is as clearcut but I think
the intention of the of the motion here
is is is understood that we don't want
to be making that poor tradeoff where
possible. And so I think I'm supportive
of the of the languages for the
amendment for that reason. Uh any other
discussion on the amendment?
This is to add the words if safe
conditions can be maintained. All those
in favor and those
opposed council Watson opposed. So back
to the main motion which uh suggesting
the revision of the of those changes
with the to reduce cut through traffic,
enhance pedestrian crossing safety,
reduce conflict between the the east
down and halt traffic and reduce parking
losses. Any other discussion on
that? All right. Uh all those in
favor and
opposed none opposed. Um there is one
more on here if anybody wishes to move
discuss it. I'll move that we refer
intersection changes on Estavan between
Musgrave and Beach to the village area
planning process scheduled to begin in
2026 but advance the push button
crossing for bikes and pedestrians at
Beach Drive as part of this design.
Second. Move and seconded. You can speak
to it if you wish. Yeah, I I I I will
very briefly. Um, I think it's really
important that we advance the push
button crossing for the bikes. Um,
especially on Beach Drive. It's a very
busy I live right there. It's a very
busy um, bikeway. Um, but I do think
that there's merit in um, referring
these intersection changes to the
village area planning process. That's
something that is coming up and it's
something that would um be able to speak
to um and help with um with making any
suggestions on on what uh changes they
might like to see at that intersection
between Estavan and Musgrave. Thank you.
Any other discussion on this? Councelor
Smart. Well, thank you. I won't be
supporting this motion. I really like
these intersection improvements. This is
such a dangerous intersection. And I've
seen so many close calls um at this
intersection and this is one of my
favorite pedestrian improvements of the
whole project. Uh I don't see a reason
um to wait uh to do something that looks
um like such a great um improvement. So
I won't be voting in favor of this.
Per counc.
Yeah. Thank you worship. Similarly, you
can't support this amendment just
because I I can't I I I'm just not uh so
interested in the pedestrian
improvements around that that Estavon
intersection. I mean, long before we
were talking about this particular
bikeway, uh folks were raising the issue
of that intersection. That intersection
is legendary all over the all over the
community. So, and there have been some
interventions that we've done recently
to improve things and as going through
on my bike on a pretty regular basis,
it's definitely better, but uh from a
pedestrian standpoint, that's still a
confusing intersection and could still
deal with a really large upgrade. So, in
terms of that particular intersection, I
would hate to for us to lose those
safety improvements, especially in the
pedestrian realm, and and just improve
the the flow of folks and uh and and
manage the flow of traffic around that
intersection. So, I' I'd hate for that
to get lost. So not can't support this
amendment your worship.
Yeah. Thank you councelor Appleton. I
think it's good to have this debate
here. Councelor Watson.
Um I think in the case of this
particular intersection and the overall
street layout um there needs to be a
solution to the fact that we have five
roads approaching somewhere and um I
think that the design is presented is
really effective in doing that. um we're
um the village area planning process I
cannot anticipate that it would be
looking at wholesale removing roads or
changing that underlying grid. So while
I think that there's um maybe parts of
the village area planning process that
would affect what's going on on Estavan
as traffic as any kind of traffic moves
through the road itself. the
intersection I think uh stands alone um
uh and creates a really safe
configuration where we haven't had one
um um before. So uh I do not support
this motion as it's presented.
Thank you. Uh any other
discussion? Councelor Smart, I think I
had Go ahead. Yeah, I I just wanted to
add um you know, being that this is part
of the whole comprehensive design, I'm
really hesitant to pull this out because
like again, I just I don't understand
the implications of how that's going to
impact the whole bikeway design at that
particular intersection. So, if we if
we're, you know, we encouraging more and
more cyclists to go through an area
that's a a known dangerous intersection,
um, yeah, I just uncomfortable with it.
Thank you. Um, I'll speak to it briefly.
So, I I I uh was supportive of this when
in in the when we this discussion
happened before. This is less about the
uh the design. I think the design I'm
supportive of. Um but there's a couple
of key aspects of this particular area
that I think are really critically
important. One is um the village area
plan for Estavan in particular um really
is going to have to look at how it's
connecting to its uh to significant
potential um uh uh potential clients for
the commercial area down at the beach
and how do we connect that to the beach
in a way that is really meaningful and I
think that takes a bit more of a
holistic look. for example, the design
doesn't consider a a pedestrian crossing
on the north side of Estavan when it
hits Beach Drive. Um the other aspect of
this is that um Estavan as a whole
struggles to have the ambiance and
attraction of Oak Bay Village. And so
while I I actually really like the
design that's being put forward here, um
to my mind, this is a permanent design
approach. This is putting in concrete
and using that space and perhaps even
expanding it. So there's more aspect
space for public gathering space for
pieces. Um this painting lines in the
ground, putting in multiple ballards. Uh
it's going to create a a very cluttered
and very temporary looking space there.
And I just think that this is worth
taking that little bit of extra time
agreeing on it and then building
something that's actually really
substantial and and beneficial. I think
my my fear here is that advancing this
portion in this section um will will
spend money in ways that will won't
necessarily last very long and may
actually materially damage the
effectiveness of the businesses. So
that's my primary concern. I I agree
with the other comments made here. I
think that the changes are are
worthwhile. I just doing them with paint
and and multiple ballards and things is
not to my mind the right approach when
we have the opportunity and just
deferring the spending of that money um
and perhaps spending that uh more
capital on the on the concrete in a
short order is is where I'm coming from
on this one. So I am supportive of the
motion but I do appreciate the comments
that have been made by by my peers. Um I
just want to go to any other first time
or second time
speakers and I see your hand. Thank you.
I'm just hoping that um either the mover
of the the motion or one of the
supporters could walk us through the
drawings. I just want to know how many
intersections and whether this also
includes is it including new crosswalks,
bumpouts, is it including speed humps?
Could I I need some more clarity around
um exactly how much is being taken out
of the project with this motion? Like
could we could you reference the
different um pages in the drawing
package that this refers to?
do my best to help you with that just so
it's it's it's clear. So the drawings uh
run from drawing 16
cover
17 and
18. The speed humps are already removed
as part of that direct further direction
if this moves
forward. Um the um so really just the
ballards and and and bumpouts in Estan
Village. Um there's a crosswalk already
there. So this is just the ballards and
those pieces and we're then and really
nothing else on Estavan until it gets to
Beach Drive and then really just
advancing all of the pedestrian and
bicycle um push button crossings for
that intersection, but it would not
include the additional concrete work of
the bumpouts, the greenery, those pieces
at this
time. That's on page 18.
Does that help, Councelor Smart?
Um, that helps a little bit. So, now
this is bringing up a question for me of
what the definition of um um cut through
is because you're saying like you would
assume that these speed bumps would be
removed from the motion you made
previously. I guess I find that
definition a bit confusing too. Um so
there wouldn't be any traffic calming on
this stretch. So, um, the traffic speeds
wouldn't, um, I wonder maybe we could
ask a question to staff of what the
current, um, traffic speeds and counts
are here. 30 30 km. No, no, the actual
like the measured, not I'm sure the
speed limit says that, but Mr. Reic, do
you have at hand the 85th percentile for
Estavan between uh, Dun Levy and Beach
Drive? Uh, thank you for the question,
Mr. Mayor. Uh, that's not information
that I'm able to pull up at my
fingertips at this time. All right.
Anything else? Councelor Smart?
Um, no. I obviously I don't I don't
support this be because um like we're
taking traffic come coming out. We're
getting rid of Yeah. No, I just I don't
support this at all.
Okay. Thank
you. Other discussion? I don't see any
other hands. The motion's on the floor
at the moment. Oh, Councelor Patterson,
my apologies.
Yes, I I will support this because I
think that um
it it could be adapted with the village
area planning which hopefully will also
include pedestrian sidewalks through the
village which are not um incorporated
into any of this. We all of the all of
the monies are being allocated for
really the cycling path and and those
pedestrian crossings there. We we're not
addressing the sidewalks yet. So I would
like to see a more um cohesive uh plan
that binds it all together when the
Estaban Village plan comes together. And
that is not uh very far off. It's uh
beginning in
2026. And um I I uh can't help but
notice that right now in that area on
Estavan, there are a lot of pipes going
in and streets being dug up right now.
So I I think delaying this as part of
the built village plan makes sense to
me.
Okay. Other discussion, councelor Smart,
I just want to know if this also
includes getting rid of the elephant um
feet at the intersection. Um I believe
by it sounds like if we didn't specify
otherwise that it it would um it's
unclear to me. And and does it include
the sheros? Are we doing sheros here?
Sure. Thank you. My my understanding is
that those would continue on. This is
just the intersection the hard pieces
but perhaps just for clip I'm going to
go around the table there just to make
sure we're very clear the all the
crosswalks at elephant's feet would
still be desired to still continue in
those okay seeing nods around the table
so thanks for that clarification
councelor
Smart please continue
um thank you I'd like to propose an
amendment to the amendment then because
all it says is advancing the push button
crossing for bikes and pedestrians as
beach park as part of this design so I
would um prefer to amend this uh to
include um sherrows and elephant feet um
and any I think just street markings
street markings is probably the better
way of putting it
just to make sure that we're not with
those to include street markings
okay the motion is to add the words and
uh advance this and street markings so
that's clear and seconded any discussion
on that
change seeing any all those in favor Any
opposed? None opposed. Thank you for
that, Cash Councelor Smart.
I'm just going to try to look around
here for any other discussion on the
motion as it stands as
amended. All right. All those in favor
and opposed. Councelor Watson, Appleton,
and Smart opposed. Any other amendments
that people wish to see at this point?
Councelor, uh, sorry, Councelor
Patterson, past my bedtime. Hopefully my
name is correct in front of me. Um, yes,
Mayor. Thank you. Uh, I would also like
to make a motion to implement traffic
speed reduction to 10 kilometers per
hour through the Goldsmith Street
parking lot. That's shown on drawing
four.
Second.
So, just read that again.
Yes. uh to implement traffic speed
reduction to 10 kilometers per hour
through the Gold Smith Street parking
lot uh which is shown on uh drawing
four. Uh thank you for that
clarification. Is there a seconder? Did
I hear a second? Seconded. Thank you. Um
you can speak to it, but it might be
worthwhile just to my my knowledge of
speed appropriate speed limits in
parking lots is very minimal. So, I
might appreciate if you could just also
just direct your question to staff about
what what that might be. But go ahead,
Councelor Patterson. Yes. and and you
know it it's a matter of signage I guess
uh through the area but that parking lot
particularly as it as it's proposed now
for the bike lanes there will be quite a
um a considerable amount of of a variety
of activities because it's it's uh
certainly used by um by the some of the
uh users of the the recreation center
off of B Street as as overflow parking
It's also used quite extensively right
now um as overflow parking to the public
works. There is a a gate installed in
the public works yard with a push button
code so that the staff can leave the
public works yard, go into the um the
Goldsmith parking lot and so you have
heavy vehicles moving through there. Um
you also have a couple of handicapped
accessible spots in there. We have a lot
of pedestrian traffic from the seniors.
um uh facilities that are adjacent to
that and apartment buildings that are
adjacent. Many of them go and use the
track. So, you've got pedestrian
traffic. You'll we're introducing new um
bicycle pathways and we have vehicle
traffic all converging on that area. And
um there's not very well delineated
paths for travel. So, it it's very
random crossing right now. um some of
the uh the bicycles going through,
especially ebikes are traveling very
quickly. We do also have uh vehicles
that um pull in and out very rapidly.
So, by implementing new signage in the
area, hopefully it will help uh remind
people to slow down that it is in fact a
parking lot um with uh multi-use um
access. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just
going to ask my question of staff
because I just uh Mr. Renick um the
motion here is very specific to a 10
kmter an hour and I just I've never seen
I'm not I'm just not familiar with
parking speeds in parking lots. Um can
you just make give us some indication of
is that an appropriate ask at this
point. Uh is is is 2018
10 hand over to you.
Uh thank you very much Mr. Mayor.
Typically speed limits in parking lots,
as parking lots are generally private
property, are essentially established by
the property owner for whatever it is
that they like to see. As to whether 10
km is appropriate. Just for uh
comparison sake, this parking lot is 15
km/h. This parking lot's a little bit of
a different story because it is used as
a cut through. Um but I would not say
that 10 km per hour is an inappropriate
speed for a parking lot. Um perhaps
maybe if the motion did not have a
specific speed limit in it that would
give a little bit more flexibility, but
I'm I'm okay with 10.
So the motion on the floor right now is
to basically direct changes that would
have the traffic speed reduction in
Goldmith to 10 km an hour. Leave that to
signs or design or what have you, but at
this point just to incorporate that
intention. Thank you. Is there any other
discussion on
that? Fine with that as well. All those
in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. We
now have motion as amended. Is there any
other amendment motions? Councelor
Green, a motion rising. I haven't called
the motion the the question on the main
motion at this point. Yeah. Councelor
Smart.
Yeah. I'd like to make an amendment that
the consultant provide a summary
highlighting any safety concerns that
have arisen due to the proposed changes
in the design.
Seconded. Go ahead. Can you just read it
again just so we have Y that the
consultant provide a summary
highlighting any safety concerns that
have arisen due to the proposed changes
in design.
Okay. Go ahead.
Sorry. Thanks. I I just want the um
there to be a very um brief summary um
and an opportunity for the consult
consultant to use their expertise to
come back to council and say we heard
all of these things just so you know
like this one particular thing we're
really concerned about from a safety
point of view um um or because we've
done this and that because we've changed
so many things I think it's really
important that we get like at least a
paragraph back from the consultant that
highlights um any concerns they have
about how these changes are impacting
the overall design. So I just want to
make sure that we don't um go ahead and
in a sense become responsible for these
traffic engineering design changes. Um
we really need the expert to tell us in
the end is it going to work. Thank you.
Might I suggest that we rather than a
summary of safety concerns which might
be a little bit of a a report that um
that maybe just that we give direction
that that safety concerns that arise can
be incorporated uh through design
changes in the in the piece. I don't
know that we want them to flag it. I'm
just trying to make should see if that's
a um I hear what you're saying. I don't
think providing a summary would take
that much work. And I think the thing is
we have actually um directed if should
these amendments pass um things that are
going a specific direction. So if they
don't actually have the ability to go
against this direction and say no, we
actually really think that this isn't a
cut through, but we really need that
speed bump there and this is why. So, if
we can't give them a mechanism to
actually disagree with some of our
direction at the table, we need to at
least have a summary um of concerns that
they might have with the direction we've
given in the design.
Sure. Uh go to speakers. I'm going to go
to council. Did I see your hand council?
Oh, you just seconded it, but do you
wish to speak? Yes. I actually like like
to um though I supported the motion, but
I'd like to amend it because the wording
right now says proposed changes, but
they're actually directed changes
because we've voted on them. So I if if
the mover of the motion would agree to
the amendment to change the wording of
the main motion and I would that's
that's my only comment. I find that
acceptable.
Would you like me to read out the motion
as amended?
Uh yeah to produce a summary of direct
the consultants to produce a summary of
safety concerns resulting from directed
changes.
Is that is that what you have? Okay. Go
ahead councelor Green and then councelor
brief. I find this really interesting
because the last time we discussed this
we talked about
pre-implementation analysis and
postimplementation and now we want a
pre-implementation which is what I put
forward last time and it was turned
down. So, if if it's a pre
pre-implementation summary, that's fine.
That's that's what I was hoping for in
the first place um last time. So, I will
support this motion as long as it
doesn't cause um additional too much
additional work for staff and that there
isn't a huge cost associated.
Counc Patterson. Uh thanks very much. I
I would assume as a consultant if they
felt that there was something wrong with
what we were asking for that they would
actually come and tell us. If they're
any any sort of a consultant, they're
going to come back and tell us. So, I'm
not sure if this is actually needed
because my assumption would be that this
consultant, if they're worth their
weight um and the money that we're
paying them, will actually come back and
say to us, "No, you're making a mistake.
This is a safety issue and you need to
keep this in. So I I have trouble with
this motion.
Councelor Patterson.
Yes, Mayor. Um, thank you. Uh, yes, I I
agree with Councelor Braithwood. I don't
want a summary of what's wrong with it
from the consultant after they have
already designed it. If there are
problems with what we're proposing, then
I would um anticipate getting that
invance of them completing the design. I
don't think it is uh they they're
they're going to just design something
because they've been told to do it
without um giving us guidance um on that
and I so I I would expect they would be
back to staff very promptly on that.
officer Hilton.
Thank you, worship. And one of the
things that I've really heard really
clearly through this whole thing is what
I've been uh hoping to explain to folks
who have been concerned about the how
the design has been proceeding is is
that what is the main motion on the
table is to approve a 90% design and the
90% design is exactly that the type of
design that still allows for some type
of uh you know some type of critical
revision before implementation. So, I
find the motion on the floor reasonable
because I would like that that when that
90% design is reviewed for the final
time and is moved forward for
implementation, then any safety concerns
or anything that we haven't thought of
would be brought forward. And I hear the
comments about whether or not that
should be just done automatically. Maybe
it should, you know, maybe that's maybe
that's reasonable. I think it's still
worthwhile providing direction from
council to evaluate that component in
specific because safety is the primary
issue here and have that be incorporated
before the design is finalized. So the
90% design allows us to do that and
allows us the flexibility to be able to
respond. So I think it's reasonable at
this stage.
Thank you. Um I am going to need a
motion to extend.
Um God. Okay. We're almost there. So,
I'm know I appreciate trusting
everybody's willingness to do this, but
we're we're at 90% 11 p.m. Moved and
seconded. Call the question. All those
in favor, please. Any opposed? None
opposed. Speaking very briefly to this,
um I appreciate the spirit by which this
motion is made. Uh I will say that the
wording of all of the motions has been
to direct revisions to staff to come
back with aspects of this. Um I the
wording there is to that have been
directed changes. I that that's piece of
it. The only piece of this I think that
really touches on that is the is the
consideration of removal of speed humps.
I would prefer that that be dealt with
as we talked about which is the motion
arising doing some follow on just review
to make sure that we could add those if
they're seeing that the the effects are
not meeting our expectations in terms of
slowing traffic and so forth. Everything
else is already going back to the staff
and consultants to ask them with very
high level guidance to make some changes
if they as they see necessary within
those and giving them guidelines. And I
I think you know we talked about that
the the problem with getting into
specificity. I think this is asking
asking for a report of safety concerns
is a is a strange one and because we've
asked them to design it with taking that
design and revising it with addressing
the concerns that have been raised at
this table uh and ideas raised at this
table and that design will come back. So
um they would essentially you're
essentially asking a consultant to come
back with a design that's flawed that
they're going to have to make a report
to report back on it. So you know my I
take the point that I think the the
primary concern here is does that uh
sign approve of some of the speed humps
impacted. I think that's a better as as
a post analysis than a pre-analysis. So
I can't support the motion as it is
here. I again I support I understand the
the rationale for it. I just think it's
it's it's backwards if we've done our
job here of directing staff uh which is
I think what we tried to do. Yeah, go
ahead. Councelor Swarm. I have question
through you mayor to to staff. Will the
consultant be present um so that we can
ask these types of questions when the
new design is presented?
Renick,
uh through the mayor. That has not
typically been our approach on these
projects. However, if that's something
that council would like us to do, we
could certainly arrange that with the
consultant.
I think having them available online if
possible would be helpful to just uh
answer
questions. That's the general will of
the council. I don't
don't council smart.
Yeah. I I I just I
I just need to be able to have either a
report or at least a conversation when
this design comes back so that I feel
comfortable that I understand any
unintended consequences of of all the
different things that we've put on the
table here. I need to be able to have
that conversation. So, I was trying to
make it um
um I thought the least amount of work by
just having them provide a summary, but
um it would be even better if the
consultant was present and we could just
have that conversation. Either way, I
just need the information um so that I
can sleep at night.
Appreciate that. Motion on the floor
right now is asking for the
report. Don't see any other hand. I'm
going to call the question to on the
motion is to basically provide a summary
of safety concerns resulting from the
directed changes. It's the late
language. Uh all those in favor
uh and opposed councelor Patterson Raith
and myself opposed that carries. So that
report will come back with the with the
piece. Any other motions
arising? Councelor Patterson. Yes. Um I
propose to that we undertake
transportation network development
public engagement uh process and
accessibility advisory committee review
of the proposed uh design. And when it
comes back, I'm going to take it as a
motion arising after the piece. So, I'm
going to right now we have a motion as
amended. If passed, it will go back to
staff with design changes and come back
to this table for
consideration. So, we have a 90% design.
We've made motions here to make
amendments to it to address concerns
heard and raise at the table uh and
ideas and it's now in it's where it is.
So at this point, this is sort of the
does the council have the interest in in
sending this forward at this point uh to
receive the uh the design back again. So
I'm going to call the question on the
main motion as amended. All those in
favor? Any opposed? None opposed? That
carries. Crazy.
Um so now we had a couple motions
arising. I want to get to them quickly.
Councelor uh Patterson. Yes, mayor.
Thank you. Um I would propo I would make
a motion that we undertake
transportation network development
public engagement process and
accessibility advisory committee review
of the uh revised plan.
Can you say that in plain language
because we understand what you're asking
for? Uh yes, basically this this is the
this is would mirror what we um as a
council have decided we would undertake
for all of the other cycling routes when
they come forward. We have already had a
lot of public input on this. So, it it
would be just um uh not soliciting uh an
extensive public engagement. Again,
we've already got that, but uh more of a
check-in with them so that the the
public that that will be impacted by
this are actually um engaged uh actively
in the process and that the it also be
referred to the accessibility advisory
committee because right now it is still
presented as a um a cycling rather than
a shared pathway. But um Okay. Thank
you. I'm just going to cut you. There's
a there's a motion. I'm going to ask
that we sever those two motions though.
So I'm going to take the first one to
take your motion as that the revised
design be shared with the accessibility
advisory committee. Is there a second
for that? Any discussion on that?
Councelor Smart. Um
apolog we're going to send the current
design as it is now or the revised
design once we receive it. You're saying
it's the revised design. The
revised smart. Okay. Thanks. I I don't
think I will be supporting the motion
because I actually think we need to
engage them now. Um um and get that
input as early as possible to actually
take any comments to put forward into
this design revision. Um Josh Pson.
Yeah. No, I I appreciate that comment.
The only thing is if we send it to them
now and we get their input, they they
will actually be giving input on
something that's going to change. So uh
that is difficult and and unfortunately
this is the way this process has had
rolled out. If we in in fact had
undertaken the the advisory the the
accessibility advisory committee review
earlier on it would have certainly
benefited this uh uh but we haven't. And
so to have them
uh you know and and perhaps this is a
matter that staff could comment on but
to have them uh gather as a group and
comment on what is before them when it's
going to change uh unless we can provide
some guidance for them on how that is
going to change. I think it will be um
more difficult to get input from them
particularly on things like that uh the
caric trail portion of it. I don't know
how they they will comment on what is on
the drawings now if it's going to change
and but I still think that their input
is important.
Thank you councelor Patterson and
councelor Smart. So the motion on the
floor right now is to refer it the
revised design to the accessibility
committee. Councelor Smart. Yeah thank
you. I will support the motion, but I
would have had a preference for having
the conversation now because I think
that they there's a likelihood that they
could provide some, you know, general um
input and advice that could impact the
current design.
Okay. The motion right now is to refer
the revised design. So, just looking
around the table. I don't see other
hands popping up. Councelor Patterson.
Yes, Mayor. I did also add in that
comment that perhaps we could um you
know ask staff if they're um if they
have any advice for how they could go
forward in presenting this to the
accessibility committee in a way that
would actually get meaningful input from
them without having before them what is
planned.
Sure. I might turn to staff and ask that
question. Mr. Renick. Yes. Thank you
very much um Mr. Mayor for the question.
This is a very large piece of work to
refer to the accessibility advisory
committee and I think that it would
be I wouldn't want to presuppose how
best to present it to them and I would
be concerned that that might be
something that would require consultant
facilitation to ensure that that group
is able to engage um in the most
effective manner.
Council Patterson. No. Okay. Um motion
is on the floor right now. Um with that
wave of a of a flag that it might it
might create some some chaos. Um go
ahead council Watson. If I could just
speak to that as the council leazison to
that group. Um I think that Mr. Renick's
assessment is a fair one. um that in
developing for example the first piece
of work they've had to do they were
guided through that whole process um
really um uh considerately by a seasoned
group of consultants over a much
narrower range of things. This is a
highly technical topic um and uh to
actually get that feedback in a in a a
constructive way I think would take a
fair bit of resources. So we we should
think about that.
I might make a suggestion, council
Patterson, that maybe the the motion be
revised just to to ask uh staff to come
back with with options for engaging them
because I think at this point what we're
hearing is that there might be some
complex more complexity to this
originally thought. Yes, thank you,
mayor. And I realize that this is um
this is a large package and I don't
expect that they would engage on in all
components of it, but certainly things
like pedestrian crosswalks and whatnot
could be in involved. So yes, I if if
staff could come back with a
recommendation on how best to engage
them um that that would uh satisfy my
intent.
Second or amendable to that? I think
that was uh
councly revised motion on the table. Now
go ahead council. Thank you worship and
and supportive of the intent here. The
typical, as I would understand it, the
typical mechanism that we would go
through with staff in this type of
situation where there's a resource
implication would be a project
backgrounder. So I would uh be more in
support of this if the direction to
staff was to prepare a project
backgrounder, which of course includes
an options analysis for how we might do
this work. And I'm I'm interested in how
the work might be done, but I do see a
resource implication. So our typical
process is the project backgrounder. So
I might suggest to the mover that the
project backgrounder might be the way
forward.
Sure. I'm I'm the way I took this was an
ask of this and that the implications of
different approaches would include staff
implications, but um I'll turn to to uh
our CEO and director of engineering. Is
there a is there a preferred language
that you would like on this one? I think
I think trying to keep this as vague as
possible at this point. We kind of come
back with with your with some options is
best. But go ahead, Mr. Renick. Uh thank
you very much, Mr. Mayor. I actually I
had another suggestion um which is that
I think the intent that council is
looking for is to understand the
accessibility features that are being
included in the design and given that we
are requesting commentary from the
consultant perhaps it would be amendable
to council to have a specific commentary
from the design consultant on what
accessibility features have been
incorporated into the design.
I'll move wishes a change. I'll take
that. Go ahead, counselor Green. Thank
you for that through you to Mr. Renick.
I'm I'm just wondering though where
where it would be specifically important
is on on parking reduction. So if if
because that would be a disability issue
potentially potentially. So hopefully
that could be included. Thank you.
At this point, we just have our the
motion is to ask staff for options for
engagement with the accessibility
committee. So, that's where we're
sitting. So, take the comment as is. Um,
it is moved and seconded. Any other
discussion on the
motion? I'm just going to say my two
cents here. I'm supportive of the
motion, but I do think I'm hoping it's
just it's kind of to councelor Pat
Appleton's point, a very short report
saying here's a couple of ways we could
engage them with, you know, but here's
the staff impact and and and and some
other potential approaches. Um, and
maybe that might be that they the
consultant lays out the accessibility
features and maybe that list is shared
with accessibility for as an example.
But I think what I'm hearing right now
is like let's get something back short
that gives us some idea of the impact
and then we can make some decisions
about how we want to engage at that
point. I'm seeing nods around the table.
So I think if that's if that's the
intention here then I'm supportive of
it. Okay. Any other discussion on the
motion? All those in favor? Any opposed?
None opposed? You had a second one which
was just as little I know I'm going to
try and get this done very quickly.
Yeah. and and that was also to um uh get
a recommendation from staff on how we
can undertake um the uh some public
engagement on the revised drawing
package when it comes back.
Okay. So, just to ask staff if there's
in alignment with the other approach.
Okay. Um can you maybe just read aloud
your motion again because I just want to
make sure I'm clear.
Yeah. To um
request staff come back with a
recommendation for a method to undertake
um public engagement for the uh I'm
still calling it a cycling facility uh
redesign that comes back from the con uh
from the revisions.
Okay. Um is there a second for
that smart seconding? Okay. With
seconded. Yeah, I need if we're going to
consider this, we need to have a motion
to extend the meeting by another 15
minutes. So, motion to extend to 115.
Move and seconded. I'm not surpris
somebody at some point somebody's going
to drop off of this. I will say I think
we've gone through the main meat of this
meeting. So, if people have to leave, I
do appreciate that. Um motion on the
floor is to extend to 10 11:15. I'm
going to call the question on that. All
those in favor? Any opposed? Not
opposed. Okay. Uh, councelor Appleton,
question of clarification for the mover,
your worship. Uh, public engagement
takes is pretty broad. Um, so can I get
a sense of exactly what it is that we're
asking staff to do in terms of level of
engagement and in terms of scope?
I think I yeah what I what I am seeking
really is um uh greatly reduced public
engagement than what we would have
undertaken had we had we done it at the
start of this process because we've
already had a lot of feedback from the
public. In fact that is informing the
redesign that we are doing. Um and so
therefore I would still like to have uh
feedback from those who will be affected
by this on on what they see before them
in the redesign. I think that should be
a um an expedited process because we are
incorporating a lot of what we what we
have heard into these design elements.
So again, I'd like a a recommendation
from staff on how we might undertake
that process. Um if it got too
extensive, of course, then we would need
a project backgrounder. Uh but I'm
looking for uh a light touch on the
public engagement input into the
redesigned uh cycling route.
Thank you. I'm not sure I'm entirely
here yet, but go ahead, Councelor Smart.
Yeah, I think I I seconded this because
I think that we can improve on um
communicating the redesign to the public
and I know that there's so much interest
out there and I saw that open to what
staff comes back with but potentially
even having the consultant here in a
meeting walking through the drawings
clearly explaining the changes um could
really benefit not only us but the the
community and really understanding what
is a very um
thick drawing set for the average person
to digest and really understand. So, um
open to what it is, but I think that
definitely
communicating what these changes are um
is going to be really important this
time around. So, I appreciate the
attention to making sure that that piece
is covered.
Okay. Thank you. Um I'll support the
motion. I my thought on this one is to
my mind what I'm hearing is sort of an
enhanced notification process so that we
make sure that people have a chance to
to read it provide feedback and that'll
help us inform that piece. I will point
out when this comes back it will be open
for public input. So that process is
there. So I think I'm hearing more about
a notification process if possible than
more than that. But go ahead councelor
smirk. Yeah thank you. And in addition
to notification, which I think is really
important, I I think actually walking
through the design um um with the like
having a a deeper presentation of of
what the changes have been and what the
whole route is could be really helpful.
All right. Um go ahead, Councelor Green.
This may pertain to my final motion
before we leave tonight, but um we have
heard over and over again the uh request
for some collaboration, opportunities
for collaboration and and consultation
and particularly on two and three on
those revisions. It involves a specific
neighborhood and they've asked for
collaboration time and time again. And
so I'm wondering if there is room to do
that in this um process for revisions
number two and number three which is
revise the design of Easttown Road, the
Easttown Hala intersection and Florence
Epworth and Halaine streets and revise
the design for the Henderson Trail Trail
also known as the Carrick Trail between
Halane and Newton. We have talked about
collaboration before. In fact, for the
other projects, Mayor, you actually
altered the um altered the wording from
inform to consult. So, I'm just
wondering on these two in particular
because there has been a request um time
and time again for some opportunities
for collaboration that if that could be
included in the motion. If not, I'll
make a separate motion. Thank you.
The mover is not indicating they want to
change. So, I'm going to take all the
question on the motion that's on the
floor and then we'll take a secondary
motion. Um, so the motion right now is
essentially refer to uh ask for staff
input on ways that we can um I guess
improve awareness of the of the this
when it comes
back. Council, does do we have a motion?
Does staff have a motion they can read
back? I'm just want to make sure that
we're clear about what we're asking
because this has a the risk I think has
been flagged of being a very big ask or
a very small ask. And I want to make
sure that we're we're I'm hearing the
intent to make keep it a small ask, but
I want to make sure that the wording is
supportive of that. Uh thank you, Mr.
Mayor. The wording that I have is that
staff be directed to come back with
recommendations for a method to
undertake public engagement on the
proposed design.
Yeah, I'm sorry. On the revised design.
Okay. I'm still hearing that that's a
Yeah. Okay. So, bring back options for
that is is piece. So, we're not we're
not directing it. We're asking for just
what those options might
be. All right. Uh I'm going to call the
question then. Not seeing any other
hands. All those in
favor? Hesitant, but in favor as well.
Um okay, I think that's it. Councelor
Green, you said you had one more motion.
I have a final motion arising and that
was to seek opportunities for
collaboration on revisions number two
and number three uh as presented with
the most impacted neighborhood which is
the cheffy neighborhood and the people
that live on those streets. So um I know
this has been an ongoing request for
some opportunities for collaboration um
and I think some of the feedback we've
had has been helpful um to all of us.
So, I'm hoping that that can be um
something that is is worked out with
second before we start motivating too
far into this. Seconded. Okay. No, it's
seconded. Go ahead. Is it seconded? Yes.
I I you know, I don't think I need to
motivate too strongly. I think that um a
number of residents have spoken to us
and and and want to help and want to
collaborate on the impacts on their own
in their own neighborhood. And I think
items two and three involve the greatest
impacts on residents.
Thank you, Councelor Green. Motion is
live on the
floor. Not seeing anybody speaking to
it. I'm just going to speak and weirdly
in opposition to the motion. Um and and
I'll lay out my my argument for this
because on the face of it, it makes a
lot of sense. But I think we have a
process that is uh quite intentional to
guide our decision-m and that is we ask
that uh staff provide their technical
advice on these pieces. Um and we as a
council consider those that advice along
with input from the community and other
sources. And so we uh in in undertaking
that process um what we've taken I think
staff have done a walkthrough with with
this with the community. We've heard
loud and clear through much of the
interfaces what should guide that. Um
there's nothing stopping them from from
doing that. If there's a specific
question to go and speak with the
neighborhood on that but I don't think
this is a if we're going to do that we
should do it with all of the
neighborhoods for those pieces. Um I
think at this point we want the staff to
give their technical advice based on the
feedback that we've given them and then
we'll have feedback on that and I think
that's really important for us to
personally I think it's important for us
to separate the inputs into council into
the technical or professional the
community um the advisory bodies and
other aspects so that when we're making
decisions we're not muddying the water
too much. I think we just want to get
the technical advice and we're free and
I think in this case we've made some
suggestions of things we want to change
u that might divert from the pure
technical advice but still there. So I I
don't support the motion but I I and
that's why strange as it is. Councelor
Appleton. Thank you worship and yeah
just speaking against for many of the
same reasons that you have and and
collaboration is you know is a real is
is an excellent goal for sure and I
think that we have you know listened to
the community's interest in having input
opportunities and and provided a
specific focused input opportunity
beyond the broader community uh the
community conversation that we had. So
there's been a specific Chffileled or
Chffy oriented type of engagement. Um, I
would also note that, you know, I think
that there's a significant outcome as
far as like listening to the community
about how they want to be involved in
these types of designs and it would
would underline the fact that council
has now implemented an and expanded and
and quite a bit more detailed engagement
process for subsequent projects as well,
which is also an outcome from this
process. So, you know, I I really
appreciate the intent that this is that
this is under and it's really responding
really clearly to what the community
has, you know, the concerns that the
community has raised. Um, I I concur
this is now going to be into a a
technical discussion and there is still
some opportunity for technical
components to be communicated through to
staff. um that opportunity remains and
there's been a substantive change to
subsequent engagements because of what
we've learned through this process. So I
appreciate the intent of this. I won't
support it at this time but I see a way
forward for subsequent projects that's
really going to be informed by this. So
thank you worship. Thank you councelor
Robson councelor SM question. Go ahead.
Uh thank you. Um, speaking against the
motion on the table, but for
collaboration, what I see as a way
forward at this point, particularly with
um, uh, the Carrick Trail and us still
needing some more information from
residents about all the special places
and and you know, where the path should
be and where it shouldn't be. Is is that
our um, ability for residents to email
us photographs? Um, you know, to even
like lay out with skipping ropes where
they see the trail, to send us drawings.
they've been doing that and I hope the
community continues to do that and and
and actually keep sending information to
engineering as soon as possible about um
all their ideas. Um and I can see that
collaborative process still being able
to exist through email uh to us and to
engineering. Um
thanks for second time. I'll make it
really brief. Yes, it's a technical
process. It's a technical report, but
the impacts are also social. They're
they impact cultural, they impact
livability, they impact safety and
health and well-being. So, while it's a
technical process, it has all these
other implications. So, I I I want you
to appreciate that as well. Thank you.
Yeah. Thank you, Council Green.
Councelor Patterson. Yes, Mayor. I'll
speak very briefly about this. I I
certainly appreciate councelor Green um
bringing that forward and and
justifiably so because throughout this
whole painful process to this route. Um
councelor Green has con consistently
asked for engagement with the public and
I think certainly um once we started
listening we we there has been better
collaboration and I hope that that will
continue into the future. I see number
two and number three already
incorporating
um many of the aspects of what was
presented by by the community on this
and hopefully that will transition
through. Um I also hope that with the
recommended um engagement process to
review the redesign drawing that it will
capture that. So, I won't be supporting
it, but I I certainly admire um the
consistency with which councelor Green
has um pushed us to demand public
engagement. So, thank you for that.
I'm not seeing any other discussion on
this at the moment. So, I'm going to
call the question on the motion. Uh all
those in favor and those opposed,
councelor Watson, Appleton, Patterson,
Smart, and myself opposed. That motion
does not carry. I believe that Last
motion I I saw people intending here
tonight in terms of motions arising. So
I'm going to move to item can't believe
I'm actually getting to do this 12.1.
This is a notice of motion. Um I might
just ask that someone move it and second
it and I'll quickly speak to that. I'm
going to make a motion.
So this is just a very odd one, but the
way our bylaws are written, uh the ask
of a widening is deemed to be a u not a
staff determination. Didn't meet the
criteria for staff to consider it. And
so it has to come to council, but
obviously council can't be in a position
of say approving something without
having staff input into it. So, um, the
wording of the motion that's that's in
here, um, basically just ask staff to
pro to go ahead and process their their
request and then review that for safety
concerns and bring it to council with
their advice. Um, it's just odd, but in
that in that language, they just didn't
feel they could they could accept the
application. So I'm at the request of
the applicant uh and of staff of bring
this forward so it can be considered. So
uh that's moved and seconded. Is there a
discussion on it? I know this is a very
strange one. I guess it's the first of
this type I've ever seen
before. Okay. Not seeing any discussion.
All those in favor? Any opposed? None
opposed. Uh and then we go to uh
correspondents from government.
Oh, is that in that order? My apologies.
Yep. Sorry. notice a motion. I think we
had two council and then councelor
Braithway just read into the into the
record. Uh thank you worship. So I would
uh under under yeah notice of motion
that I would make a motion to request
that staff prepare a project
backgrounder on the resource
requirements to design and install a
pedestrian controlled crosswalk on
Windsor Road at the north end of the
Windsor Park Pavilion Access Road.
Okay, on the same thing. So, okay, that
will be coming back for consideration uh
in the next council meeting, I guess. Uh
any other discussions or new business?
Not seeing any. So, then we have
correspondence from the government,
other levels of government. Receipt. Uh
so, we have a motion to receive. Is
there a second? Thank you. Um I'm going
to call the question on receipt because
it's fairly straightforward. Thank you
everybody. Uh all those in favor for
receipt any opposed does any other
direction I mean I I'm going to respond
basically uh I think but it might be
helpful to have a direction from council
to to write a letter back the
expectation of the government is to I
would do it probably with by default but
no harm uh if we had more time I'd
probably ask for some feedback so maybe
I'll ask for that offline if there's
anything people want to cover. Um so can
I get a motion maybe just to direct
myself to to respond to move. Yeah moved
and seconded.
from members.
Yeah. Um so that motion is on the floor.
All those in favor? Any opposed? Un
opposed. Um since we're all here
together, I'll just give it verbally.
Can you just if you have thoughts on it,
please just share them with me and I'll
uh I'll do that. I'll I'll share with
you my general intent on this is not to
go into the body of the report and start
picking apart all of the bits and bits
and pieces. It was really to primarily
focus on the two directives. Um, but if
there's aspects, if people feel
differently in that, please let me know.
If people want to add anything else,
kind of some terminology, language or
tone that you want to see seen, please
share it with me and I'll do my best and
I should have time to circulate it for
some comment before I send it off. So,
okay, a motion is made and we have a
motion to adjurnn. Moved and seconded.
All those in favor? Any opposed? None
opposed. Thank you for your patience and
your time tonight.